Stefaan Verhulst

Interactive platform celebrates the work of unpaid caregivers

Curated on January 14, 2015August 15, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Springwise.com: “Careticker is a mobile app which could record the invaluable actions of millions of unpaid caregivers who look after older relatives at home — helping to keep them independent. Founder Chiara Bell decided that the input of this invisible workforce had gone unacknowledged for too long and created the mobile platform – currently in beta — to highlight the economic value of voluntary caregiving, and reward users with redeemable incentives.
The activities of volunteer caregivers, which would cost billions of dollars in a care-home or hospital, significantly reduce potential pay-out costs for health insurance companies — and Bell thinks they should share in the savings. She currently has two healthcare insurers on board providing rewards during the beta stage.
To begin, caregivers download the platform onto their iPhone or android and record tasks they undertake, tagging them into categories — which include bathing, wound-care and transportation. Each of the tasks earns points which translate into items such as a Wal-Mart gift card. The platform encourages interaction between caregivers enabling the sharing of advice and undoubtedly a sense of validation for their efforts.
Springwise recently reported on Lift Hero — a peer-to-peer lift service that uses medical professionals to drive the elderly to their destination….(More).”

OECD Data is in beta

Curated on January 14, 2015October 30, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

OECD Data Beta: “Find, compare and share the latest OECD data: charts, maps, tables and related publications …”

OECD Data Lab: “The OECD Data Lab is your chance to participate in shaping the future of how OECD data is presented online.
We invite you to explore our data tools and visualisations and give us your thoughts…”

Driving Solutions To Build Smarter Cities

Curated on January 13, 2015November 15, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Uber Blogpost: “Since day one, Uber’s mission has been to improve city life by connecting people with safe, reliable, hassle-free rides through the use of technology. As we have grown, so has our ability to share information that can serve a greater good. By sharing data with municipal partners we can help cities become more liveable, resilient, and innovative.
Today, Boston joins Uber in a first-of-its-kind partnership to help expand the city’s capability to solve problems by leveraging data provided by Uber. The data will provide new insights to help manage urban growth, relieve traffic congestion, expand public transportation, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions….
Uber is committed to sharing data, compiled in a manner that protects the privacy of riders and drivers, that can help cities target solutions for their unique challenges. This initiative presents a new standard for the future development of our cities – in communities big or small we can bridge data and policy to build sophisticated solutions for a stronger society. For this effort, we will deliver anonymized trip-level data by ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) which is the U.S. Census’ geographical representation of zip codes….

How Can This Data Help Cities?

To date, most cities have not had access to granular data describing the flows and trends of private traffic. The data provided by Uber will help policymakers and city planners develop a more detailed understanding of where people in the city need to go and how to improve traffic flows and congestion to get them there, with data-driven decisions about:

Vision Zero-related passenger safety policies
Traffic planning
Congestion reduction
Flow of residents across the City
Impact of events, disasters and other activities on City transportation
Identification of zoning changes and needs
Creation or reduction of parking
Facilitation of additional transportation solutions for marquee City initiatives

This data can be utilized to help cities achieve their transportation and planning goals without compromising personal privacy. By helping cities understand the way their residents move, we can work together to make our communities stronger. Smart Cities can benefit from smart data and we will champion municipal efforts devoted to achieving data-driven urban growth, mobility and safety for communities (More).”

Coop’s Citizen Sci Scoop: Try it, you might like it

Curated on January 13, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Response by Caren Cooper at PLOS: “Margaret Mead, the world-famous anthropologist said, “never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
The sentiment rings true for citizen science.
Yet, recent news in the citizen science world has been headlined “Most participants in citizen science projects give up almost immediately.” This was based on a study of participation in seven different projects within the crowdsourcing hub called Zooniverse. Most participants tried a project once, very briefly, and never returned.
What’s unusual about Zooniverse projects is not the high turnover of quitters. Rather, it’s unusual that even early quitters do some important work. That’s a cleverly designed project. An ethical principle of Zooniverse is to not waste people’s time. The crowdsourcing tasks are pivotal to advancing research. They cannot be accomplished by computer algorithms or machines. They require crowds of people, each chipping in a tiny bit. What is remarkable is that the quitters matter at all….
An Internet rule of thumb in that only 1% (or less) of users add new content to sites like Wikipedia. Citizen science appears to operate on this dynamic, except instead of a core group adding existing knowledge for the crowd to use, a core group is involved in making new knowledge for the crowd to use….
In citizen science, a crowd can be four or a crowd can be hundreds of thousands. A citizen scientist is not a person who will participate in any project. They are individuals – gamers, birders, stargazers, gardeners, weather bugs, hikers, naturalists, and more – with particular interests and motivations.
As my grandfather said, “Try it, you might like it.” It’s fabulous that millions are trying it. Sooner or later, when participants and projects find one another, a good match translates into a job well done….(More)”.

Why Is Democracy Performing So Poorly?

Curated on January 13, 2015August 15, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Francis Fukuyama in the Journal of Democracy: “The Journal of Democracy published its inaugural issue a bit past the midpoint of what Samuel P. Huntington labeled the “third wave” of democratization, right after the fall of the Berlin Wall and just before the breakup of the former Soviet Union. The transitions in Southern Europe and most of those in Latin America had already happened, and Eastern Europe was moving at dizzying speed away from communism, while the democratic transitions in sub-Saharan Africa and the former USSR were just getting underway. Overall, there has been remarkable worldwide progress in democratization over a period of almost 45 years, raising the number of electoral democracies from about 35 in 1970 to well over 110 in 2014.
But as Larry Diamond has pointed out, there has been a democratic recession since 2006, with a decline in aggregate Freedom House scores every year since then. The year 2014 has not been good for democracy, with two big authoritarian powers, Russia and China, on the move at either end of Eurasia. The “Arab Spring” of 2011, which raised expectations that the Arab exception to the third wave might end, has degenerated into renewed dictatorship in the case of Egypt, and into anarchy in Libya, Yemen, and also Syria, which along with Iraq has seen the emergence of a new radical Islamist movement, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
It is hard to know whether we are experiencing a momentary setback in a general movement toward greater democracy around the world, similar to a stock-market correction, or whether the events of this year signal a broader shift in world politics and the rise of serious alternatives to democracy. In either case, it is hard not to feel that the performance of democracies around the world has been deficient in recent years. This begins with the most developed and successful democracies, those of the United States and the European Union, which experienced massive economic crises in the late 2000s and seem to be mired in a period of slow growth and stagnating incomes. But a number of newer democracies, from Brazil to Turkey to India, have also been disappointing in their performance in many respects, and subject to their own protest movements.
Spontaneous democratic movements against authoritarian regimes continue to arise out of civil society, from Ukraine and Georgia to Tunisia and Egypt to Hong Kong. But few of these movements have been successful in leading to the establishment of stable, well-functioning democracies. It is worth asking why the performance of democracy around the world has been so disappointing.
In my view, a single important factor lies at the core of many democratic setbacks over the past generation. It has to do with a failure of institutionalization—the fact that state capacity in many new and existing democracies has not kept pace with popular demands for democratic accountability. It is much harder to move from a patrimonial or neopatrimonial state to a modern, impersonal one than it is to move from an authoritarian regime to one that holds regular, free, and fair elections. It is the failure to establish modern, well-governed states that has been the Achilles heel of recent democratic transitions… (More)”

Motivations for sustained participation in crowdsourcing: The role of talk in a citizen science case study

Curated on January 13, 2015August 15, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by CB. Jackson, C. Østerlund, G. Mugar, KDV. Hassman for the Proceedings of the Forty-eighth Hawai’i International Conference on System Science (HICSS-48): “The paper explores the motivations of volunteers in a large crowdsourcing project and contributes to our understanding of the motivational factors that lead to deeper engagement beyond initial participation. Drawing on the theory of legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) and the literature on motivation in crowdsourcing, we analyze interview and trace data from a large citizen science project. The analyses identify ways in which the technical features of the projects may serve as motivational factors leading participants towards sustained participation. The results suggest volunteers first engage in activities to support knowledge acquisition and later share knowledge with other volunteers and finally increase participation in Talk through a punctuated process of role discovery…(More)”

Exploring the Factors Influencing the Adoption of Open Government Data by Private Organisations

Curated on January 13, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Maaike Kaasenbrood et al in the International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age (IJPADA): “Governments are increasingly opening their datasets, allowing use. Drawing on a multi-method approach, this paper develops a framework for identifying factors influencing the adoption of Open Government Data (OGD) by private organisations. Subsequently the framework was used to analyse five cases. The findings reveal that for private organizations to use OGD, the content and source of the data needs to be clear, a usable open data license must be present and continuity of data updates needs to be ensured. For none of the investigated private organisations OGD was key to their existence. Organisations use OGD in addition to, or as an enhancement of their core activities. As the official OGD-channels are bypassed trustworthy relationships between the data user and data provider were found to play an important role in finding and using OGD. The findings of this study can help government agencies in developing OGD-policies and stimulating OGD-use….(More).”

The Dawn of System Leadership

Curated on January 13, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Peter Senge, Hal Hamilton, & John Kania at SSIReview: “…At no time in history have we needed such system leaders more. We face a host of systemic challenges beyond the reach of existing institutions and their hierarchical authority structures. Problems like climate change, destruction of ecosystems, growing scarcity of water, youth unemployment, and embedded poverty and inequity require unprecedented collaboration among different organizations, sectors, and even countries. Sensing this need, countless collaborative initiatives have arisen in the past decade—locally, regionally, and even globally. Yet more often than not they have floundered—in part because they failed to foster collective leadership within and across the collaborating organizations.
The purpose of this article is to share what we are learning about the system leaders needed to foster collective leadership. We hope to demystify what it means to be a system leader and to continue to grow as one….
Systemic change needs more than data and information; it needs real intelligence and wisdom. Jay Forrester, the founder of the system dynamics method that has shaped our approach to systems thinking, pointed out that complex non-linear systems exhibit “counterintuitive behavior.” He illustrated this by citing the large number of government interventions that go awry through aiming at short-term improvement in measurable problem symptoms but ultimately worsening the underlying problems—like increased urban policing that leads to short-term reductions in crime rates but does nothing to alter the sources of embedded poverty and worsens long-term incarceration rates.⁹ Another systems thinking pioneer, Russell Ackoff, characterized wisdom as the ability to distinguish the short-term from the long-term effects of an intervention.¹⁰ The question is, How does the wisdom to transcend pressures for low-leverage symptomatic interventions arise in practice?
System leaders like Baldwin and Winslow understand that collective wisdom cannot be manufactured or built into a plan created in advance. And it is not likely to come from leaders who seek to “drive” their predetermined change agenda. Instead, system leaders work to create the space where people living with the problem can come together to tell the truth, think more deeply about what is really happening, explore options beyond popular thinking, and search for higher leverage changes through progressive cycles of action and reflection and learning over time. Knowing that there are no easy answers to truly complex problems, system leaders cultivate the conditions wherein collective wisdom emerges over time through a ripening process that gradually brings about new ways of thinking, acting, and being…. (More)”.

Open Standards and the Digital Age

Curated on January 12, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Andrew L. Russell: “How did openness become a foundational value for the networks of the twenty-first century? Open Standards and the Digital Age answers this question through an interdisciplinary history of information networks that pays close attention to the politics of standardization. For much of the twentieth century, information networks such as the monopoly Bell System and the American military’s Arpanet were closed systems subject to centralized control. In the 1970s and 1980s, however, engineers in the United States and Europe experimented with design strategies to create new digital networks. In the process, they embraced discourses of “openness” to describe their ideological commitments to entrepreneurship, technological innovation, and participatory democracy. The rhetoric of openness has flourished – for example, in movements for open government, open source software, and open access publishing – but such rhetoric also obscures the ways the Internet and other “open” systems still depend heavily on hierarchical forms of control….(More).”