Re: systemic transformative e-governance

Thank you Michael

Glat you spotted another key connection that needs to be made,surely if we
sit back and relax we can find many more

thats why we often come out of  brainstorms highly charged and inspired
(read: startled), with incredibly messy sketches, certain of having
discovered new meaningful dimensions but unsure what to do next

one of the challenges that we face is
how to represent and organise our knowledge,plans and activities to
meaningfully reflect
the importance of the interplay and the interconnecting space (the
betweeness?) among all the key issues,  only looking at some here-

I think most people nowadays accept that 'everything is related  to and
dependent from everything else, at least to some degree'

but how to go about it? how to reflect this vision
in our projects and operations? especially
how to appear coherent and not totally irrational  to the flat and linearly
minded which still get charged of administering budget and society?

further suggestions welcome


PDM


On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Aisenberg, Michael A. <maisenberg@mitre.org
> wrote:

>  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 | 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
>>
>>
>