Tag Archives: Gov 2.0

Moving Away from Gov Silos

A few days ago the Rudd government posted it’s response to the Gov 2.0 taskforce report on Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0. The responce, hosted on the Department of Finance and Deregulation (DFD) website can be found here.

Reading through the response I am pleased in most aspects of the Government wanting to take action in the area of making more data available to the public and generating tools that will help inform and direct new policy. The steering committee that will be setup to help direct the DFD is for the better part entirely made up of federal government agencies. This is my first bane of contention but more on that in a sec.

Some things to note coming out of the report included:
– Defining what Public Sector Information should be
o free
o based on open standards
o easily discoverable
o understandable
o machine-readable
o freely reusable and transformable.

– Establishment of metadata standards to improve sharing, reuse and discoverability of PSI. All well and good and there are standards that can be adopted although a focus on how custodians can easily manage metadata and update it needs to be high on the agenda.
– The creation of an ‘Gov 2.0 Awards’ that will recognise outstanding practice in the use and impact of Gov 2.0 tool to improve agency and program performance. Nice idea although will this lose focus on the bigger picture of interagency collaboration and the overall reduction of duplication across government? I hope the awards will take into account those agencies who without producing a big wondrous application get into the nitty gritty of creating a more efficient government.

In addition the adoption of creative commons should greatly increase participation and use of the data. I will say that while using creative commons is great though needs to go into how a custodian can still assure correctness where required.

There are two area’s that I am a little disappointed in:

1. The Gov 2.0 response to the report (and even the original report itself) gave little recognition to state level data and local government level data. Much community interaction happens at this level, more so at the local government level and so I feel more thought and support has to be focused in this area.

2. The steering group for Gov 2.0 looks to be entirely formed out of federal government agencies giving no thought to private industry (who will be supplying and even building the web2.0 tool to support government), academia and the citizens who will be the beneficiaries of the openness of Gov data.

If Government is really going to get on with Gov 2.0 then we need to realise that the world extends beyond government and so to be proactive around the use of PSI data then we need to engage with those who might get best use out of access.

With more and more governments pushing towards open access to data such as the UK data.gov.uk and the US data.gov portals we need to take our lead from these portals and look at what we can implement to ensure a Data.Gov.Au portal becomes a success. Catalogs, Web Services, Download realms are a good start but let fully embrace what the term “2.0” is supposed to represent and ensure that a good user interface sits with the portal that makes access data easy and useful.

Advertisements

The Age of Social Media: A Look at Emergency Management

Happy New year to you all. It has been a while since my last update on Project Spatial and in that time quite a bit has happened within Australia and the Spatial industry. As with each new year in Australia, extreme weather conditions seem to be a norm and bushfires are ever prevelant.

Recently in Western Australia, bushfires have ravaged the town of Toodyay, multiple fires are burning all over Australia which makes me think of a round table discssion i participated near the end of 2009. Under the Gov 2.0 taskforce a project emerged on how the government could use Web 2.0 technologies within the social media sphere to help the management of incidents such as bushfire, flood and alike. http://gov2em.net.au/

The project which only ran for a little over a month has delivered its report on how government can use social media tools to help premare and manage emergency situations. The key to it’s findings is that government needs to be able to convey trust, transparency and timeliness. In some situations, accuracy and reliability can be traded off against timeliness of information. Getting a message out there stating the threat can be more important than knowing exactly where the threat is. Of course you don’t want to instigate panic. J

I’ve talked about mashups in previous posts and the abilty to provide timely information can easily be mapped. Take the Landgate Firewatch service coming out of Western Australia, this data feed can be combined with othe feeds to create a ‘mashup’ of incidents happening around Australia. http://www.aus-emaps.com/fires.php is a good example of this where RSS feeds from NSW and Victoria are combined with Firewatch, BOM Weather and other data into a simple map.

Further out from Australia we are even seening new and exciting uses of social media for EM. For example, in San Francisco there is a twitter account setup for the earthquake prone area that people can subscribe to.  http://twitter.com/earthquakesLA. Combine this with TwitPics (see: http://mashable.com/2010/01/09/eureka-earthquake/) and you have a detailed account of an Earthquake, providing more timely information and shared accross many users faster than traditional media sources.

What is needed in Australia is a coordinated approach to 2.0 technologies in areas such as Emergency Management. Setting standards and policies will help ensure that information is not abused or worse becomes mis-trusted.

The key really is to keep it low tech (another finding of the Em 2.0 report) although as technology evolves very quickly and newer generations are turning away from normal media channels (radio, TV) any impementation of 2.0 technologies needs to stay consistent, reach a broad range of users and be simple. Technology isn’t a barrier although controling how much technology is used will remain a factor. Remember they say you only have 8 seconds to capture someones attention through the Internet so information related to EM incidents needs to stay clearly articulated and remain accessible.

Interesting Case Study on the Victorian Black Saturday Fires: http://gov2em.net.au/twittersocial-media-during-the-victorian-bushfires-february-20009-a-case-study/

Engage!

Attrib: Government 2.0 Taskforce Draft Report 2009. http://gov2.net.au/

It was with great excitement that I downloaded the preliminary draft report on the Australian Government 2.0 Taskforce a couple of days ago and yet it is with some sadness that I write this post. ‘Engage – Getting on with Government 2.0’ report details the taskforces findings on where Australia should be moving in the area of open access to public sector information (PSI). The document is a long read even only if you skim through or read the executive summary which in my opinion is one of the biggest pitfalls in government where great work gets lost in translation. Web 2.0 and Government 2.0 is about interaction, engagement and fostering cultural change through collaboration, open access to data and the crowd-sourcing interaction with data. So why is it that the community we are trying to engage with gets lost along the ride through these large cumbersome documents? If anything Web 2.0 is about simplicity and interaction, certainly not segregating your audience to those who have the patience to read through an engagement plan and those who do not.

  1. This report is a step in the right direction and I do not want to tarnish the effort the taskforce in writing this although I feel that there are lacking components: Where is WA in the scheme of things? Ok as a sandgroper I take this one to heart although it must be noted that as this report details the undertakings of stage government initiatives, WA is no where to be seen. Poor form if the Shared Land Information Platform (SLIP http://www.landgate.wa.gov.au/slip/) doesn’t get a mentioned through a report detailing and promoting open access to public sector data. To that, one might even say where is LIST in Tasmania? (http://www.thelist.tas.gov.au/)
  2. Integration methods. Knowing; through experience how long it can take to successfully integrate data together before it becomes usable it was with a heavy sigh that I could not find reference to having the designated “lead agency”, lead in a common integration framework. The report details interoperability between differences systems and data that is used in these systems yet what I have found key to interoperability is the integration of data. For a very long time governments and the private sector have had interoperability through sharing data manually and transforming the data to meet systems, yet ease of integration especially through a web 2.0 framework must have its place in the sun. Surely this is where location system and spatial data should have been referenced (and included as terms in the glossary!)
  3. Governance. A lead agency concept is recommended through the report and I’m sure governance will be a requirement. If this is the case, I would like to see governance by government meeting community and business needs be a driving factor. Opening access to data invites scrutiny and misinterpretation. Governance on how data should and could be used and importantly fed back will be a success factor going forward.

And finally: ‘Information’. Data sharing and opening access through creative common frameworks is a great step although if we cannot capture data through governance frameworks, if it cannot easily be integrated then it is difficult to derive information from the data that will inform government, inform policy and inform the community. Information that is easily understood and acted upon will drive a proactive, engaged Australian information economy. To this I recommend reading the report and providing feedback into the future directions.