Will B.C. take the lead in transparency?

What is Christy Clark waiting for? Pendant que le Québec branle dans le manche, while Quebec is shaky and unsteady, all eyes are turning to the West coast for true opengov Enlightenment. Donald Lenihan speaks of a 'golden opportunity'.

**********************************

OPEN GOVERNMENT: WILL B.C. TAKE THE LEAD IN TRANSPARENCY?
Donald Lenihan, Posted 06/27/11 08:56 AM ET, Huffingtonpost.ca

British Columbia's new premier, Christy Clark, has declared open government one of her top priorities. She promises to "get citizens more engaged with their government, including holding open town halls in communities around the province."

Fifteen of the world's leading experts on government would be pleased. They have just released a major report titled "The Future of Government." The report, which was sponsored by the World Economic Forum, distills a vast amount of learning down to a few basic thoughts on what governments must do to meet the challenges of the next decade. At bottom, the message is to pursue open government.

So is B.C. blazing the trail for Canadian governments?

Clark is on the right track: "Open government," she tells us, "means talking about our problems and setting our priorities openly. Government will work with citizens to find solutions and explain decisions."

Unlike her counterparts in Ottawa, or even Washington, she sees open government as much more than a commitment to more transparent government, say, by making more information available online. Clark's version also includes new approaches to decision-making through public engagement.

Nevertheless, Clark's plan to achieve this by holding town halls around the province is a little underwhelming. Town halls have been with us since the American Revolution -- maybe since the Middle Ages -- and where has it got us?

If she really wants the kind of open government she preaches, Clark will need something more ambitious than town halls to drive it. The "Future of Government"report has an excellent suggestion: develop a new set of performance measures for open government.

Readers may now be blinking: Performance measures? Is this not even more underwhelming than town halls? But stop and think about it. Performance measurement (PM) is now a core practice in every major government in the land -- indeed, throughout the OECD.

It wasn't always so. I recall when PM first surfaced on the Canadian political landscape. It was part of the Klein Revolution in the early 90s. Alberta was the first jurisdiction to apply PM at a government-wide level. I know because at the time I went across the country to discuss the merits of PM with other governments. Most hardly knew what it was.

We've come a long way. Today, all major governments are committed to PM on two key fronts: policy outcomes and service quality.

On services, satisfaction surveys are commonly used to evaluate and improve service quality. As a result, a wide range of service standards has been developed and applied, which, in turn, has revolutionized thinking around service delivery.

As for policy outcomes, before the Klein Revolution, little or no information was gathered on them. In many cases, officials were not even clear what outcomes their programs were supposed to achieve. Hard as this may be to believe, the word "outcome" was barely part of our policy vocabulary.

PM changed all that -- forever. It forced managers to start clarifying objectives, adopting indicators to measure progress, and collecting and using data to improve the results.

While we may still have a long way to travel on this road, it would be hard to overstate how much PM has already reshaped our views on policy-making and service delivery and, ultimately, our expectations around government. Whatever history will say about other parts of Ralph Klein's revolution, everyone agrees that PM is here to stay. Take note, Christy Clark.

So what does this mean for open government?

As the "Future of Government" report makes clear, open government is a kind of catch-all term for a complex array of concepts, tools and processes, including networked government, citizen engagement, innovation, interdependence, complexity, participation, collaboration and agility.

We can sum all this up without too much distortion by saying that the central challenge open government poses for governments is to develop new ways of working with the public to further improve policy outcomes and service delivery. At bottom, this means collaboration.

But if open government is a new way of doing business through collaboration, governments have a lot to learn. They have always operated on command-and-control principles. Learning to listen, discuss and share will not come easily.

PM is a critical first step on this journey. Governments will need it to help them build the new skills, structures and culture to support open government. The public will need it to hold governments' feet to the fire.

As the report notes, however, this is a whole new field of measurement, which is still in its infancy. In order to tackle the challenge of collaboration systematically, governments need to make some major progress on it. Measurement therefore should be a priority.

There's a saying that what get's measured get's done. Unless and until governments can track and assess their progress toward open government, it will remain an ideal at best, political rhetoric at worst.

The measurement barrier can be broken. The question is whether governments are ready to take up the challenge. If Clark wants to make her mark, here is a golden opportunity. Just ask Ralph.

Bidouilleur de la transparence au Brésil

N'éclatez pas de rire en lisant le titre de ce billet!

J'ai effectué une recherche sur le site de l'Institut québécois de la langue française pour trouver ce terme, «bidouilleur», la traduction de 'hacker', qui signifie une «personne passionnée d'informatique qui, par jeu, curiosité, défi personnel ou par souci de notoriété, sonde, au hasard plutôt qu'à l'aide de manuels techniques, les possibilités matérielles et logicielles des systèmes informatiques afin de pouvoir éventuellement s'y immiscer.»

Voici un article de Fondapol, 16 juin 2011 | 10h02, à propos de bidouilleurs au Brésil.

*****************************

HACKER DE LA TRANSPARENCE AU BRÉSIL

En mai dernier, les départements informatiques des administrations publiques brésiliennes ont organisé à Brasilia, en partenariat avec Consegi, constructeur de logiciels open source, une conférence sur le thème de l'"e-government" et de l'"open data". Un événement inédit dans le pays, d'un intérêt majeur aux yeux d'un grand nombre d'activistes de l'internet et du logiciel libre, venus sur place pour l'occasion, parmi lesquels Rufus Pollock (Open Knowledge Foundation), Nigel Shadbolt, (data.gov.uk), and David Eaves, (Vancouver's Open Government Motion). Ils ont témoigné de leur expérience de l'open government (OGD) et communiqué leur vision de la culture de l'ouverture. Outre ces personnalités connues, la conférence a accueilli un groupe de "hackers", identifiés sous l'étiquette "hackers de la transparence", composé de développeurs, de journalistes, d'étudiants, de militants du logiciel libre, de professeurs, de chercheurs, d'officiels du gouvernement, et aussi d'excellents évangélistes…

Leur organisation a vu le jour à la suite de la première édition, en 2009, du Transparency Hackday où il y avait eu des débats sur les usages des données d'information publique, jugées trop rares au Brésil, et les moyens innovants de les rendre accessibles à tous.

Cette année, ils arrivent très déterminés. Ils veulent faire valoir leurs idées et surtout leur conception des services publics. Il s'agit donc, pour ces activistes, de sensibiliser le plus grand nombre de citoyens à la nécessité d'imposer au pays une nouvelle méthode de gouvernement, plus ouverte, plus transparente.

Les moyens de persuasion dont ces hackers usent sont multiples. Ils ont décidé de recourir, si le besoin s'en faisait sentir, au piratage des sites gouvernementaux, voire à leur destruction et leur remplacement par des sites clonés. Des actions prévues pour prouver le caractère impérieux de la demande de transparence, notamment pour suivre la gestion des dépenses publiques et favoriser la diffusion et l'accès de tous aux données locales dans des formats ouverts ainsi qu'à toute information concernant la préparation des lois au Brésil. Ils comptent bien faire comprendre au gouvernement qu'il ne s'agit pas d'une demande ponctuelle mais bien d'une demande d'intérêt général à prendre en considération dans la durée, ce qui selon eux, favorisera l'ouverture et la participation de tous, conditions fondamentales de la démocratie moderne.

C'est ainsi qu'en marge de cette conférence de mai, le groupe des hackers a pu organiser un atelier "Transparency Hackday" regroupant non seulement les membres de leur organisation mais aussi tout citoyen intéressé, pour réfléchir et passer de la théorie à la pratique.

Plusieurs idées ont donc été collectivement produites, ayant toutes pour objectif de rendre la politique plus transparente. On peut noter, par exemple, que l'un des projets porte sur l'identification des entreprises (la base de données actuelle des hackers en compte 700) qui soutiennent financièrement les candidats aux élections. Le but est de repérer les effets de collusion entre argent et pouvoir. Un autre projet est la construction d'une plateforme collaborative, publique, destinée à recueillir des rapports d'abus de pouvoir ou de témoignages de corruption. Il y a aussi, parmi toutes ces idées, celle qui vise l'information publique sur la vie du parlement, sur les dispositifs législatifs, projets de loi en cours, étapes du vote, et tous les détails des procédures que seuls les politiques connaissent et que le public ne saurait encore ignorer longtemps…

Coalition for the Future of Quebec, first to get serious about open government?

Yesterday (June 11, 2011), I sent a suggestion of an open government to Charles Sirois, co-founder of the Coalition for the Future of Quebec (Coalition pour l'avenir du Québec), on CAQ's Web site. (See my post.)

I quoted Yogi Berra, "When you see a fork on the road, pick it up."

I do not know exactly how much the CAQ picks up the forks. I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss in person with these people and see them in action on open government issues. How far this coalition is in a position to grasp open government issues, and transform them into concrete proposals? In the event that the CAQ becomes a political party and participates in upcoming provincial elections in Quebec, will open government be included in the program?

If the CAQ makes open government the Canadian-style, no thank you! Citizens are not stupid and know well enough that the open government declarations by Stockwell Day (see my post), Tony Clement (see my post) or the Governor General of Canada in a Throne speech (see my post), actually mean very little. Democracy Watch gave a score of 61% to Canada for implementation of legislation and programs. Gaps and loopholes, and enforcement weakness, undermine the system. This justified the low score of 61. (See my post.)

Today I received this response from the CAQ, via Twitter: "Thanks for your suggestion Ms. Robichaud. We take the proposal for an open government very seriously."

The Coalition for the future of Quebec is the first coalition (not yet a political party) in Quebec to openly shout a shy 'yes', on open government issues.

I've been talking for five months with the team of the Deputy House leader, Henri-François Gautrin. Five months repeating the same things. And five months hearing the same answers. A communication has been established (I recognize that I am privileged). There is information sharing. Interlocutors understand the issues. But does that mean that open data and open government issues are taken seriously?

Hope, I have it in abondance. There are still about 5-6 months before Henri-François Gautrin files the final report, on the potential of Web 2.0, asked by Premier Jean Charest.

While I remain optimistic that the analysis mandate lead to recommendations for implementing an open data / open government initiative, it brings us to 2012 for some action to take place in this area.

The open government guru, Beth Noveck, said last March, in a testimony to ETHI Canada, "Be Nimble – Where possible, invite innovations that can be implemented in 90 days or less. Forcing organizations to act more quickly discourages bureaucracy and encourages creative brainstorming and innovation. The need for speed encourages a willingness to reach out to others, including across the public sector." (See my post.)

The analysis mandate on the potential of Web 2.0 began in October 2010 and will end around December 2011 or possibly even later. A period of approximately 15 months, while Beth Noveck suggests delays of 90 days or less. Throughout the tenure of the current analysis, we could schedule up to 5 periods of 90 days. This would give ample time to design and implement a pilot open data / open government project.

What might happen to us is precisely that nothing might happens to us!

The analysis on the potential of Web 2.0 could be completed by end 2011, early 2012, without any recommendation in favor of an open government. The government could build on status quo, and solely focus on communications.

At election time, the PLQ (Liberals) may be replaced by another party.

To what extent can we expect that the next government of Quebec implements an open data / open government initiative?

These issues should now be at the heart of concerns in policy and political debates. MPs should question Henri-François Gautrin at the National Assembly on progress of his analytical work, when the parliamentary session opens in September, and should not let go of a hair until he publishes his report. And in the meantime, there should also be questions to the Prime Minister on his vision, about why open government is excluded from the analysis mandate on the potential of Web 2.0, and what he envisaged to the government in this area. Opposition should always claim an open data platform whenever there are issues with little transparent requiring that we see more clearly. There should be open government claims whenever a problem arises. Open government should be suggested, problems should be transformed into a challenge on an open government platform, and citizens should be invited to co-create and co-produce ideas, to find solutions best suited to situations.

This should constantly be on everyone's lips.

There should be political leaders committing themselves very seriously to open government, and these leaders should work diligently every day to transform the present institutions into an open government. It is a daunting task, which, as explained by John F. Moore, "is not about technology, technology is simply the enabler". I think it is not that complicated, and it is primarily a question of transformational leadership, which is sorely lacking in Quebec. I wish that we identified and trained open government leaders in Quebec.

The effect of empowerment in an Open Government philosophy

The guru of customer service, John Tschohl, with his 38 years of experience, repeated a dozen times – making sure that his message would be heard – at last Sunday Gov20Radio show (January 16, 2011 ), that empowered business employees "generates quick decisions, saves time, reduces costs and boosts sales." He described what the effect of empowerment is on a business (or a government).

He also stressed the fact that for employees to gain empowerment in a business (or a government), they must be given more than a "one-day training every 6 years". John Tschohl said that a recurrent training program every four months was a guarantee of success. He described how to develop empowerment.

What effect empowerment has on citizens is not reflected in the discussions. Did you notice that we usually focus on government, when enumerating Open Government philosophy successes? But an Open Government is a partnership between a government and its citizens. There are two parties involved in a collaboration of equals, in a co-creator mode. What is usually not mentioned is the effect that empowerment has on citizens.

Since John Tschohl did not have the time to go into details about how empowerment works, and even more complicated, to explain where does empowerment come from, exploring subtle and complex mechanisms of the mind and of collective consciousness - to make a long story short -, he described that empowerment is both "attitude and skills."

Empowerment is, according to John Tschohl, both a behavior that is to be adopted, and abilities that are acquired with experience. Therefore, following a short training on empowerment would not be enough: one must change its behavior and ensure that empowerment becomes a "life style", said the guru John Tschohl.

EFFECT OF EMPOWERMENT
From the perspective of the mind, when a human being adopts empowerment and when this lets its personality shine, "the body organizes itself, the soul radiates, the mind shines, ideas become pervasive , brilliant, vibrant, accurate. Speech becomes positive, real, constructive. Business arranges itself and all things take their true aspect."(Baird T. Spalding, Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East)

That's why John Tschohl observed, during his long career, that empowerment produces rapid decision making, generates care from employees to customers, and most importantly, he said that empowerment makes the customers "happy." I listened to the Gov20Radio show again, to be sure that I heard this word. He actually used the word 'happy'.

This concept - happiness - it's the first I've heard about it in the Open Government sphere. I find it brings hope, and signals what could be accomplished in the future: a major shift could occur in our society. Does empowerment lead to happiness? Absolutely! I can explain this mechanism another time because it's a long story... But I insist on this point and ask you to remember it: put it carefully away in a drawer in your head, and keep it in mind.

Another important aspect of empowerment is that it changes people: it transforms their lives and ensures that their dreams (ideas) come true. "Consciousness must discover spirit in the mind before the desired thing can be formed. The enlightened being views the creative principle within and sees clearly. The enlightened being understands. This being sees the opportunity of a lifetime, and has vision of his possibilities. This being becomes aware of the open field before him. Knowing that the creative principle is inside, this being takes the desires of his heart, and they become an ideal, a mold that attracts power and substance to be filled. The dreams become reality." (Baird T. Spalding, Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East)

In light of these explanations, we can foresee that the more government employees and citizens master attitude and skills that lead to empowerment, the better for our societies.

The key to success in an Open Government?
Firstly - The message must arouse contagious emotions.
It is not just about data availability, but rather about the ability to get to the heart of the human experience. There must be passion for both government employees and citizens respectively so that they enjoy collaborating together.

Secondly - Empowerment must become accessible to all.