W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > April 2012

Re: systemic transformative e-governance

From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:24:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMXe=Spi5X0rbRA0+7vUGYz7X3wg2usWX50mfwwtRG-1goz-7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Dev <krisdev@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-egov-ig@w3.org" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Kris

Thanks for sharing your grand e-Gov world domination vision :-).

As you have noted, any ideal grand plan needs to take into account the
extremely tough,  and sad perhaps, reality of a world enveloped in networks
of incompetence and corruption.


> An e-Platform was developed using open source tools for adoption by a few
> organizations on a trial basis. It met with partial success. But there was
> resistance to change particularly transparency and accountability. This can
> be overcome by motivation, education, wide spread adoption and suitable
> laws.
>
> More details of the e-Administration Tool and its implementation can be
> shared if anyone is interested.
>
>
I would be interested in learning more about the tool, as well as about the
story of the 'partial success',   Can your experience help the community
identify barriers to change, and strategies to overcome the barriers?

I'd like to start a library of case studies in e-Gov
contributed by members,

PDM







> Kris Dev
> ICT & e-Gov Consultant
> Life Line to Business
> http://ll2b.blogspot.com
> India.
>
>
> On 25 April 2012 16:35, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Tomasz
>>
>> Let me share a thought on your plan below under a separate thread.  I
>> research e-governance in relation to 'systemic solutions', and I am glad
>> the issues /themes have been identified as you write below.
>>
>> However
>>
>> If we agree that  e-governance  (participatory practice) should transform
>> traditional governance (elite vs everyone else), and not just parrot and
>> reinforce the classical weaknesses of traditional governance (self serving,
>> corruption prone, unsustainable)
>>
>> then
>> we need to work on how all these dimensions
>> that you tend to 'separate', as a whole.
>>
>> From a systemic transformative solution viewpoint, it is important to
>> actually capture  the interplay of these separate dimensions, how they
>> influence and interact with each other
>>
>> Planning
>> Design
>> Implementation
>> Operation
>> Sustainability
>>
>> need to be tackled in relation to each other,  and applied to
>> the governance of our institutions and working organisations
>> (universities, governments etc)
>>
>> otherwise
>> they may continue to remain dysfunctional, disconnected
>> areas of speculative theory
>>
>> how do we do that?
>>
>>
>> P
>>
>>>
>>> 1. EGOV Planning - law and regulations, strategy development, strategy
>>> alignment, funding arrangements, readiness assessment, policy
>>> development, action plans, partner management, stakeholder,
>>> leadership, coordination, etc.
>>>
>>> 2. EGOV Design - interoperability, enterprise architecture, standards
>>> and best practices, agency collaboration, information-sharing,
>>> one-stop government, connected governance, agile government,
>>> multi-channel delivery, innovation systems, etc.
>>>
>>> 3. EGOV Implementation - acquisition, procurement, technical
>>> infrastructure, electronic public services, service middleware,
>>> services and applications, negotiation and contracts, new technology
>>> adoption, project management, program management, organizational
>>> change, etc.
>>>
>>> 4. EGOV Operation - Service agreements, monitoring, software
>>> maintenance, adoption and scale-up, access and accessibility, digital
>>> content, digital rights, digital divide, benefit management, risk
>>> management, performance management, etc.
>>>
>>> 5. EGOV Sustainability - measurement, monitoring and evaluation,
>>> knowledge management, capacity building, institutionalization, etc.
>>>
>>> We also discussed the principle of separating the issue of EGOV
>>> mechanics (HOW), covered by the policy cycle, from the EGOV value
>>> proposition (WHY). While the mechanics is more amendable to
>>> standardization and packaging into best practices and (perhaps?) more
>>> stable, the value proposition has to be generally worked out and owned
>>> locally, and subject to continued policy alignment. So, following the
>>> policy cycle, the discussion could focus on the value proposition and
>>> what benefits different countries can actually achieve through EGOV,
>>> against their policy objectives, and what they can learn from each
>>> other as they pursue their policy objectives through EGOV.
>>>
>>> Finally, the discussion could focus on the nature, definition and
>>> conceptualization of EGOV - the WHAT dimension. I would rather deal
>>> with fundamental questions after dealing with the mechanics (HOW) and
>>> value proposition (WHY); we should be then in a better position to do
>>> so rather than putting definitions and conceptualizations up-front.
>>>
>>> As a concrete implementation of these ideas, we could devote each
>>> monthly meeting to one stage in the policy cycle, before moving on to
>>> country experiences in different regions of the world, before finally
>>> tackling the fundamental questions. It would be also good to see how
>>> this discussion could lead to the publication of technical notes to
>>> document the progress made, including updates to the document
>>> "Improving Access to Government through Better Use of the Web"
>>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-egov-improving-20090512/). A year
>>> worth of productive discussions :-)!
>>>
>>> I welcome your comments and feedback on these ideas.
>>>
>>> Many regards,
>>>
>>> Tomasz
>>>
>>> ------------
>>> Dr. Tomasz Janowski
>>> Senior Research Fellow, UNU-IIST
>>> Head, UNU-IIST Center for Electronic Governance
>>> Associate Editor, Government Information Quarterly
>>> Co-Chair, e-Government Interest Group, World Wide Web Consortium
>>> Coordinator, ICEGOV Conference Series
>>> www:   http://unu.edu/faculty/tomasz-janowski
>>> email: tj@iist.unu.edu | phone: +853 66652305 | skype: tomaszjanowski
>>>
>>> > Paola--
>>>
>>> > Thanks for your contributions!
>>>
>>> > We did have a series of calls and IRC chats late last year and a
>>> > face to face meeting at the W3C TPAC.  Virtual attendance was also
>>> > provided at that meeting.  It was there that we, as a group, came up
>>> > with the ideas around the outline you saw at the beginning of the
>>> > year.  The group came up with topics that they wanted to discuss in
>>> > more detail, and from which we might develop some tasks and activities.
>>>
>>> > Content contributions can be brought in many ways: attending the
>>> > meetings (virtual or face to face), responding during the IRC,
>>> > sending messages to the list serve, contributing to the wiki at
>>> > http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki/Main_Page  We also have a LinkedIn group
>>> > for convenience, where people can also post ideas (W3C eGovernment
>>> > Interest Group at
>>> > http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1800648&trk=anet_ug_hm )
>>>
>>> > With Tomasz just being announced as co-chair, it's probably a great
>>> > time to be sure we are still in synch with the group.  Welcome to
>>> hearing your ideas!
>>>
>>> > --Jeanne
>>>
>>> > **********************************************************
>>> > Jeanne Holm
>>> > Evangelist, Data.gov
>>> > U.S. General Services Administration
>>> > Cell: (818) 434-5037
>>> > Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn: JeanneHolm
>>> > **********************************************************
>>>
>>> > From: Paola Di Maio
>>> > <paola.dimaio@gmail.com<mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com>>
>>> > Reply-To:
>>> > <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com<mailto:paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>>
>>> > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:19:12 +0100
>>> > To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>>
>>> > Cc: <public-egov-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-egov-ig@w3.org>>
>>> > Subject: Re: whats the plan then?
>>> > Resent-From: <public-egov-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-egov-ig@w3.org>>
>>> > Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:19:43 +0000
>>>
>>> > Phil
>>>
>>> > thanks for reply
>>>
>>> > I may not have welcomed/ congratulateD Tomasz on joining the team,
>>> > let me take the opportunity. (welcome Tomasz)
>>>
>>> > However I 'd to understand (urgently) , if this workgroup adopts a
>>> participatory practice, or not
>>>
>>> > if it does, it is not up to you nor to Tomasz to
>>> > make the roadmap, but up to each list member
>>> > If a list member does not contribute their ideas /opinions, or have
>>> > really nothing to say ever, I wonder why they have joined.
>>>
>>> > If the governance of this workgroup is by selected committee
>>> > (another elite?), then maybe this - at this stage -  is not  yet a
>>> > community of  self directed leaders I am hoping for :-)
>>>
>>> > I would like each member to contribute to the roadmap, and to hear
>>> > everybody's voice and opinion on every single issue, because now we
>>> > have the technology to do so.  Members who do not have anything to
>>> > say ever on anything are lurkers, not members,(imho)
>>>
>>> >  That's the e-governance I have in mind and I am interested in helping
>>> co-create......
>>>
>>> > Let me know if I should put my energies elsewhere :-)
>>>
>>> > P
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Phil Archer
>>> > <phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>> wrote:
>>> > Paola,
>>>
>>> > Thanks for this timely message. As I hope you will have seen, the
>>> > group has a new co-chair, Tomasz Janowski, who will be working with
>>> > Jeanne, Sandro and I on this group. We are all aware of the need to
>>> > set out a rejuvenated roadmap - it's coming, and soon.
>>>
>>> > Phil.
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 24/04/2012 18:07, Paola Di Maio wrote:
>>> > Greetings, E-Gov SIG
>>>
>>> > I am reviewing my ability to make useful contributions to various
>>> > communities
>>> > for the next semester, as I am travelling a lot, I find it difficult
>>> > to attend conference calls . Apologies for not being more active.
>>> >  (pulling own ears)
>>>
>>> > I remain however interested in the topic, and realise I am not
>>> > sure who is on this group, and what are the goals of the memebers,
>>> > involvement with e-gov
>>> > and what can we learn from each other
>>>
>>> > Apologies if I have missed out on something
>>>
>>> > Can someone remind  please
>>>
>>> > where is the wiki where people can enter their
>>> contributions/suggestions
>>> > for talks/projects, our shared -participative agenda so to speak?
>>>
>>> > would it be a good idea if each group member (willing to do so) to
>>> > give a short talk  in forthcoming months (also just a few asynchronous
>>> > slides) to introduce themselves
>>> > what do they do and what do they would like to achieve with the
>>> > participation
>>> > in this community, so that we share some knowledge and learn from each
>>> > other?
>>>
>>> > I am working on distributed decision making processes for governance
>>> and
>>> > policy
>>> > and would be glad to know if there is anyone around with similar
>>> interests,
>>> > for example
>>> > s
>>>
>>> > Cheers
>>>
>>> > PDM
>>>
>>>
>>> > --
>>>
>>>
>>> > Phil Archer
>>> > W3C eGovernment
>>> > http://www.w3.org/egov/
>>>
>>> > http://philarcher.org
>>> > +44 (0)7887 767755<tel:%2B44%20%280%297887%20767755>
>>> > @philarcher1
>>>
>>>
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 10:24:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 10:24:44 GMT