New data on co-production in Italian local governments

Last week the Italian Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) released new data on the use of ICT by local governments in 2018. The incredibly high number of respondents makes this survey almost a census. All regions and provinces are included, as well as 94% of all municipalities.

The survey includes a question on which factors had an influence on digital transformation. One factor is “user requests”, which implies that some processes of co-production and/or co-design of public services are in place.

Interestingly, municipalities seem to pay less attention to user requests compared to regional governments. Only 38% of public managers in municipalities think that user requests had been “very influential” or “quite influential” on the digitalization processes from 2016 to 2018. The same percentage is 72.7% in the case of regional governments.

While municipal governments are “closer to citizens” and the local level is often considered as ideal for engaging the public, regional governments might have had more resources than the average municipality for initiating co-production processes involving the final users.

In municipalities, co-production is the least important factor among all those listed in the question. In particular, 16.1% of municipalities had just ignored user requests from 2016 to 2018, considering them “not at all” important.

The factor that is deemed as the most influential is the need to comply with laws and regulations, which probably reflect Italian state tradition focused on the crucial role of administrative law. This factor is considered important in 84% of municipal governments.

The second most important factor among municipalities is the opportunity to follow the guidelines and instructions from the national agency for “digital Italy” (AGID) and the digital service team. 5.2% of municipalities consider national directives “very influential”, while 49.5% consider them “quite influential”. In regional governments, the “pressure” from national institutions seems stronger. 63.6% of regional administrations consider national directives “very influential”.

It would be interesting to find out whether local administrations that were influenced the most by the national digital service team were also those showing better digital performances. Several other questions in the dataset can be used to measure the levels of digitalization of internal processes and public services.

61.5% of municipalities highlight the need to reduce costs. In regional governments, this percentage is higher (77.3%).

Another factor considered is the “digital maturity of other administrations“. This factor can be connected to the phenomenon of institutional isomorphism, which encourages imitation among similar administrations. Only 5.2% of municipalities and 4.6% of regional governments consider it “very important”, while it is considered “quite important” by 34.2% of municipalities and 54.6% of regions.

Aggregated data can be download from the ISTAT website here (in Italian).

0 likes no responses

09/06/18 Open Policy , Research # Open Government Data, open government data ecosystem, policy networks, public policy

From closed data to open data ecosystems – stages of an evolution

A couple of days ago I was in beautiful Campidoglio – Rome Capital Hill and home to the Municipality – to discuss the best strategies to promote open government data use, based on the results of the EU projects Open4Citizens (now creating the European Network of OpenDataLabs).
The workshop was interesting as it put together different perspectives on open data in the process of being used – from information management to design, to art and culture to citizens rights. What I like about open data is that it is hard to trace the boundaries of it as a topic, especially when the data leave the premises of the government and finally “come to life” to become part of a much larger ecosystem.

Ecosystem was indeed one of the keywords of the day. An open data ecosystem is “an evolving, self-organizing system of feedback and adjustment among actors and processes” (ref), which should transform open data into an opportunity to increase government accountability and foster innovation.

The question was how to create new ecosystems to make the most of the data that the governments release.

While I totally agree that open data ecosystems often are not there and should be created, I also think that data ecosystems (‘closed’ data ecosystems), in many cases, have always been there. I think we should consider the evolution from a scenario when data were shared only within government and a selected number of external actors, to the ideal situation in which data are open, meaningful and accessible enough to be used by a large community of interested people.

In many instances, data ecosystems that are in place before the release of open data tell us many things about how new actors can be involved and how the relationships among existing actors may change. This is essential information for an open data policy.

Here I would like to show two stages of this evolution, with reference to open government data on public policy or public spending, used by citizens, NGOs, and local communities to hold their government accountable.

Stage 1 – Closed data

This is the stage when there is no open data portal or data available. This does not mean that the government just keep the data totally secret. Most of the times, government agencies collect the data for administrative purposes, and use it to plan public policies or services with the aim of being useful to the citizens. Highly detailed data are transmitted, for example, to public policy experts to design or evaluate the policies. Data are sent to the courts, official auditors, the parliament, or other levels of government with accountability purposes or to prevent corruption. Well, this is something everyone can expect from its government.

But data is also handed on to external actors, in different forms. Governments often have to respond to questions and demands from the media, which act as infomediaries and connect government information to the citizens. Journalists often receive data on policy results or controversial issues in an aggregate form and with an interpretation of the data that is sometimes difficult to challenge without the access to the original data. Media investigations are useful nonetheless to help policy makers do better.

Sometimes the policy mechanisms are good enough to include practices of participation that are open to representatives of civil society. While this is good, the risk that the representatives are chosen from the network of the “usual suspects” – experts of the specific policy domain and long-time friends of government institutions – is high. This is why the line between the citizens and the representatives of civil society is dotted in the figure.
Furthermore, civil society is given only a fraction of the data available, often in the form of aggregated figures.

Finally, researchers and external “evaluators” of public policies often get access to the data on projects and services that were funded. However, this a long and difficult process. You have to file a proper request. Important variables could be excluded from the extraction. Sometimes it is not even clear how to get the data – crucial information about the very existence and characteristic of the data is nowhere online.

Stage 2 – Open Data

In this ideal open data scenario, the open data providers publish high-quality and highly detailed information to all the interested parties. Citizens enjoy a direct access to the data and can use them without restrictions. Well, the limits are their capacity to understand and interpret them. Thanks to the data on public spending, for example, citizens have the opportunity to express a judgment on government projects or services, and to collaborate to make this spending more effective.

Infomediaries can be very useful not only to “translate” the data into visualizations and interesting stories – more accessible to people – but also, thanks to civic technology and civic media, to aggregate the citizen feedback on public policies and bring it to the attention of the policy makers in a way that is easier for them to interpret, integrate into existing information systems, and then act upon.

Also researchers are happy to get updated information and can provide better insights.

Stages of an evolution

In stage 1, data were already shared among a network of selected actors. The network was composed of both institutional entities from within government and external users. So there was indeed an ecosystem that had an influence on data design, ways of sharing it, and data quality.

Once the data are opened, the network from stage 1 is still there, but it is much bigger. In stage 2, it includes more actors with better information and stronger connections. Local communities, NGOs, students, and individual citizens can use highly detailed data that were previously accessible only to selected government experts. Infomediaries have the possibility to create new ways of crowdsourcing citizen feedback and play a more important role in steering public policies.

What happened in the transition from stage 1 to stage 2 is that the policy network of that public policy evolved from a closed network to a potentially more inclusive one.

0 likes one response

10/10/15 Research # gift culture, hacker culture, Open Source, Open Source Community, Power

Pfeffer, Power and the Open Source Community: writing software as a political process

Managing with Power by Jeffrey Pfeffer presents a very detailed and comprehensive analysis of power in all its different forms. The author painstakingly reviews numerous sources of power, strategies and tools to employ power effectively. The central message of his “clinical diagnosis of power” (p. 300) is that power is a necessary condition for action. In fact, even the most brilliant ideas require power to be developed, diffused, and executed.

The book, although deeply rooted in the literature, has been accused of cynicism. Many of the “heroes” presented as examples – prominent individuals, smart enough to get power and keep it, at least for a while – seem to perceive power as a zero-sum game. In this view, every means to get power can always be justified by the ultimate goal of “getting things done,” a mantra repeated many times throughout the book.

While this is probably true of the Machiavellian examples that Pfeffer included in the book, his relentless categorization of forms of power can also be read as a practical manual for the brilliant, honest member of an organization that just needs enough power for having his voice heard and make a change.

Indeed, the wide spectrum of categories of power represents a valid toolbox that can be applied to different situations and contexts. While the chapters of the book can be seen as different components or features of power to be activated or not depending on the specific case, the interaction between these elements is crucial to analyze real-life examples.

Here I would like to apply some of the most relevant elements of power to the case of the Open Source community, with the aim to show how Pfeffer’s points are valid even in a context that is sometimes perceived as unconditionally egalitarian, collaborative and open.

The Open Source community

Community is the key component of Open Source software (OSS) development. OSS is in fact based on the free access and redistribution of the underlying code, which each developer shares with the community of developers as a global collaborative effort towards the production of what was seen as a common [1].

Software developed as Open Source is widely adopted and its production model is so successful that some of the leading software companies in the world – including Microsoft – heavily invest in it. The model is based on a bottom-up structure, a non-coercive organization and a largely decentralized production [2]. OSS developers share a common culture (“hacker culture”) and ideology that, especially during the early days, has been called “Microsoft-phobia” [3]. This “alternative” view of software also derives from purely technical considerations, as commercial software is perceived as not totally reliable, and is consistent with the principles of self-production and user-driven innovation [4].

Entering the Community: Power Diagnosis and Allies

According to Pfeffer, the first step to get power is to diagnose “the relative power of the various participants and comprehend the patterns of interdependence” (p. 49). It’s important to define the relevant political sub-units, the existing social ties and reputational and representational indicators of each individual. Bergquist and Ljungberg [5] studied the case of a newbie (an inexperienced newcomer to OSS development) that wishes to enter the OSS community. They highlight the importance of studying the existing social interrelation and networks as well as community norms and values (p. 312).

In particular, to establish a sense of loyalty to the community, a newbie should understand the power relations in order to make allies. As Pfeffer points out, making allies is a crucial strategy to get power. Allies can be acquired thanks to obligations and favors. In the OSS community, the whole game is based on the “mutual interchange where one gift is given to another,” and a sort of interdependence is created between the giver and the receiver [5]. A complex network of givers and receivers then forms, in which the relations can be one-to-one but also one-to-many. The search for allies takes place on the Internet through the shared on line tools of communication. There, conversations are not only public but also private, with gathering of alliances mainly through private conversations, followed by an alignment of the arguments in the public forum [6].

Reputation, Performance and Formal Authority

In “Managing with Power,” Pfeffer points out that formal authority, reputation and performance represent a key source of power and are interrelated.

Reputation, in terms of peer-recognition and prestige, is one the main driving factors that motivates OSS developers to work and share their products with the community [7]. In the first place, reputation derives essentially from performance. The quantity and quality of the code produced are easily recognizable thanks to the shared on line tools of production (such as the platform GitHub), as a signal of the quality of the individual programmer [2]. As Pfeffer highlights, this is a quite rare case in which performance can be measured in a quantitative way.

Once a developer obtains enough reputation, he also gets some sort of formal authority within a specific project through direct invitation. Sack, Détienne [8] studied the existing hierarchies among Python developers. Members’ levels span from the newbies at the bottom of the pyramid to Guido Van Rossum, the developer who founded the project Python.

Figure 1 – Sociotechnical stratification of roles in the Python project

pyramid

Source: Sack et al. (2006)

Pfeffer maintains that formal authority “confers control over certain resources and the ability to take certain implied or specified actions.” In fact, high-level members of the OSS community have the power to control crucial resources.
First, they control the source code. In the case of the Python project, although the source code is stored in CVS files that can be read by any member, the write privileges are given only to a subset of developers, with evident asymmetries in power relations [5]. Second, high-level members of the community can monitor and sanction members behavior. For example, they can “ban” or “mute” a member due to “flaming discussions” or “trolling” [9]. Third, even though the discussion on software development is open to anyone, Sack, Détienne [8] found that some members – especially those with formal authority – can influence the discussions on specific topics and so have an impact on the decisions on product development. The sequence of public messages in the Python forum and the links between them suggested that influencing people can deviate the course of a discussion and focus on specific arguments and line of work.

Location in the Communication Networks

“Managing with Power” includes a chapter on the role of communication networks and the individual position in the communication structure. According to Pfeffer, “People who are well placed in the communication network also tend to be central players in terms of power and influence.” Information and knowledge are therefore crucial sources of power, deriving, among other things, from social relations and connections.

In particular, network centrality can measure the degree of influence that an individual can exert over the structured tasks of a project. In the case of Python, Ducheneaut [10] looked at the evolution of the network position of the developer “Fred” from January to October 2002.

Figure 2 – Developer “Fred” position in the communication network of a Python project

Source: Ducheneaut (2005)

Fred is presented as a case of “successful socialization,” since he could manage to gain a central position in a specific project within the Python community in less than a year. At the beginning, although he has a strong background in Phython development deriving from professional experience in a software company, Fred does not know how the community works and starts asking questions. Then “By making connections with some of the project’s participants, Fred is trying to make the structure of this network more visible to himself […] discovering in the process which parts of the network relate to his work” [10]. Once he gets the reputation of a good “bug fixer,” his role in the communication network is more and more crucial as other members join the project. In October 2002, he has definitively acquired enough power to influence the group decisions as soon as Fred’s proposal to introduce a new software module is approved by the community.

In conclusion, the case of the OSS community shows that power dynamics matters in a context that sometimes is seen as the panacea of distributed collaboration. According to Bergquist and Ljungberg [5], “One easily gets the impression that the sharing of gifts in online communities creates a very friendly and altruistic atmosphere. And indeed it does, to some extent. But it does not mean that social stratification and struggles over power cease to exist.” In fact, developing software is inherently a political process.

Benkler, Y., Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and “The Nature of the Firm”. The Yale Law Journal, 2002. 112(3): p. 369-446.
Bonaccorsi, A. and C. Rossi, Why open source software can succeed. Research policy, 2003. 32(7): p. 1243-1258.
Dalle, J.-M. and N. Jullien, Windows vs. Linux: some explorations into the economics of Free Software. Advances in Complex Systems, 2000. 3(01n04): p. 399-416.
Von Hippel, E.A., Democratizing innovation. 2005: MIT Press.
Bergquist, M. and J. Ljungberg, The power of gifts: organizing social relationships in open source communities. Information Systems Journal, 2001. 11(4): p. 305-320.
Divitini, M., et al. Open source processes: no place for politics. in Proceedings of ICSE 2003 workshop on Open source. 2003.
Greiner, M.E. Leadership behavior in virtual communities. in Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the Southern Association for Information Systems. 2004. Citeseer.
Sack, W., et al., A methodological framework for socio-cognitive analyses of collaborative design of open source software. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 2006. 15(2-3): p. 229-250.
Markus, M.L., B. Manville, and C.E. Agres, What makes a virtual organization work: Lessons from the open-source world. Image, 2014.
Ducheneaut, N., Socialization in an open source software community: A socio-technical analysis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 2005. 14(4): p. 323-368.

Photo by Igal Koshevoy

0 likes no responses

1 2 3 4 Next

Research