Can Business And Tech Transform The Way Our Government Works By 2020?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Ben Schiller at Co.Exist: “The rise of open data, crowd-sourcing, predictive analytics, and other big tech trends, aren’t just for companies to contend with. They’re also a challenge for government. New technology gives public agencies the opportunity to develop and deliver services in new ways, track results more accurately, and open up decision-making.
Deloitte’s big new Government 2020 report looks at the trends impacting government and lays out a bunch of ideas for how they can innovate. We picked out a few below. There are more infographics in the slide show.

Consumerization of public services

Deloitte expects entrepreneurs to “develop innovative and radically user-friendly approaches to satisfy unmet consumer demand for better public services.” Startups like Uber or Lyft “reinvigorated transportation.” Now it expects a similar “focus on seamless customer experiences” in education and health care.

Open workforce

Deloitte expects governments to become looser: collections of people doing a job, rather than large hierarchical structures. “Governments [will] expand their talent networks to include ‘partnership talent’ (employees who are parts of joint ventures), ‘borrowed talent’ (employees of contractors), ‘freelance talent’ (independent, individual contractors) and ‘open-source talent,'” the report says.

Outcome based legislation

Just as big data analytics allows companies to measure the effectiveness of marketing campaigns, so it allows governments to measure how well legislation and regulation is working. They can “shift from a concentration on processes to the achievement of specific targets.” And, if the law isn’t working, someone has the data to throw it out….”

Data is Law

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Mark Headd at Civic Innovations: The Future is Open: “In his famous essay on the importance of the technological underpinnings of the Internet, Lawrence Lessig described the potential threat if the architecture of cyberspace was built on values that diverged from those we believe are important to the proper functioning of our democracy. The central point of this seminal work seems to grow in importance each day as technology and the Internet become more deeply embedded into our daily lives.
But increasingly, another kind of architecture is becoming central to the way we live and interact with each other – and to the way in which we are governed and how we interact with those that govern us. This architecture is used by governments at the federal, state and local level to share data with the public.
This data – everything from weather data, economic data, education data, crime data, environmental data – is becoming increasingly important for how we view the world around us and our perception of how we are governed. It is quite easy for us to catalog the wide range of personal decisions – some rote, everyday decisions like what to wear based on the weather forecast, and some much more substantial like where to live or where to send our children to school – that are influenced by data collected, maintained or curated by government.
It seems to me that Lessig’s observations from a decade and a half ago about the way in which the underlying architecture of the Internet may affect our democracy can now be applied to data. Ours is the age of data – it pervades every aspect of our lives and influences how we raise our children, how we spend our time and money and who we elect to public office.
But even more fundamental to our democracy, how well our government leaders are performing the job we empower them to do depends on data. How effective is policing in reducing the number of violent crimes? How effective are environmental regulations in reducing dangerous emissions? How well are programs performing to lift people out of poverty and place them in gainful employment? How well are schools educating our children?
These are all questions that we answer – in whole or in part – by looking at data. Data that governments themselves are largely responsible for compiling and publishing….
Having access to open data is no longer an option for participating effectively in our modern democracy, it’s a requirement. Data – to borrow Lessig’s argument – has become law.”

Singapore encourages use of private sector datasets

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst
Charlene Chin at Future Gov:  “Singapore’s Infocomm Development Authority launched a data-sharing challenge to encourage the use of private sector datasets.

The Data Discovery Challenge, launched last week, aims to promote the combination of private and public datasets to develop products and services that can benefit businesses and the public.
The challenge will use Singapore’s new platform, the Federated Dataset Registry (FDSR), to share public and private sector datasets. According to IDA, many private datasets are residing in siloed servers, or can only be made available through cumbersome processes such as the use of CD-ROMs. The FDSR will enable users to use these private datasets that were previously unconnected.
“Currently, there is no coherent mechanism for users to easily discover private sector datasets made available from data providers across various [industries]”, IDA said.
The Data Discovery Challenge is open from the 11 December to 25 January next year. Participants will have to use datasets from the FDSR and integrate it with any public and private datasets to develop data visualisation tools, mobile or web applications….”

Transparency isn’t what keeps government from working

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Gary D. Bass, Danielle Brian and Norman Eisen in the Washington Post: “In 2014, a number of big thinkers made the surprising claim that government openness and transparency are to blame for today’s gridlock. They have it backward: Not only is there no relationship between openness and dysfunction, but more secrecy can only add to that dysfunction.

As transparency advocates, we never take openness for granted. The latest example of the dangers of secrecy was the “cromnibus” bill, with its surprise lifting of campaign finance limits for political parties to an astonishing $3 million per couple per cycle, and its suddenly revealed watering down of Dodd-Frank’s derivatives safeguards. And in parallel to the controversy over the release of the CIA’s torture report, that agency proposed to delete e-mail from nearly all employees and contractors, destroying potential documentary evidence of wrongdoing. Openness doesn’t happen without a struggle…..

Academics, such as Francis Fuku­yama, make the case that politicians need privacy and discretion — back-door channels — to get the business of government done. “The obvious solution to this problem would be to roll back some of the would-be democratizing reforms, but no one dares suggest that what the country needs is a bit less participation and transparency,” writes Fukuyama in his newest book. At a time when voter participation is as low as during World War II, it seems strange to call for less participation and democracy. And more secrecy in Congress isn’t going to suddenly create dealmaking. The 2011 congressional “supercommittee” tasked with developing a $1.5 trillion deficit reduction deal operated almost entirely in secret. The problem wasn’t transparency or openness. Instead, as the committee’s Republican co-chairman, Jeb Hensarling, stated, the real problem was “two dramatically competing visions of the role [of] government.” These are the real issues, not openness….
We are not transparency absolutists. Not everything government and Congress do should occur in a fishbowl; that said, there is already plenty of room today for private deliberations. The problem isn’t transparency. It is that the political landscape punishes those who try to work together. And if various accountability measures create procedural challenges, let’s fix them. When it comes to holding government accountable, it is in the nation’s best interest to allow the media, nonprofit groups and the public full access to decision-making.”

Mini Metro

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst
“Description: Mini Metro is a minimalist subway simulation game about designing efficient subway networks. The player must constantly redesign their line layout to meet the needs of a rapidly-growing city.

History

The prototype for Mini Metro, Mind the Gap, was created at the end of April 2013 during the three-day Ludum Dare 26 Jam. The first pre-alpha build was made public in September 2013. Mini Metro was put up on Steam Greenlight in March 2014 and was greenlit within three weeks. The Early Access release is scheduled for the 11th of August.

Features

  • Compelling, constructive, hectic, relaxed gameplay. If that makes sense.
  • Three game modes: Commuter for quick scored games, Scenic for stress-free sandbox play, and Rush Hour for the ultimate challenge. (only Commuter is in so far, Scenic will follow soon)
  • Three real-world cities to design subways for (London, New York City and Paris), with many more being added before release. Each has a unique colour theme, set of obstacles, and pace.
  • Random city growth, so each game plays out differently. A strategy that proved successful last game may not help you in the next.
  • Each game’s map is a work of art, built by you in the classic abstract subway style of Harry Beck. If you think it’s a keeper, save it, tweet it, show it off or make it your desktop background!
  • Each game’s map is a work of art, built by the player in the classic abstract subway style. If you think it’s a keeper, save it, tweet it, show it off or make it your desktop background!
  • Dynamic soundtrack by Disasterpeace.
  • Colorblind and night modes.
  • Trains!”

An Open Government Index: From Democracy to Efficiency to Innovation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

New Report by Lindgren, Tony; Ekenberg, Love; Nouri, Jalal and Hansson, Karin: “Most research in research areas like E-government, E-participation and Open government assume a democratic norm. The concept of Open government, recently promoted by, e.g., The Obama administration and the European Commission is to a large extent based on a general liberal and deliberative ideology emphasizing transparency, participation and collaboration. The concept has also become of interest for states like China and Singapore. In this position paper we outline how to study the concept under different political discourses and suggest an Open government index that can be used to analyze the concept of open government under various settings. (More)”

‘Frontier methods’ offer a powerful but accessible approach for measuring the efficiency of public sector organisations

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

EUROPP Blog of the LSE: “How can the efficiency of public sector organisations best be measured? Jesse Stroobants and Geert Bouckaert write that while the efficiency of an organisation is typically measured using performance indicators, there are some notable problems with this approach, such as the tendency for different indicators to produce conflicting conclusions on organisational performance. As an alternative, they outline so called ‘frontier methods’, which use direct comparisons between different organisations to create a benchmark or standard for performance. They argue that the frontier approach not only alleviates some of the problems associated with performance indicators, but is also broadly accessible for those employed in public administration….
However, despite their merits, there are some drawbacks to using performance indicators. First, they provide only an indirect or partial indication of performance. For instance with respect to efficiency, indicators will be single-input/single-output indicators. Second, they may provide conflicting results: an organisation that appears to do well on one indicator may perform less successfully when considered using another.
In this context, ‘frontier methods’ offer alternative techniques for measuring and evaluating the performance of a group of comparable entities. Unlike single factor measures that reflect only partial aspects of performance, frontier techniques can be applied to assess overall performance by handling multiple inputs and outputs at the same time. Specifically, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Free Disposal Hull (FDH) have proven to be useful tools for assessing the relative efficiency of entities….
At this point you may be thinking that the term ‘frontier methods’ sounds overly complex or that these techniques are only likely to be of any use to academic specialists. Yet there are a number of reasons why this interpretation would be incorrect. It is indeed true that DEA and FDH have been used predominantly by economists and econometricians, and only rarely by those employed in public administration. We should re-establish this bridge. Therefore, in a recent article, we have provided a step-by-step application of DEA/FDH to benchmark the efficiency of comparable public sector organisations (in the article’s case: public libraries in Flanders). With this gradual approach, we want to offer both academics and practitioners a basic grounding in more advanced efficiency measurement techniques….(More)”.

Mastering ’Metrics: The Path from Cause to Effect

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke : “Applied econometrics, known to aficionados as ‘metrics, is the original data science. ‘Metrics encompasses the statistical methods economists use to untangle cause and effect in human affairs. Through accessible discussion and with a dose of kung fu–themed humor, Mastering ‘Metrics presents the essential tools of econometric research and demonstrates why econometrics is exciting and useful.
The five most valuable econometric methods, or what the authors call the Furious Five–random assignment, regression, instrumental variables, regression discontinuity designs, and differences in differences–are illustrated through well-crafted real-world examples (vetted for awesomeness by Kung Fu Panda’s Jade Palace). Does health insurance make you healthier? Randomized experiments provide answers. Are expensive private colleges and selective public high schools better than more pedestrian institutions? Regression analysis and a regression discontinuity design reveal the surprising truth. When private banks teeter, and depositors take their money and run, should central banks step in to save them? Differences-in-differences analysis of a Depression-era banking crisis offers a response. Could arresting O. J. Simpson have saved his ex-wife’s life? Instrumental variables methods instruct law enforcement authorities in how best to respond to domestic abuse….(More).”

Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

New book by Nathaniel Tkacz: “Few virtues are as celebrated in contemporary culture as openness. Rooted in software culture and carrying more than a whiff of Silicon Valley technical utopianism, openness—of decision-making, data, and organizational structure—is seen as the cure for many problems in politics and business.
But what does openness mean, and what would a political theory of openness look like? With Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness, Nathaniel Tkacz uses Wikipedia, the most prominent product of open organization, to analyze the theory and politics of openness in practice—and to break its spell. Through discussions of edit wars, article deletion policies, user access levels, and more, Tkacz enables us to see how the key concepts of openness—including collaboration, ad-hocracy, and the splitting of contested projects through “forking”—play out in reality.
The resulting book is the richest critical analysis of openness to date, one that roots media theory in messy reality and thereby helps us move beyond the vaporware promises of digital utopians and take the first steps toward truly understanding what openness does, and does not, have to offer….(More).”

The 18F Hub

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

18F Blog: “Clear, organized, and easy access to information is critical to supporting team growth and promoting the kind of culture change that 18F, the U.S. Digital Service, and fellow Innovators and Early Adopters aim to produce throughout federal IT development. As a small step towards that goal, we’d like to announce the 18F Hub, a Jekyll-based documentation platform that aims to help development teams organize and easily share their information, and to enable easy exploration of the connections between team members, projects, and skill sets. It’s still very much alpha-stage software, but over time, we’ll incrementally improve it until it serves as the go-to place for all our team’s working information, whether that information is integrated into the Hub directly or provided as links to other sources. It also serves as a lightweight tool that other teams can experiment with and deploy with a minimum of setup.

While we at 18F strongly believe in the value of transparency and collaboration across government, the details of our team, our projects, and our activities aren’t the real reason we’re launching the Hub: the exposure of our domain knowledge, working models and processes through tangible artifacts that people can adapt to their own environments is… (More).