How to build customer-focused government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

GCN: “What: A report on improving government responsiveness, “A Customer-Centric Upgrade for California Government,”   from the state’s Little Hoover Commission, an independent state agency charged with recommending ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of state programs…..The Commission believes state agencies can improve the public’s trust and confidence in government by that focusing on the customer. Delivering fast and convenient services when residents apply for benefits, pay utility bills, register their vehicles and view taxes and all from one personalized log-in account, could be a step towards becoming more customer focused.

Among the Commission’s recommendations:

  • Create a digital services team to recruit top technologists, engineers and designers into public service for the state.
  • Research customer experiences for continuous improvement and use the data to refine how agencies deliver services
  • Build multiple service pathways, including mail, email, telephone, fax, in person, online or on a mobile device.
  • Move beyond mobile apps with the goal of offering the most options for Californians to conveniently access government services whatever the platform they choose to use (including in-person and on paper).
  • Unlock the promise of government data to improve transparency and inform decision making.
  • Leverage data resources by ensuring information is available in formats that can be leveraged by others to get information to Californians where they already go to seek it.
  • Connect the state’s technology sector with state government leaders and welcome innovators to help address some of the state’s most pressing challenges.

Takeaway: The Commission believes engaging with the public in a way that makes sense in the 21st century will improve each Californian’s interactions with government, which will in turn improve residents’ trust in the state and the efficiency of government processes. Read the full report here.”

Assessing the Evidence: The Effectiveness and Impact of Public Governance-Oriented Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Brandon Brockmyer and Jonathan A. Fox: “Transnational multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) – voluntary partnerships between governments, civil society, and the private sector – are an increasingly prevalent strategy for promoting government responsiveness and accountability to citizens. While most transnational MSIs involve using voluntary standards to encourage socially and environmentally responsible private sector behavior, a handful of these initiatives – the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST), the Open Government Partnership (OGP), the Global Initiative on Fiscal Transparency (GIFT) and the Open Contracting Partnership (OCP) – focus on information disclosure and participation in the public sector. Unlike private sector MSIs, which attempt to supplement weak government capacity to enforce basic social and environmental standards through partnerships between businesses and civil society, public sector MSIs ultimately seek to bolster public governance. But how exactly are these MSIs supposed to work? And how much has actually been achieved?

The purpose of this study is to identify and consolidate the current state of the evidence for public governance-oriented MSI effectiveness and impact. Researchers collected over 300 documents and interviewed more than two-dozen MSI stakeholders about their experiences with five public governance oriented multi-stakeholder initiatives.

This report provides a ‘snapshot’ of the evidence related to these five MSIs, and suggests that the process of leveraging transparency and participation through these initiatives for broader accountability gains remains uncertain. The report highlights the ongoing process of defining MSI success and impact, and how these initiatives intersect with other accountability actors and processes in complex ways. The study closes with key recommendations for MSI stakeholders….(More)”

Big Data and Big Cities: The Promises and Limitations of Improved Measures of Urban Life

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Edward L. Glaeser et al: “New, “big” data sources allow measurement of city characteristics and outcome variables higher frequencies and finer geographic scales than ever before. However, big data will not solve large urban social science questions on its own. Big data has the most value for the study of cities when it allows measurement of the previously opaque, or when it can be coupled with exogenous shocks to people or place. We describe a number of new urban data sources and illustrate how they can be used to improve the study and function of cities. We first show how Google Street View images can be used to predict income in New York City, suggesting that similar image data can be used to map wealth and poverty in previously unmeasured areas of the developing world. We then discuss how survey techniques can be improved to better measure willingness to pay for urban amenities. Finally, we explain how Internet data is being used to improve the quality of city services….(More)”

Fudging Nudging: Why ‘Libertarian Paternalism’ is the Contradiction It Claims It’s Not

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Heidi M. Hurd: “In this piece I argue that so-called “libertarian paternalism” is as self-contradictory as it sounds. The theory of libertarian paternalism originally advanced by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, and given further defense by Sunstein alone, is itself just a sexy ad campaign designed to nudge gullible readers into thinking that there is no conflict between libertarianism and welfare utilitarianism. But no one should lose sight of the fact that welfare utilitarianism just is welfare utilitarianism only if it sacrifices individual liberty whenever it is at odds with maximizing societal welfare. And thus no one who believes that people have rights to craft their own lives through the exercise of their own choices ought to be duped into thinking that just because paternalistic nudges are cleverly manipulative and often invisible, rather than overtly coercive, standard welfare utilitarianism can lay claim to being libertarian.

After outlining four distinct strains of libertarian theory and sketching their mutual incompatibility with so-called “libertarian paternalism,” I go on to demonstrate at some length how the two most prevalent strains — namely, opportunity set libertarianism and motivational libertarianism — make paternalistically-motivated nudges abuses of state power. As I argue, opportunity set libertarians should recognize nudges for what they are — namely, state incursions into the sphere of liberty in which individual choice is a matter of moral right, the boundaries of which are rightly defined, in part, by permissions to do actions that do not maximize welfare. And motivational libertarians should similarly recognize nudges for what they are — namely, illicitly motivated forms of legislative intervention that insult autonomy no less than do flat bans that leave citizens with no choice but to substitute the state’s agenda for their own. As I conclude, whatever its name, a political theory that recommends to state officials the use of “nudges” as means of ensuring that citizens’ advance the state’s understanding of their own best interests is no more compatible with libertarianism than is a theory that recommends more coercive means of paternalism….(More)”

Tackling quality concerns around (volunteered) big data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

University of Twente: “… Improvements in online information communication and mobile location-aware technologies have led to a dramatic increase in the amount of volunteered geographic information (VGI) in recent years. The collection of volunteered data on geographic phenomena has a rich history worldwide. For example, the Christmas Bird Count has studied the impacts of climate change on spatial distribution and population trends of selected bird species in North America since 1900. Nowadays, several citizen observatories collect information about our environment. This information is complementary or, in some cases, essential to tackle a wide range of geographic problems.

Despite the wide applicability and acceptability of VGI in science, many studies argue that the quality of the observations remains a concern. Data collected by volunteers does not often follow scientific principles of sampling design, and levels of expertise vary among volunteers. This makes it hard for scientists to integrate VGI in their research.

Low quality, inconsistent, observations can bias analysis and modelling results because they are not representative for the variable studied, or because they decrease the ratio of signal to noise. Hence, the identification of inconsistent observations clearly benefits VGI-based applications and provide more robust datasets to the scientific community.

In their paper the researchers describe a novel automated workflow to identify inconsistencies in VGI. “Leveraging a digital control mechanism means we can give value to the millions of observations collected by volunteers” and “it allows a new kind of science where citizens can directly contribute to the analysis of global challenges like climate change” say Hamed Mehdipoor and Dr. Raul Zurita-Milla, who work at the Geo-Information Processing department of ITC….

While some inconsistent observations may reflect real, unusual events, the researchers demonstrated that these observations also bias the trends (advancement rates), in this case of the date of lilac flowering onset. This shows that identifying inconsistent observations is a pre-requisite for studying and interpreting the impact of climate change on the timing of life cycle events….(More)”

Data protection in a big data society. Ideas for a future regulation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Alessandro Mantelero and Giuseppe Vaciago at Digital Investigation: “Big data society has changed the traditional forms of data analysis and created a new predictive approach to knowledge and investigation. In this light, it is necessary to consider the impact of this new paradigm on the traditional notion of data protection and its regulation.

Focussing on the individual and communal dimension of data use, encompassing digital investigations, the authors outline the challenges that big data poses for individual information self-determination, reasonable suspicion and collective interests. Therefore, the article suggests some innovative proposals that may update the existing data protection legal framework and contribute to make it respondent to the present algorithmic society….(More)”

The Behavioral Divide: A Critique of the Differential Implementation of Behavioral Law and Economics in the US and the EU

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

 at the European Review of Contract Law: “A behavioral divide cuts across the Atlantic. Despite the recent surge of behavioral analysis in European academia, a scrutiny of decisions by courts and regulatory agencies in the US and the EU reveals striking differences. While in the US rulings by courts and regulatory agencies progressively take insights from behavioral economics into account, EU courts and agencies still, and even increasingly, cling to the rational actor model. These inverse trends can be uncovered in the interpretation of legal concepts of human agency, ie, of those elements in a legal order which refer, implicitly or explicitly, to a model of rationality of human actors. More particularly, this paper reviews the concepts of consumers and of users, in consumer law and product liability respectively, to underscore the claim of the behavioral divide. Importantly, the divergence between EU and US private law practice calls for a normative evaluation. In the face of empirical uncertainty about the existence, direction and intensity of biases, the most attractive legal concept of human agency is a pluralistic one, assuming the simultaneous presence of boundedly and fully rational actors. In concrete applications, this paper shows that a pluralistic perspective urges a revision of the concept of the reasonable consumer, both in US and EU consumer law. Furthermore, such a view leads to the adoption of a more boundedly rational user concept in product liability. The pluralistic, yet more boundedly rational concepts thus have far-reaching consequences both for private law theory and its concomitant case law….(More)”

Public Participation Organizations and Open Policy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Helen Pallett at Science Communication: “This article builds on work in Science and Technology Studies and cognate disciplines concerning the institutionalization of public engagement and participation practices. It describes and analyses ethnographic qualitative research into one “organization of participation,” the UK government–funded Sciencewise program. Sciencewise’s interactions with broader political developments are explored, including the emergence of “open policy” as a key policy object in the UK context. The article considers what the new imaginary of openness means for institutionalized forms of public participation in science policymaking, asking whether this is illustrative of a “constitutional moment” in relations between society and science policymaking….(More)“

Open Data as Open Educational Resources: Case studies of emerging practice

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by Javiera Atenas and Leo Havemann: “…is the outcome of a collective effort that has its origins in the 5th Open Knowledge Open Education Working Group call, in which the idea of using Open Data in schools was mentioned. It occurred to us that Open Data and open educational resources seemed to us almost to exist in separate open worlds.

We decided to seek out evidence in the use of open data as OER, initially by conducting a bibliographical search. As we could not find published evidence, we decided to ask educators if they were in fact, using open data in this way, and wrote a post for this blog (with Ernesto Priego) explaining our perspective, called The 21st Century’s Raw Material: Using Open Data as Open Educational Resources. We ended the post with a link to an exploratory survey, the results of which indicated a need for more awareness of the existence and potential value of Open Data amongst educators…..

the case studies themselves. They have been provided by scholars and practitioners from different disciplines and countries, and they reflect different approaches to the use of open data. The first case study presents an approach to educating both teachers and students in the use of open data for civil monitoring via Scuola di OpenCoesione in Italy, and has been written by Chiara Ciociola and Luigi Reggi. The second case, by Tim Coughlan from the Open University, UK, showcases practical applications in the use of local and contextualised open data for the development of apps. The third case, written by Katie Shamash, Juan Pablo Alperin & Alessandra Bordini from Simon Fraser University, Canada, demonstrates how publishing students can engage, through data analysis, in very current debates around scholarly communications and be encouraged to publish their own findings. The fourth case by Alan Dix from Talis and University of Birmingham, UK, and Geoffrey Ellis from University of Konstanz, Germany, is unique because the data discussed in this case is self-produced, indeed ‘quantified self’ data, which was used with students as material for class discussion and, separately, as source data for another student’s dissertation project. Finally, the fifth case, presented by Virginia Power from University of the West of England, UK, examines strategies to develop data and statistical literacies in future librarians and knowledge managers, aiming to support and extend their theoretical understanding of the concept of the ‘knowledge society’ through the use of Open Data….(More)

The book can be downloaded here Open Data as Open Educational Resources

Does Open Data Need Journalism?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jonathan Stoneman at Reuters Institute for Journalism: “The Open Data movement really came into being when President Obama issued his first policy paper, on his first day in office in January 2009. The US government opened up thousands of datasets to scrutiny by the public, by journalists, by policy-makers. Coders and developers were also invited to make the data useful to people and businesses in all manner of ways. Other governments across the globe followed suit, opening up data to their populations.

Opening data in this way has not resulted in genuine openness, save in a few isolated cases. In the USA and a few European countries, developers have created apps and websites which draw on Open Data, but these are not reaching a mass audience.

At the same time, journalists are not seen by government as the end users of these data. Data releases, even in the best cases, are uneven, and slow, and do not meet the needs of journalists. Although thousands of journalists have been learning and adopting the new skills of datajournalism they have tended to work with data obtained through Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation.

Stories which have resulted from datajournalists’ efforts have rarely been front page news; in many cases data-driven stories have ended up as lesser stories on inside pages, or as infographics, which relatively few people look at.

In this context, therefore, Open Data remains outside the mainstream of journalism, and out of the consciousness of the electorate, begging the question, “what are Open Data for?”, or as one developer put it – “if Open Data is the answer, what was the question?” Openness is seen as a badge of honour – scores of national governments have signed pledges to make data open, often repeating the same kind of idealistic official language as the previous announcement of a conversion to openness. But these acts are “top down”, and soon run out of momentum, becoming simply openness for its own sake. Looking at specific examples, the United States is the nearest to a success story: there is a rich ecosystem – made up of government departments, interest groups and NGOs, the media, civil society – which allows data driven projects the space to grow and the airtime to make an impact. (It probably helped that the media in the US were facing an existential challenge urgent enough to force them to embrace new, inexpensive, ways of carrying out investigative reporting).

Elsewhere data are making less impact on journalism. In the UK the new openness is being exploited by a small minority. Where data are made published on the data.gov.uk website they are frequently out of date, incomplete, or of limited new value, so where data do drive stories, these tend to be data released under FOI legislation, and the resulting stories take the form of statistics and/or infographics.

In developing countries where Open Data Portals have been launched with a fanfare – such as Kenya, and more recently Burkina Faso – there has been little uptake by coders, journalists, or citizens, and the number of fresh datasets being published drops to a trickle, and are soon well out of date. Small, apparently randomly selected datasets are soon outdated and inertia sets in.

The British Conservative Party, pledging greater openness in its 2010 manifesto, foresaw armies of “Armchair Auditors” who would comb through the data and present the government with ideas for greater efficiency in the use of public funds. Almost needless to say, these armies have never materialised, and thousands of datasets go unscrutinised by anybody. 2 In countries like Britain large amounts of data are being published but going (probably) unread and unscrutinised by anybody. At the same time, the journalists who want to make use of data are getting what they need through FOI, or even by gathering data themselves. Open Data is thus being bypassed, and could become an irrelevance. Yet, the media could be vital agents in the quest for the release of meaningful, relevant, timely data.

Governments seem in no hurry to expand the “comfort zone” from which they release the data which shows their policies at their most effective, and keeping to themselves data which paints a gloomier picture. Journalists seem likely to remain in their comfort zone, where they make use of FOI and traditional sources of information. For their part, journalists should push for better data and use it more, working in collaboration with open data activists. They need to change the habits of a lifetime and discuss their sources: revealing the source and quality of data used in a story would in itself be as much a part of the advocacy as of the actual reporting.

If Open Data are to be part of a new system of democratic accountability, they need to be more than a gesture of openness. Nor should Open Data remain largely the preserve of companies using them for commercial purposes. Governments should improve the quality and relevance of published data, making them genuinely useful for journalists and citizens alike….(More)”