Re: systemic transformative e-governance

From a U.S. Legal perspective, it is a mistake to relegate "legal/regulatory" considerations only to the first (Planning) category...they pervade each of the other categories and may serve to bound the scope and scale of many of the individual topics. Indeed, such a formulation implies, at a minimum, a reassessment of ENTIRE legal framework(s)...This does not suggest NOT doing the exercise, but rather, the value of establishing criteria for prioritization, since some topics are more immediate, pervasive or controlling of others...and the value of incorporating explicit legal/policy expertise throughout the effort...
Michael Aisenberg, Esq.
MITRE
M.A.A. Sent from handheld

From: Paola Di Maio [mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 07:05 AM
To: Tomasz Janowski <tj@iist.unu.edu>
Cc: Holm, Jeanne M (1760) <jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov>; Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>; public-egov-ig@w3.org <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Subject: systemic transformative e-governance


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<mailto:tj@iist.unu.edu> | phone: +853 66652305<tel:%2B853%2066652305> | 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><mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com<mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com>>>
> Reply-To:
> <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com<mailto:paoladimaio10@googlemail.com><mailto: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><mailto:phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>>>
> Cc: <public-egov-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-egov-ig@w3.org><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><tel:%2B44%20%280%297887%20767755>
> @philarcher1