Open Government Archive

Canada’s Open Government Consultations

I finally got around to providing my input to the Canadian Federal Government’s Open Government Consultation.  If you haven’t taken the time to provide your thoughts yet, I encourage you to take a few minutes and complete the simple online survey.  You should also let your friends know as well, since I’ve found that there are quite a few people that don’t know about the important consultations that the Government of Canada conducts.  The 2010 consultations on the Digital Economy provide great case in point.  As I travelled across Canada speaking with business leaders, the vast majority (really almost all) were unaware of the consultations.  This isn’t a criticism. Just an observation that despite the outreach, either the business leaders weren’t reached or they felt that the consultations didn’t apply to them.  This is unfortunate since we know that the digital economy affects us all.  It is understandably difficult to do big advertising campaign for every consultation process, especially with the large number of activities that are underway at any one time (see http://www.consultingcanadians.gc.ca/ ).

It’s really cool to see the government look to innovative approaches to interact with constituents.  While sometimes things don’t always go as smoothly as planned with Trolls and Freeps creeping in from time to time and even some unfortunate design issues that could impact the outcomes, we should applaud the risk taking that is being done.  The Open Government consultations broke new ground again as Treasury Board Secretariat hosted a tweet chat on Dec 15. Unfortunately I found myself on a plane at that time (when am I not on a plane?  I get my Super Elite the hard way.  By segments!)  Since I couldn’t be there, I decided to try find out what was said, what questions were asked and how many people were engaged.  It was great to see that TBS published transcripts of the discussions in English and French.  Unfortunately the transcript was a little hard to follow in its strict sequential format, so I thought I would try to make it more usable.

Using the VMHI2S parser (very manual, human intensive, 2 screen), I set to work on the English transcript.  I took the comments and threw them into Excel.  After a bit of manipulation I managed to get the transcript into a usable form.  I deleted almost all of the RTs since almost all of them didn’t include any *new* or additional information.  I then transcribed the stream to a new spreadsheet with the following logic:

  1. Work through the tweets in time sequence;
  2. Is it a new conversation item (Question, Comment, or answer)
  3. If it’s a new topic item, assign it a new ID
  4. If it’s a response or comment to an existing item, transcribe it in sequence after the original.

(Note that it was sometimes difficult to connect comments, questions and answers – any errors / omissions are unintentional.  The transcript could also have some holes in it (I think it might have missed a few posts early on)

After a little time (OK, far too much time), I ended up with this spreadsheet version of the English discussion called Open Gov Q&A sorted . (here it is in .csv right click to save locally)

Looking at the stream in this form really allows you to get a sense of the accomplishment that the tweet chat represents.  While twitter does have its limitations for a fulsome discussion (as some people pointed out), there was some useful back and forth.   I think we all need to consider the pace of the activities in the office at TBS. From the English stream there were almost 150 unique discussion items.  That’s over 3 discussion items every minute.  Each item needs to be read, considered and potentially answered in a very short time.  As you can see from the stream, some questions were more on topic than others.  There was some soapboxing, only a little yelling and not too much trolling.  I’ll let you decide what’s what ;-)

When all was said and done you’ll find that many responses were lightning fast (within minutes of the comment or question) and that the responses were thoughtful and conversational.  The combined @SCT_Canada and @TBS_Canada posts were around one per minute (44 posts).  A quick look at the community shows predominantly Canadian Tweeters, with a couple of posts from south of the border.   Of course you can download the file(s) and parse it on those items of greatest interest to you.

Share

Canada Open Gov Timeline v2.4

Hi Everyone,

Here are the latest Canada Open Gov timeline spreadsheets:

Canada_Open_Data_Timeline-v2.4  CSV

Canada_Open_Data_Timeline-v2.4 XLSX

Share

Innovation in Government

The almost daily news reports about the tough worldwide economic situation provide stark stories about the challenges being faced by the worldwide community.  While Canada has not faced the same extreme challenges, the complex nature of the global economy is increasingly influencing us locally.  Over and above the studies confirming why Canada has weathered the storm compared to other nations, there are a fair number of studies looking more broadly at how Canada compares to other nations.  The Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity compared 16 most prosperous regions in North America and found that Ontario finished 15th and Quebec 16th.  The 10th annual report from the Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress further determined that the prosperity gap is a productivity gap and the productivity gap is an innovation gap.

                Innovation is top of mind for CEOs, with Forrester reporting that 93% of businesses executives surveyed citing innovation as a top strategic priority.  Unfortunately, not everyone has the same understanding of this priority.  As one of the top 10 overused terms of 2010, there are many different interpretations and perhaps misperceptions of the word “innovation.”  I like the way the Boston Consulting Group characterizes the outcomes of innovation:

  • New to the world products or services that create entirely new markets
  • New offerings that allow expansion into new customer groups
  • New offerings for existing customers
  • Incremental changes to existing offerings
  • Lower production costs for existing offerings

At times it might seem that innovation speaks only to commercial enterprise, but innovation applies across communities including government.   You can easily restate the outcomes listed above for government as:

  • New to the world services or entirely new programs
  • New services that broaden engagement to a wider community who don’t normally interact with government
  • New services for individuals and businesses who regularly interact with government
  • Incremental changes to existing programs and services
  • Increasing efficiency in who programs and services are delivered

 Innovation is critical for government for a number of reasons:

  1. Talent – Governments are competing with industry for top talent.  Increasingly, new graduates are seeking employers that provide opportunities for innovation
  2. Efficiency – These tough economic times impact governments as they also look to make every dollar go further.  Innovative approaches allow governments to deliver the same high quality services at a lower resource cost.
  3. Competition – Governments are indeed in competition with each other.  Municipalities, provinces and federal governments compete with each other to attract business to their region and create local opportunities.  In delivering their information programs, governments are also in competition with others to capture their audience.  You can easily imagine situations where individuals might seek health, recall, travel advice from foreign nations creating risk not only for the individual but the local government programs as well.
  4. Foundation for prosperity – At the Canada Innovation Nation seminar in Waterloo, Tom Jenkins proposed that “Poor productivity in an enabling sector may be leading to poor productivity in other sectors.”  Now Tom was referring to the telecom sector, but I believe that the example remains valid for the other sectors that enable Canadian business.  So sub-optimal productivity in the government sector has the potential to lead to poor productivity in all other sectors.  Fundamentally, our prosperity as a nation depends on Government innovation.

Innovation is the key catalyst to build value as we emerge from these tough economic times.  Government should work to enhance their innovation efforts alongside those occurring in industry.  The nation is depending on it!

Share

The Importance of GovCamp for Open Government Data

<reposted from BePublic.ca >

A few years ago, the City of Nanaimo started a grand experiment by publishing some of their city’s data on the web, thereby becoming the first Canadian city to embark upon Sir Berners-Lee vision of the next evolution of the web.  This Open Government pioneer has since joined by the City of Vancouver, the City of Edmonton, City of Toronto, City of Calgary, City of London, City of Ottawa, City of Windsor, City of Hamilton, City of Medicine Hat and the township of Langley.  These activities have grown beyond the municipal community to the broader Canadian government community with the Canadian Access to Information and Privacy Commissioners passing an Open Government resolution at their Sept 2010 annual meeting and the President of Treasury Board, Minister Stockwell Day announcing the Federal Government’s Open Data Portal shortly thereafter.  These government led activities rely on the strong and active support  of a passionate community that is able to take the government’s publications and recast them into even more meaningful services.  It would be impossible to list out all of the great open government applications developed by the community.  A few representative community driven projects include openparliament.ca, datadotgc.ca and how’d they vote.  Each of these services seeks to build out additional insight and value from the information traditionally published by governments.  But to do so often required some energetic data contortions and magic to extract the information into a usable format.  It seems that there often wasn’t a great deal of conversation between the different communities on how they could jointly pursue the goals of Open Government.  Enter the ChangeCamp, GovCamp, DataCamp, DemoCamp, Hackfest and other community get togethers.

These camps are often held in an unconference format where participants are given the opportunity to propose and lead individual sessions.  Other participants select the sessions they wish to contribute to and are free to move between sessions if they don’t meet their expectations.  Variations on the theme can have a more structured approach, but continue to rely on community driven topics and themes.  A reoccurring theme that is raised at these events is that of “reaching the right audience” to make a difference.  The GovCamp model seeks to bring together the right people so that the goals of collaboration and community driven development can be realized.  This year’s GovCamp 2011, held during NetChange Week at MaRS DD in Toronto  brought together over 200 people from both private and public sector, across all three levels of government in addition to other passionate individuals.  Through discussions on a wide range of subjects and focused workshops, communities came together to exercise their innovation muscle and imagine a new relationship between government and constituents.  There was also a great demonstration of the vision becoming a reality in the DemoCamp which showcased the digital wizardry of the application developers building upon the foundation provided by Canadian open data efforts.

Ultimately, open government is about engaging individuals, empowering businesses and driving efficient connections between governments.  GovCamp provides a venue for the various communities to come together, often putting a human touch to the raw data or faceless organizations, to reach a common understanding of the respective challenges each faces and to find a common ground for action.

 

 

Share

Fun with Numbers?

Chef with numbers in a cauldren of soupI was at a workshop recently where the group was reviewing survey results.  We were all a little surprised when some of the findings were not entirely as we expected.  We had the good fortune to have a comprehensive understanding of the size of the survey audience, a little insight into their general demographics and the formality of the survey.  As a result of this background, we were able to establish a “Blink” context behind the results and carry on with our work.  This was great for our session, but it left me wondering, in these days of open data, what would happen if these statistics were reused without the context?  It also reminded me of how important it is to consider the context behind information gathering, especially as organizations turn to online consultations to develop a deeper understanding of their environments.

Perhaps it’s because of my recent reading list of Risk, How to Lie with Statistics and the Skeptic that I have started taking a second look at statistics, or maybe it was from my kid’s favourite beverage that promised 100% flavor!  Regardless of where it was from, it remains essential that we continue to maintain the context behind the numbers we are given and take an additional moment or two to look behind the data to determine how we are to interpret it.  Outside of the policy challenges associated with opening data to the web, I feel that maintaining and sharing the context behind that data remains one of the most significant challenges to the open data movement.  I don’t have any quick answers for sharing the context just yet, only the recommendation that we don’t through the baby out with the bathwater by taking an either/or approach to open data or traditional information sharing and include both the finalized reports as well as the data that support them.

We can, however, keep a close eye on how we gather information for our online consultations and collaboration.  Let’s make sure that we at least cover off the basics for gathering opinions so that we can reliably use the data we have collected.  Some of the pitfalls are:

  • Astroturfing – Online opinion polling must implement safeguards to protect against, often, automated input to a particular question or survey.  I tend to emphasize the automated aspect to distinguish between this type of polling box stuffing and that which is more flash mob related.
  • Freeping – Survey and polling in today’s social media rich world must keep a keen eye on activities that would seek to skew the data by inciting individuals (often non stakeholders) to provide a biased input.  Individual and community based call to action can be accompanied by Astroturfing.
  • Human behavior – I am surprised that many surveys and questionnaires don’t adequately consider how people will interact with the survey or don’t consider how they pose the questions.
    • Interface – While there is a large body of research on the impact that user interfaces have on surveys (e.g. Cognitive Ergonomics), it seems that many survey and social interaction activities do not adequately consider these impacts.  One recent consultation process placed the community provided suggestions with the most positive votes on the splash page for the initiative.  Unfortunately, it allowed visitors to vote for those suggestions from the splash page without going through the other suggestions.  Ultimately, this resulted in the early lead suggestions getting the lion share of the votes where the others received few if any since users generally did not take the time to dive deeper into the feedback repository.
    • DemographicsIn the absence of a widely available and reliable way to know exactly who we are talking with online, there is uncertainty as to the segment of the population that is providing input to online surveys.  We must all ensure that we don’t jump to any conclusions about which community is providing the input.
    • Leading Questions / Implicit Assumptions – I continue to be amazed at the number of surveys and questionnaires that employ leading questions or implicit assumptions.  We can all recall when we first encountered a question like “Do you feel good after kicking your pet? (Y or N).”  Of course we can see the assumption loud and clear in this question because we would never harm our pets, but in many other cases it’s not as readily apparent.  Sometimes this hiding guiding of responses doesn’t appear in a single question, but is the result of opinion shaping through the narrative established by a number of questions.
  • Tenuous Extrapolation – Let’s face it.  We’d all like to get everyone’s opinion or experience on a particular subject, but that is almost impossible for most practical surveys.  So we have to deal with a subset and make some assumptions.   These assumptions don’t always make it through to the results of the findings.  Furthermore, these assumptions might not adequately address the full range of possible choices/outcomes. ( Nassim Taleb provides a comprehensive critique on the frailty of models and assumptions).  I’ve seen “national level” conclusions draw from survey communities of less than 1/1000 of the population compounded by taking the maximum possible outcome from a questions (e.g. did you spend between $100 and $1000 (Y or N)).  With these multiple order of magnitude ranges and the potential errors that can be introduced, we owe it all to ourselves and the community to extrapolate with care and to analyze carefully when reviewing conclusions.
  • Floating Foundations – In some cases surveys and questionnaires seek to establish a context behind the outreach by introducing the subject with a sort of call to action or background story.  Unfortunately, perhaps fueled by our hyper connected world, there have been cases where misinformation takes the place of solidly researched data.  Dan Gardner highlights one of these floating foundational numbers in Chapter 3 of his book “Risk.”  There are many more floating foundation numbers that we need to be wary of.

As we collect and publish more open data, it is essential that we consider the potential pitfalls that might arise and be able to address them in both the collection and ultimate interpretation of the results.

Share