public sector

Open data, open mind: Why you should share your company data with the world

Curated on October 20, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Mark Samuels at ZDnet: “If information really is the lifeblood of modern organisations, then CIOs could create huge benefits from opening their data to new, creative pairs of eyes. Research from consultant McKinsey suggests that seven sectors alone could generate more than $3 trillion a year in additional value as a result of open data: that is, taking previously proprietary data (often starting with public sector data) and opening up access.

So, should your business consider giving outsiders access to insider information? ZDNet speaks to three experts.

More viewpoints can mean better results

Former Tullow Oil CIO Andrew Marks says debates about the potential openness of data in a private sector context are likely to be dominated by one major concern: information security.

“It’s a perfectly reasonable debate until people start thinking about privacy,” he says. “Putting information at risk, both in terms of customer data and competitive advantage, will be a risk too far for many senior executives.”

But what if CIOs could allay c-suite peers’ concerns and create a new opportunity? Marks points to the Goldcorp Challenge, which saw the mining specialist share its proprietary geological data to allow outside experts pick likely spots for mining. The challenge, which included prize money of $575,000 helped identify more than 110 sites, 50 per cent of which were previously unknown to the company. The value of gold found through the competition exceeded $6bn. Marks wonders whether other firms could take similarly brave steps.
“There is a period of time when information is very sensitive,” he says. “Once the value of data starts to become finite, then it might be beneficial for businesses to open the doors and to let outsiders play with the information. That approach, in terms of gamification, might lead to the creation of new ideas and innovations.”…

Marks says these projects help prove that, when it comes to data, more is likely to mean different – and possibly better – results. “Whether using big data algorithms or the human touch, the more viewpoints you bring together, the more you can increases chances of success and reduce risk,” he says.

“There is, therefore, always likely to be value in seeking an alternative perspective. Opening access to data means your firm is going to get more ideas, but CIOs and other senior executives need to think very carefully about what such openness means for the business, and the potential benefits.”….Some leading firms are already taking steps towards openness. Take Christina Scott, chief product and information officer at the Financial Times, who says the media organisation has used data analysts to help push the benefits of information-led insight across the business.

Her team has democratised data in order to make sure that all parts of the organisation can get the information they need to complete their day-to-day jobs. Scott says the approach is best viewed as an open data strategy, but within the safe confines of the existing enterprise firewall. While the tactic is internally focused currently, Scott says the FT is keen to find ways to make the most of external talent in the future.

“We’re starting to consider how we might open data beyond the organisation, too,” she says. “Our data holds a lot of value and insight, including across the metadata we’ve created. So it would be great to think about how we could use that information in a more open way.” Part of the FT’s business includes trade-focused magazines. Scott says opening the data could provide new insight to its B2B customers across a range of sectors. In fact, the firm has already dabbled at a smaller scale.

“We’ve run hackathons, where we’ve exposed our APIs and given people the chance to come up with some new ideas,” she says. “But I don’t think we’ve done as much work on open data as we could. And I think that’s the direction in which better organisations are moving. They recognise that not all innovation is going to happen within the company.”…

CIO Omid Shiraji is another IT expert who recognises that there is a general move towards a more open society. Any executive who expects to work within a tightly defined enterprise firewall is living in cloud cuckoo land, he argues. More to the point, they will miss out on big advantages.
“If you can expose your sources to a range of developers, you can start to benefit from massive innovation,” he says. “You can get really big benefits from opening your data to external experts who can focus on areas that you don’t have the capability to develop internally.”

Many IT leaders would like to open data to outside experts, suggests Shiraji. For CIOs who are keen to expose their sources, he suggests letting small-scale developers take a close look at in-house data silos in an attempt to discover what relationships might exist and what advantages could accrue….(More)”

Data-Driven Innovation: Big Data for Growth and Well-Being

Curated on October 7, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

“A new OECD report on data-driven innovation finds that countries could be getting much more out of data analytics in terms of economic and social gains if governments did more to encourage investment in “Big Data” and promote data sharing and reuse.

The migration of economic and social activities to the Internet and the advent of The Internet of Things – along with dramatically lower costs of data collection, storage and processing and rising computing power – means that data-analytics is increasingly driving innovation and is potentially an important new source of growth.

The report suggest countries act to seize these benefits, by training more and better data scientists, reducing barriers to cross-border data flows, and encouraging investment in business processes to incorporate data analytics.

Few companies outside of the ICT sector are changing internal procedures to take advantage of data. For example, data gathered by companies’ marketing departments is not always used by other departments to drive decisions and innovation. And in particular, small and medium-sized companies face barriers to the adoption of data-related technologies such as cloud computing, partly because they have difficulty implementing organisational change due to limited resources, including the shortage of skilled personnel.

At the same time, governments will need to anticipate and address the disruptive effects of big data on the economy and overall well-being, as issues as broad as privacy, jobs, intellectual property rights, competition and taxation will be impacted. Read the Policy Brief…

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Expand

Preface	Read
Foreword	Read
Executive summary	Read
The phenomenon of data-driven innovation	Read
Mapping the global data ecosystem and its points of control	Read
How data now drive innovation	Read
Drawing value from data as an infrastructure	Read
Building trust for data-driven innovation	Read
Skills and employment in a data-driven economy	Read
Promoting data-driven scientific research	Read
The evolution of health care in a data-rich environment	Read
Cities as hubs for data-driven innovation	Read
Governments leading by example with public sector data	Read

The multiple meanings of open government data: Understanding different stakeholders and their perspectives

Curated on October 6, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Felipe Gonzalez-Zapata, and Richard Heeks in Government Information Quarterly: “As a field of practice and research that is fast-growing and a locus for much attention and activity, open government data (OGD) has attracted stakeholders from a variety of origins. They bring with them a variety of meanings for OGD. The purpose of this paper is to show how the different stakeholders and their different perspectives on OGD can be analyzed in a given context. Taking Chile as an OGD exemplar, stakeholder analysis is used to identify and categorize stakeholder groups in terms of their relative power and interest as either primary (in this case, politicians, public officials, public sector practitioners, international organizations) or secondary (civil society activists, funding donors, ICT providers, academics). Stakeholder groups sometimes associated with OGD but absent from significant involvement in Chile – such as private sector- and citizen-users – are also identified.

Four different perspectives on open government data – bureaucratic, political, technological, and economic – are identified from a literature review. Template analysis is used to analyze text – OGD-related reports, conference presentations, and interviews in Chile – in terms of those perspectives. This shows bureaucratic and political perspectives to be more dominant than the other two, and also some presence for a politico-economic perspective not identified from the original literature review. The information value chain is used to identify a “missing middle” in current Chilean OGD perspectives: a lack of connection between a reality of data provision and an aspiration of developmental results. This pattern of perspectives can be explained by the capacities and interests of key stakeholders, with those in turn being shaped by Chile’s history, politics, and institutions….(More)”

A matter of public trust: measuring how government performs

Curated on October 6, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Gai Brodtmann at the Sydney Morning Herald:”…Getting trust is hard. Losing it is easy. And the work of maintaining trust in our democracy, and the public institutions it rests on, is constant, quiet and careful.

That trust is built on accountability and transparency. It relies on an assurance that government programs are well managed and delivered efficiently and effectively to give the best results for Australians.

And it demands impartial adjudicators to provide that assurance.

The first is getting the metrics, the key performance indicators, right. The indicators should be a fundamental way of judging whether a program is being implemented effectively and achieving its aims. If significant variations from expected performance are observed, it’s a sure sign that closer examination of the program is needed.

A lot of effort has gone into indicators in recent years. Progress has been made, but everyone recognises the issue is complex. Establishing meaningful indicators, which are aligned across and up and down agencies, and become business as usual, is not easy. And it cannot be done independently of other public sector reform.

Cultural change is inevitably at the heart of all these discussions and two aspects of that strike me. The first is risk-aversion. The second is the silo problem.

A crucial challenge in overcoming a too-timid approach to doing business is that we do not, on the whole, have incentives in the system that encourage taking risks. In fact, many of the incentives do the opposite….

But a more balanced risk-management culture will only germinate if both the government and the Parliament – including its committees – change their ways to recognise that innovative policy design and complex program implementation needs to embrace risk to be successful.

The second aspect of cultural change is the problem of too many silos. Perhaps, in some simpler past, public service agencies could generally operate with exclusive rights and functions within their own well-defined boundaries. But as social and economic challenges become more complex, this isn’t feasible.

Modern government in Australia is still coming to grips with this new imperative. Programs often involve multi-agency collaboration across jurisdictions, where the boundaries are well and truly crossed both within jurisdictions and across them. Unsurprisingly, ensuring a consistent approach and assessing outcomes has been difficult to achieve.

Collaboration between different entities is not strange to the private sector. One lesson we can draw is that, in collaborations, it is important to have a clear line of authority and control….(More)”

Open collaboration in the public sector: The case of social coding on GitHub

Curated on October 3, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Ines Mergel at Government Information Quarterly: “Open collaboration has evolved as a new form of innovation creation in the public sector. Government organizations are using online platforms to collaborative create or contribute to public sector innovations with the help of external and internal problem solvers. Most recently the U.S. federal government has encouraged agencies to collaboratively create and share open source code on the social coding platform GitHub and allow third parties to share their changes to the code. A community of government employees is using the social coding site GitHub to share open source code for software and website development, distribution of data sets and research results, or to seek input to draft policy documents. Quantitative data extracted from GitHub’s application programming interface is used to analyze the collaboration ties between contributors to government repositories and their reuse of digital products developed on GitHub by other government entities in the U.S. federal government. In addition, qualitative interviews with government contributors in this social coding environment provide insights into new forms of co-development of open source digital products in the public sector….(More)”

Addressing Inequality and the ‘Data Divide’

Curated on September 23, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Daniel Castro at the US Chamber of Commerce Foundation: “In the coming years, communities across the nation will increasingly rely on data to improve quality of life for their residents, such as by improving educational outcomes, reducing healthcare costs, and increasing access to financial services. However, these opportunities require that individuals have access to high-quality data about themselves and their communities. Should certain individuals or communities not routinely have data about them collected, distributed, or used, they may suffer social and economic consequences. Just as the digital divide has held back many communities from reaping the benefits of the modern digital era, a looming “data divide” threatens to stall the benefits of data-driven innovation for a wide swathe of America. Given this risk, policymakers should make a concerted effort to combat data poverty.

Data already plays a crucial role in guiding decision making, and it will only become more important over time. In the private sector, businesses use data for everything from predicting inventory demand to responding to customer feedback to determining where to open new stores. For example, an emerging group of financial service providers use non-traditional data sources, such as an individual’s social network, to assess credit risk and make lending decisions. And health insurers and pharmacies are offering discounts to customers who use fitness trackers to monitor and share data about their health. In the public sector, data is at the heart of important efforts like improving patient safety, cutting government waste, and helping children succeed in school. For example, public health officials in states like Indiana and Maryland have turned to data science in an effort to reduce infant mortality rates.

Many of these exciting advancements are made possible by a new generation of technologies that make it easier to collect, share, and disseminate data. In particular, the Internet of Everything is creating a plethora of always-on devices that record and transmit a wealth of information about our world and the people and objects in it. Individuals are using social media to create a rich tapestry of interactions tied to particular times and places. In addition, government investments in critical data systems, such as statewide databases to track healthcare spending and student performance over time, are integral to efforts to harness data for social good….(More)”

Can Yelp Help Government Win Back the Public’s Trust?

Curated on September 22, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Tod Newcombe at Governing: “Look out, DMV, IRS and TSA. Yelp, the popular review website that’s best known for its rants or cheers regarding restaurants and retailers, is about to make it easier to review and rank government services.

Last month, Yelp and the General Services Administration (GSA), which manages the basic functions of the federal government, announced that government workers will soon be able to read and respond to their agencies’ Yelp reviews — and, hopefully, incorporate the feedback into service improvements.

At first glance, the news might not seem so special. There already are Yelp pages for government agencies like Departments of Motor Vehicles, which have been particularly popular. San Francisco’s DMV office, for example, has received more than 450 reviews and has a three-star rating. But federal agencies and workers haven’t been allowed to respond to the reviewers nor could they collect data from the pages because Yelp hadn’t been approved by the GSA. The agreement changes that situation, also making it possible for agencies to set up new Yelp pages….

Yelp has been posting online reviews about restaurants, bars, nail salons and other retailers since 2004. Despite its reputation as a place to vent about bad service, more than two-thirds of the 82 million reviews posted since Yelp started have been positive with most rated at either four or five stars, according to the company’s website. And when businesses boost their Yelp rating by one star, revenues have increased by as much as 9 percent, according to a 2011 study by Harvard Business School Professor Michael Luca.

Now the public sector is about to start paying more attention to those rankings. More importantly, they will find out if engaging the public in a timely fashion changes their perception of government.

While all levels of government have become active with social media, direct interaction between an agency and citizens is still the exception rather than the rule. Agencies typically use Facebook and Twitter to inform followers about services or to provide information updates, not as a feedback mechanism. That’s why having a more direct connection between the comments on a Yelp page and a government agency represents a shift in engagement….(More)”

Revolution Delayed: The Impact of Open Data on the Fight against Corruption

Curated on September 19, 2015October 10, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by RiSSC – Research Centre on Security and Crime (Italy): “In the recent years, the demand for Open Data picked up stream among stakeholders to increasing transparency and accountability of the Public Sector. Governments are supporting Open Data supply, to achieve social and economic benefits, return on investments, and political consensus.

While it is self-evident that Open Data contributes to greater transparency – as it makes data more available and easy to use by the public and governments, its impact on fighting corruption largely depends on the ability to analyse it and develop initiatives that trigger both social accountability mechanisms, and government responsiveness against illicit or inappropriate behaviours.

To date, Open Data Revolution against corruption is delayed. The impact of Open Data on the prevention and repression of corruption, and on the development of anti- corruption tools, appears to be limited, and the return on investments not yet forthcoming. Evidence remains anecdotal, and a better understanding on the mechanisms and dynamics of using Open Data against corruption is needed.

The overall objective of this exploratory study is to provide evidence on the results achieved by Open Data, and recommendations for the European Commission and Member States’ authorities, for the implementation of effective anti-corruption strategies based on transparency and openness, to unlock the potential impact of “Open Data revolution” against Corruption.

The project has explored the legal framework and the status of implementation of Open Data policies in four EU Countries – Italy, United Kingdom, Spain, and Austria. TACOD project has searched for evidence on Open Data role on law enforcement cooperation, anti-corruption initiatives, public campaigns, and investigative journalism against corruption.

RiSSC – Research Centre on Security and Crime (Italy), the University of Oxford and the University of Nottingham (United Kingdom), Transparency International (Italy and United Kingdom), the Institute for Conflict Resolution (Austria), and Blomeyer&Sanz (Spain), have carried out the research between January 2014 and February 2015, under an agreement with the European Commission – DH Migration and Home Affairs. The project has been coordinated by RiSSC, with the support of a European Working Group of Experts, chaired by prof. Richard Rose, and an external evaluator, Mr. Andrea Menapace, and it has benefited from the contribution of many experts, activists, representatives of Institutions in the four Countries….(More)

Open governance systems: Doing more with more

Curated on September 17, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jeremy Millard in Government Information Quarterly: “This paper tackles many of the important issues and discussions taking place in Europe and globally about the future of the public sector and how it can use Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to respond innovatively and effectively to some of the acute societal challenges arising from the financial crisis as well as other deeper rooted global problems. These include inequality, poverty, corruption and migration, as well as climate change, loss of habitat and the ageing society. A conceptual framework for open governance systems enabled by ICT is proposed, drawing on evidence and examples from around the world as well as a critical appraisal of both academic and grey literature. The framework constructs a system of open assets, open services and open engagement, and this is used to move the e-government debate forward from a preoccupation with lean and small governments which ‘do more with less’ to examine the potential for open governance systems to also ‘do more with more’. This is achieved by enabling an open government and open public sector, as part of this open governance system, to ‘do more by leveraging more’ of the existing assets and resources across the whole of society, and not just within the public sector, many of which are unrealised and untapped, so in effect are ‘wasted’. The paper argues that efficiencies and productivity improvements are essential at all levels and across all actors, as is maximising both public and private value, but that they must also be seen at the societal level where trade-offs and interactions are required, and not only at the individual actor level….(More)”