Policy-making 2.0: a refined model

I previously blogged about how I see use cases of gov2.0. I long tried to link gov20 to the policy-making cycle and this is somehow the most refined model I got to.

The central circle is the policy making cycle. The middle circle are the typical tasks of policy-making related to each phase of the cycle. The external circles are the tools to be used.

I would love your feedback. Hey I know it’s ugly! The original ppt is here in case you can make it better.

@alorza: I am sure you can make another OJO out of this!

Policy-making 2.0: a refined model

15 thoughts on “Policy-making 2.0: a refined model

  1. Osimod, I very much like the idea you formulated here… However, for it to really work for me, i’d like to see another layer.

    The layer or circle that’s missing, is the ‘making sense’ circle. By that i mean that Ethernet for drafting proposals, is totally inefficiënt if all the trolls of the world can also join. Monitoring execution through Open Data becomes hard if there are no tools available to do data analysis, Evidence collection is unfeasable if there are no ‘voting mechanism’ or other filtering algorithms to find the diamonds in the rough. Open discussion on blogs and twitter? That’s a godwin waiting to happen.

    I am a very fanatical believer in progress through e-government services, and i am especially enthousiastic about Open Data and participation. But i also know that policy makers hate it, when people make a mockery of a perfectly good argument because “all civil servants are lazy” or “It’s my money so i’ll tell you what to do”.

    In real life (not online) we have distanced government and citizens from one another to overcome this problem. This way, people complain in private and ignore government in public. I think this distance creates many challenges, especially in finding solutions that have clout in the real world, and not just in the strangely abstract world of government. That being said, i feel there should be a way to ‘protect’ the value the lies in good exchange, and punish or weed out the clutter that comes with it. You might call it a filtering problem, or a noise problem, or whatever.

    Fact is, that the tools in the current outer circle would work to solve the problem, but they would create other problems (noise/filtering). Thus, i believe that we need voting systems (a form of social filtering), systems that visualize arguments (to create better discussions), systems that interact on behalve of the government (to allow 1-1 communication) etc. etc… Maybe you should think about it.

    Unfortunately, i don’t know many names of tools that do stuff like this, but i am more then happy to share a skype call. Keep up the good work!

  2. Thanks tom, it is a very important point you make.
    There are different tools to help making sense of the noise, although i agree they are far from mature.

    in general, from a practical point of view, I see the following option:
    – do no filter, and try to read/answer as much as you can
    – use human filtering: consultant/animators that highlight interesting information. This is less stupid than it seems.
    – rely on users filtering: this is unlikely to identify the gems, but is a sensible initial strategy if you are a government. gModerator and Uservoice do that. But it tends to focus on popular issues.
    – visualization: it’s a broad term but it’s true that soem visualisation dramatically augment the capacity for understanding. This can be as brutal as a wordcloud.
    – follow the social graph: looking at the hubs and the influencers
    – text mining: still immature and costly, but used in high-profile solutions such as IBM innovation jam.

    At the end of the day, I think the information overload/filter failure discussion is missing the main point: facilitate discovery. And the most insightful comment on this is this http://cameronneylon.net/blog/it%E2%80%99s-not-information-overload-nor-is-it-filter-failure-it%E2%80%99s-a-discovery-deficit/

    Thanks again and look forward to keep up the conversation.

  3. David, I must confess that I was feeling too lazy to answer something more clever than “I love this picture”. In fact, I love this picture.:-)

    Tom has raised the main problem faced by this model, but I don´t like too much the solutions he suggests. Voting systems often lead to paradoxical and unpredictable effects.

    I agree that “another layer is missing”. Probably it won’t be a layer with two or three general concepts, but “making sense devices” for every task of policy-making.

    At the other hand, I don`t feel very comfortable with the position of “open data”. I see Open Government Data as raw stuff for collaborative action -ok, is also useful for monitor execution.

    So, I’ll have to find time and energy for collaborating in this model. It is well worth!

    1. Hi Alorza, yes this is a simplification so it only attributes one tool to one phase. This is why open data features only in monitoring, because there’s where I think it has the most impact. But in reality this should be a table that shows how each tool is used in each policy-making phase.
      Alternatively, why don’t you create a similar model but only for open data. You could show how open data is used in each phase, adding example from your or others’ experience

  4. F) and they offer a thermal energy storage facility between -114.
    If you want to avoid the internal damages, you can surely opt for the
    first option that is to hire auto transport company.

    Hence it is always better to do some research and try to get as much information as
    possible for auto shipping.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s