3. What is open government?
• Freedom of information. Transparency of
government activities and operations.
(“No red tape”)
• A government that listens to its citizens and
encourages collaboration and democratic
participation.
(“Open door”)
4. High-level interest
• In December 2010, the Belgium presidency of
EU held a high level conference:
• Lift-off Towards Open Government
• The web site shows that open government is
much more than the traditional understanding
of the expression
http://www.opengov2010.be/
5. Transparency
• THE USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TO
INCREASE GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY
• The following material is based on a paper I presented at
the EGOV 2006 in Krakow, Poland, and supplementary
work done as part of the eGovMon project from 2008-
2012.
6. A legislative instrument
• In 2005 England and Germany passed ”Freedom of
Information” Acts.
• In 2004, Norway included the issue of transparency into
its constitution, and is currently on its way to pass an
updated “Freedom of Information Act”
• The Norwegian “Freedom of Information Act” was
revised in 2006 (implemented from 2009). The act
instructs government to increase transparency even
when not required by legislation.
• These are only some current examples of the increasing
focus on transparency as an important pillar of modern
democracies.
7. Objections!
• Unobtainable, since only parts of the political decision
making process will be transparent, and that most
decisions are made on beforehand through informal
negotiations between members of the political bodies.
• It may also be argued that transparency reduces
government efficiency, since transparency potentially
generates more administrative work.
8. But!
• In spite of such objections, lawmakers have embraced
the idea of transparency.
– First of all, “Freedom of Information Acts” send strong
signals to all stakeholders that decision making
should be transparent.
– Second, it provides a legal instrument for citizens to
dig into the decision making process when they find it
necessary.
– Third, transparency may be an instrument to promote
political participation.
9. Transparency of
Political decision making
• Complex processes, may be difficult to understand for
those affected by the decisions
• I regard transparency as a positive measure to
increase the awareness of issues, stakeholders and
the decision making process itself.
• It is almost impossible to cover every angle of political
decision making by lawmaking, but it is possible to rule
that all background information, and access to the
decision making process itself, should be open and
accessible to the public.
10. Definition!
• My definition: The legal mechanisms established to
give stakeholders and the general public insight and
understanding of an issue, including the actual
decision making being done.
• Therefore, transparency includes access to background
documents, statistical resources, meeting agendas, as
well as access to the meetings where decisions are
being made.
11. e-Transparency Framework
• Litterature review found that transparency is often
mentioned as a goal, or an effect of e-government or e-
democracy applications.
• Transparency has also been included in frameworks and
evaluation methods
• Always on a (very) general level
12. How to construct a
e-transparency framework?
• The framework was constructed by reviewing relevant
Norwegian legislation dealing with aspects of
transparency.
• After completing this review, a broad search of legislative
practices of other countries was performed, and this
gave some additional input.
13. Transparancy and legislation
• "Freedom of Information Act" 1970
• "Local Government Act" 1992
– Meetings open to the public contribute to
create better insight, and better understanding
of what happens within local and regional
government
• Amendment to constitution 2004
• New "Freedom of Information Act" 2006
14. Good or bad?
• I am not discussing if the different types of
transparency found is good or bad!
• I am just reporting my findings of transparecy
as introduced by lawmakers
• My intention is to show how ICT can support
these different types of transparency
15. Transparency
Document Based on the Freedom of Information Act document transparency is defined as
transparency the right to examine documents relevant to the political decision making process,
including documents received, documents produced, and the decisions made by
the political body.
Benchmarking Based on the Statistics Act, benchmarking transparency is defined as the right to
transparency access statistical information collected by government and government agencies.
Such information can be used for benchmarking.
Meeting Based on the Local Government Act, meeting transparency is defined as the right
transparency to be present at meetings of political bodies.
Disclosure Based on the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Act,
transparency disclosure transparency is defined as the right to ask questions to find out what is
not in documents and meeting agendas.
Decision maker Based on U.S. Sunshine Acts, decision maker transparency is defined as the
transparency right to know where and what elected and administrative leaders are up to.
16. Document e-Transparency
• Online records of incoming and outgoing mail
• Online case documents
• Online records of decisions/minutes
17. Benchmarking e-transparency
• Online planning documents
• Online annual reports
• Links to relevant statistics collected by Statistics Norway
and other government agencies responsible for
collecting and publishing statistical information
(Statistics Norway has a special database, KOSTRA,
containing benchmarking information on municipalities)
• Online results of user surveys
19. Disclosure transparency
• Questions by email
• On-line (real-time) questions (net-meetings or chat)
• Discussion forums/blogs where citizens can ask
questions
20. Decision maker transparency
• Online list of local council members
• Online voting records
• Online calendar of mayor
• Online calendar of chief executive
21. Case studies
• Since 2006 the developments in Norway have been very
good.
• Almost all municipalities put their case documents
online.
• Aventia, the leading provider webcasting services, has
around 80 municipalities as customers, including the
capital Oslo. (www.aventia.no)
• The ministries have online mail records.
• The parliament has their own web site giving access to
documents and webcasts.
22. Discussion
• The paper may be used as a basis for
further discussion on what transparency of
political decision making really is.
• At the same time, the framework may be
used as a practical tool for comparing how
governments at all levels utilize information
technology to increase transparency.
23. Open Data
• Open data
• Data can be reused for new purposes
• Standards
• Mash-ups
• Example: Norwegian Parliament
24. What are the reasons?
• Enable business. Open data can contribute to
new business activities, which may generate
value for the business and the society.
• Save money. Open data will reduce requests
for data, since potential users may service
themselves.
26. Open source
• From software community: The source code
is open for anyone to study, change, extend,
share and distribute.
• Two directions
– Free Software Foundation
– Open Source Manifesto (Bruce Perens)
27. Open Source Ideas
• Why not use the same thinking for politics?
• Disclose everything, invite to collaborate on
policy development, share and distribute the
intermediate results and the final outcome.
• Tools: Consultations
28. Citizens as partners
• The following is based on a paper delivered at
the international conference on the digital
society (ICDS) in 2007
• The title of the paper was: Enhanced e-Services
through Partnerships - Increasing the value of public
infrastructure investments
30. e-Participation
• Common research focus:
– How can citizens influence policy making through
use of information technology
• This presentation looks at participation as
something more than empowerment: The
mutual collaboration between government
and active citizens to improve society.
31. Purpose
• The purpose of this presentation is to show
that citizens should not only be regarded as
consumers of government services or political
actors, but also as valuable resources capable
of creating additional value based on existing
government infrastructure.
32. Model
Information Information Information Information
consumer consumer consumer consumer
ID
o
ID+I Info
nf
ID+
+I
nfo
+I
nf
ID
o
Infrastructure
supplied by government
(servers, DBMS’s, network capacity)
fo ID
fo +In ID+In
ID+In +In fo fo
ID
Information Information Information Information
provider provider provider provider
33. Case #1: The Digital Inn
• Established by the Norwegian National Archive
Services as an extension of a information retrieval
service called the ”Digital Archive". The “Digital
Archive” stores archive material as images,
transcribed texts and databases, and makes such
material available through the Internet.
34. ”The Digital Archive”
• Content is of particular interest to historians
and genealogists, and include:
– Censuses
– Parish records
– Military service records
– List of emigrants
35. ”The Digital Archive”
• Some material is transcribed, but today even
more material is stored as images.
• Transcribed material may be searched, but not
images
• Transcription is a very time-consuming process
36. ”The Digital Archive”
• The Digital Archive made a strategic decision
to open their infrastructure to individuals and
voluntary organizations registering parish
records and other historical content as digital
information.
• This is what is called ”The Digital Inn”.
• You get a room and fill it with your own
belongings..
37. ”The Digital Archive”
• This is one good example on how to consider
citizens as a resource.
• The individual contributions are shared with
others through a public infrastructure.
38. Case #2: The Map Hostel
• Based on the same ideas.
• Let government provide infrastructure, and
invite citizens and organizations to provide
map data.
39. The rationale
• Map services on Internet is flourshing
– Google maps
– Microsoft
• But applications are limited, since
– Maps provided lack details
– There are limitations on what data can be stored
– ”Street maps”
40. Governmental GIS
• Governmental and municipal geographic
systems contain more details, including
topological information
• Government and municipalities have already
invested heavily in such systems.
• It would be appropriate to find ways to utilize
this infrastructure better
41. First phase (2005)
• 2005: Built web interface to register
coordinates and information in a format that
could be imported into municipal GIS.
– Problems with scalability, decided to separate
map data from map generator
42. Second phase
Geographic Information
Database System
Presentation Server
Database
Map Hostel
Data entry
43. Second phase
• 2006: Experimented with different types of GPS-
equipment to demonstrate automatic data
collection in the field.
• Municipal GIS could generate maps, but due to
lack of API doumentation, and use of proprietary
formats, we decided to use MapPoint as a
temporary data source
– Easy to program
– Well documented
• Municipal GIS supplier has now released API etc.
45. Use of mobile units
• New mobile phones with built-in
GPS facilitates in-the-field data
collection.
• Have developed application to
send GPS-data and message to
web server through a web
service.
• Have developed application to
import from TrackStick.
• Are now implementing on other
devices using external (Bluetooth)
GPS (better solution).
46. Third phase
• In 2007 students made a version based on Google
maps. The reason was rather cumbersome
procedures to import data into the municipal GIS.
• The municipal GIS still have the same problems
– Technical: API is complex
– Administrative: Data put into production system
needs validation
• Outcome: Municipality now has implemented
more thematic maps.
47. Hierarchy
• First level: MyMap
Public catalog of maps
(personal data or data being
collected) EveryonesMap
• Second level: OurMap
(data shared by closed
group or members of an OurMap
organization)
• Third level: EveryonesMap
(data accessed through a
MyMap
public catalog)
48. Applications
• Sports clubs
• Registration of places of historical interest
• Orienteering
• Geology
• Schools
• Applications are endless
49. Discussion
• Have shown two case examples on how
government can provide infrastructure, and
use citizens as a valuable resource for
providing information
• Mission: To change the government
perception of citizens.
50. User Centric eGovernment
• The following is based on a presentation made
to the European Commission in December
2011 (ePractice event).
51. Main argument
User-centric eGovernment focuses on the needs,
wants and limitations of the users.
Two perspectives of eGovernment:
Administration perspective: Improve internal efficiency
and/or quality of the work performed by the government
organization
Citizen perspective: Making life easier for the user/citizen
It is not necessarily a conflict between the two
perspectives
But experience shows that solutions often are not
optimal from the user point of view
52. User-centered design
• User-centered design is a methodology/philosophy that
involves users at all stages of the design process.
• Not only based on assumptions of designers/developers, but
validated by real users in real situations.
• The goal is to make solutions better – for the users.
• User centered design takes into account:
– Audience (who, demographics of users)
– Purpose (what)
– Context (under what circumstances)
53. NET-EUCEN
• The NET-EUCEN thematic network is
developing a framework to define and
measure user-centric eGovernment services.
• Definition of user-centric: Fulfillment of three
stages of user involvement:
• (1) User Involvement in Co-design stage:
Involving users in development of ideas and
concepts. Starting from users´ needs and
requirements without technological
constraints.
54. NET-EUCEN
• (2) User involvement in development and
implementation stages: Sample/group of users
engaged in first implementation of the service in
order to evaluate its features and continuously
discuss with developers to optimize the outcomes
and suggest improvements and/or changes.
• (3) User involvement in deployment and running
stages: Users validate service through user testing
of flexibility and interoperability. Test results are
used to customize service according to changes in
political, economic or social environment.
55. NET-EUCEN
• A preliminary study on the ePractice portal
and other international relevant cases has
been carried out revealing that very few
cases are fully aligned with this definition,
but a deeper analysis is mandatory to
actually define the “level” of user centricity
adopted by a service.
56. Some general principles
• The users should not be expected to know the organizational structure
(one-stop-shop)
• The user should be able to drill down to the appropriate level of detail to fit
his/her needs
– Example: Government regulations are often complex, and not easy to
understand for all citizens. An easy-to-rad introduction highlighting common
questions should be provided
• Accessibilty should be in place
– Many users have different kinds of impairments
– Logical structure of the web site
• The user should be able to customize his/her user interface according to
own needs.
• The user should be able to choose an appropriate channel of
communication
57. Practical example
Electronic forms
Electronic service provision is typically done through
electronic forms.
The forms may be effective for the administration,
but not necessarily for the user.
Example: Application form for grants to voluntary
groups and organizations.
Old: Paper based form, fill it out, enclose copy of budget
and report on use of pervious grants, put the sheets in an
envelope, send it.
New: Electronic form. User needs to type the information
from the budget and the report into the electronic form.
..and problems with timeout, user needs to start from the
beginning
58. Practical example
Electronic forms
• Best practice for user-centric form-based solutions
– Interactive submission
– Accessibility
– Prefilled content
– Validation of fields where appropriate
– Help information available
– Meaningful error messages (in user’s own
language)
– For multi-page forms – possibility to move back
and forth
– Possibility to provide user feedback (feedback
button)
– The possibility to complete form after a break
59. Conclusion
• User-centricity is about a mindset.
• The needs, wants and limitations of
users must be recognized
• NET-EUCEN – A network for User-Centric
eGovernment http://www.net-eucen.org
• Join us today!
