tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25950462143050514882024-03-14T06:27:00.434+00:00SpherelessWhat is it to be "the public" in a digital world?Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-9169854596535699942013-06-19T17:05:00.002+01:002013-06-19T17:05:35.082+01:00How Management Ratonale fails at IT (and what to do instead)<div class="tr_bq">
Apparently <a href="http://cio.governmentcomputing.com/news/almost-70-of-met-polices-technology-platforms-obsolete" target="_blank">70% of the Met Police's IT systems are obsolete</a>, and it takes people half an hour to log in. But can the sustained, ongoing perspective of driving up "efficiency" by driving down costs bring a solution about? What does this quote, from the Chair of the Budget and Performance Committee, really <i>mean</i>:</div>
<blockquote>
The Met cannot afford to go on like this. Its forthcoming strategy must address these problems while focusing on the potential that new technology offers, to drive down costs while increasing productivity and boosting public confidence.</blockquote>
As an engineer, it feels like none of these are particularly good <i>primary</i> reasons to improve the performance of a system.<br />
<br />
For a start, <i>potential</i> is always around us, as the very nature of technology and progress. Making things <i>worse</i> is generally only done as an experiment in failure, in order to learn. Not as an end in itself. So duh, citing potential doesn't really mean much.<br />
<br />
"Driving down costs", "Increasing productivity" and "Boosting confidence" - aren't these all just the effect of technology on other domains? As an engineer, there is no <i>inherent</i> economic value of making something "better" - but others may (and will) apply translations to turn change into measurement. Time is money, sure, but engineers focusing on saving money are not doing an engineering job.<br />
<br />
Similarly, you wouldn't get a very useful system if you started out with "public confidence" as a primary use case.<br />
<br />
So what <i>does</i> make a good rationale for planning an IT system? How can we bring about useful change without getting sidetracked into secondary effects? What model of management might encourage and reinforce this?<br />
<br />
<h4>
Sword and Shield</h4>
<br />
From a client-facing engineer's perspective, there are two key <i>processes</i>/<i>perspectives</i> needed, if engineering is to be a success. I'd say these are true of any engineering task, or project.<br />
<br />
The first is having a <b>clear goal</b> - and if not, then deliberately specifying resources as <b>experimental</b>. Knowing what you want to achieve is the first key to getting a system running. Without this, how you get there becomes confused. As above, this needs to be a <i>practical</i> goal, not an abstract side effect. "Save me money" is not a technical goal. Nor is "Fix this problem". Users taking half an hour to log in is not a system problem, but just <i>the way the system runs right now.</i> It's only a problem if you're in a hurry.<br />
<br />
The second is <b>puzzle solving ability</b>. If you're in a pickle, then you need a way to work out a solution, rather than wandering blindly around hoping for a solution based on luck. Puzzle solving is lacking in a world full of politics and plans. But without it, any attempt to change the system is worthless - even dangerous.<br />
<br />
Problem solving is about <i>analysing</i> the system, and working out <u><i>why</i></u> it's doing what it's doing. It's about understanding, rather than wishful thinking. In fact, it's the opposite of wishful thinking. There are no wishes - and once you understand what's going on, there's not much thinking to do either.<br />
<br />
<b>Management as Spies</b><br />
<br />
It seems amazing that management love plans, dashboards and reviews in order to find out what their <i>people</i> are doing. But have little in the way of understanding what the <i>system that's being built</i> by those people is doing. This is like an army general sending spies into their own camps to root out dissent, rather than finding out what the forces across the river are intending.<br />
<br />
If management want to really improve productivity and cut costs etc etc, then it's not just a long term IT strategy they need, but a long term <i>puzzle solving</i> strategy. Costs are always relative, to both short and long term. Finding a solution that works isn't based on numbers though.<br />
<br />
Tackling 400+ systems is an insane task, ie. it would send anyone insane. And having a crazy general leading you is fair grounds for becoming a Conscientous Objector. Any management looking to make real, sustainable changes needs to a) know what its "battles" are - ie. use the puzzle solving aspect to figure out just what the key problems affecting work are, and b) wield <i>wisdom</i> in choosing which battles to pick first - ie. which clear goals are the most important.<br />
<br />
The second of these might well be based on other needs - deadlines, cash flow, etc. But in identifying such battles, one needs to be careful not to confuse needs with engineering process (that is, the two should be separate), and secondly to be clear on<i> </i>where that needs come from, to avoid confusion in the future (or during the work to unpick it).<br />
<br />
Everything else will probably fail.Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-69291067715364390762013-05-08T13:06:00.002+01:002013-05-08T13:06:52.186+01:00"BBAs" et al: Do policy buzzwords attract or filter people?I tweeted this after the recent elections:<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Having a hard time taking elections seriously.<br />
— Scribe (@6loss) <a href="https://twitter.com/6loss/status/330255929553584128">May 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
Now I'm reading <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/better-bus-areas-and-bsog-reform-conference" target="_blank">this speech on bus subsidy reform</a>, and just realising why it's so hard to get my head into elections - or a lot of "reform" and "policy".<br />
<br />
"Better Bus Areas". "Portas Pilots". "Big Society". "Pasty Tax". Oh God, the list of <strike>buzzwords</strike> uh, I mean <strike>hypewagons</strike>, uh I mean "policies" just goes on and on.<br />
<br />
Democracy - or rather democratic <i>discourse </i>(which is a different thing, but includes speeches, media coverage, and general efforts to increase <i>enthusiasm</i>) - has become a boring hamster-wheel of phrases and symbols.<br />
<br />
Taking a lead from the private sector, it feels like politicians are wont to sell society in more ways than one - not only in the practical terms of outsourcing, but also (and perhaps more irritatingly and dangerously) with regard to how <strike>customers</strike> citizens <strike>buy into</strike> engage with the process.<br />
<br />
Yes, there's some kind of thought-process going on behing all of these, some kind of "actual" attempt to solve the real-world problems we do need to address. I appreciate that, really.<br />
<br />
But by the time this thought-process has become a "programme", it's been so tarred with political context, existing decisions, and PR "acceptance" efforts ("<i>What's the hashtag for this new policy?</i>") that engaging is about as engaging as a Microsoft sales chat. (And sure, some people like that. Some people enjoy politics too.)<br />
<br />
The interesting aspect of this is whether such a technique is to <i>entice</i> people in with a brushing of faux-simplicity, or to <i>discourage</i> them, leaving the nitty-gritty to people with the time and background to understand the real talk and consequence behind the symbols.<br />
<br />
Should policy be a user-friendly, read-it-on-the-loo affair? Or an academic, know-what-you're-talking-about conversation? Both have advantages.<br />
<br />
Maybe I'll just carry on grumbling when the price of a single bus ticket goes up again.Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-59427178935908740162013-03-17T10:38:00.000+00:002013-03-17T10:54:56.439+00:00UKGC13: Together we have the tools and guts to kill off antiquated democraciesThis year's <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://www.ukgovcamp.com/%E2%80%9C" target="“_blank”">UKGovCamp</a> was a week ago, but Kids and Side Projects have made it difficult to write it up. Here goes though.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://yfrog.com/obkg3ehmj:iphone" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://yfrog.com/obkg3ehmj:iphone" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I semi-deliberately didn't stand up to pitch a session this year - partly because I was coming out of a too-busy fortnight, and partly I wanted to spend this year worrying less about running a session, and listening more to what people wanted to talk about; over the years, govcamp has taken on a bit of a “zeitgeist” role for me, offering a chance to gauge the ongoing mood.
<br />
<br />
I think not pitching was actually a good decision - this year's event seemed (to me; YMMV) to be a bit less all over the shop, ideas-wise. Several main threads ended up stringing the day together, which I'll go through below.
<br />
<br />
For ref, the sessions I wandered into (ripped from the sweet <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://www.ukgovcamp.com/sessions/%E2%80%9C" target="“_blank”">Google Spreadsheet</a>) were:
<br />
<ol>
<li>Identity in general & philosophical + Managing personas and identities in personal and civi spaces, with <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://twitter.com/curiousc%E2%80%9D" target="“_blank”">@curiousc</a> and <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://twitter.com/pubstrat%E2%80%9D" target="“_blank”">@pubstrat</a></li>
<li>Open data in 5 years time + structure in open data community, with <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://twitter.com/jenit%E2%80%9D" target="“_blank”">@jenit</a> and <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://twitter.com/hadleybeeman%E2%80%9D" target="“_blank”">@hadeybeeman</a></li>
<li>Real, grass roots collaboration, with <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://twitter.com/shortblue%E2%80%9D" target="“_blank”">@shortblue</a></li>
<li>Open data skills in communities + taking council information out into communities, with <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://twitter.com/podnosh%E2%80%9D" target="“_blank”">@podnosh</a> and <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://twitter.com/tiffanystjames%E2%80%9D" target="“_blank”">@tiffanystjames</a></li>
<li>Open Government and the National Action plan, with <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://twitter.com/timdavies%E2%80%9D" target="“_blank”">@timdavies</a></li>
</ol>
Notes on each session are <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttps://www.evernote.com/pub/exmosis/ukgc13#b=7454e4eb-40bf-48aa-b021-bac4d2467beb&st=p&n=575e9143-4b9c-4c12-bb60-339b64551110”" target="“_blank”">gradually going up here</a>.
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/aljackson/8541878600/" title="Empty schedule by alexljackson, on Flickr"><img alt="Empty schedule" height="213" src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8371/8541878600_b17e9c9313_n.jpg" width="320" /></a>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">(<a href="https://secure.flickr.com/photos/aljackson/8541878600/" target="_blank">photo by alexljackson</a>)</span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
More than once it felt like the same conversation was taking place in more than one room at a time. As I said, several (really importantt) threads seemed to emerge as being stronger and differenter:<br />
<br />
<h3>
1. Open Data and Social Meda are converging</h3>
<br />
Gone are the days where it feels like “tech” types are in one set of rooms, and “social” types in another. Or maybe that was just me. But it’s often felt like sessions have fallen either into a “how to do conversation” camp, or “how to do tech” one.
<br />
<br />
This year, the two camps felt closer, like an estranged couple gradually getting to know each other again after being separated. At one point, I found myself - <em>without shame</em> using data and statistical models as an analogy for individual identity. And the idea of "personal data" (energy efficiency, money saved, etc) makes it even harder to separate figures from debate. Are we at a point where “the network” is becoming less niche about specialist subjects?
<br />
<br />
I can't work out if geeks are actually cool yet though.<br />
<br />
<h3>
2. Democracy is killing openness</h3>
<br />
A biggie this one, even worth a separate post. The discussion in the “Grass Roots
Collaboration" session was small but fascinating, and delved into the contrast between how the private sector deal with failure, in comparison to the public sector, and what the latter could learn perhaps.
<br />
<br />
In fact, the theme of failure was <em>the</em> main thread running through the day for me, from <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://www.socialsimulator.com/%E2%80%9C" target="“_blank”">social media crisis</a> to how to
spin <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://data.gov.uk/blog/open-data-case-studies%E2%80%9D" target="“_blank”">Open Data case studies</a>. And in particular, how failure interacts with democratic process, and vice versa. “Democracy”, often shied away from for being too big a target (too big to fail?), was really the elephant in the room(s).
<br />
<br />
Can it be a coincidence that “private” companies are often likely to say sorry for public cock-ups, while supposedly-transparent “public” bodies
go to great lengths to sweep such events under the rug? Maybe (like yin and yang creating each other) closed groups tend towards (selective) openness, while open groups tend towards (selective) secrecy.
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/aljackson/8541458589/" title="@adewunmi by alexljackson, on Flickr"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /><img alt="@adewunmi" height="213" src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8391/8541458589_b012a8ec9d_n.jpg" width="320" /></a> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">(<a href="https://secure.flickr.com/photos/aljackson/8541458589/" target="_blank">photo by alexljackson</a>)</span></i></div>
<br />
<br />
Which is basically to say, no wonder the "Open policy-making" / Gov 2.0 movement is an uphill struggle. No wonder that ideas of genuinely open debate or technology get spun into poor, PR-driven facsimiles. Right now, Democracy, in its Representative and Accountable form, is all about hiding failure instead of learning from it.
<br />
<br />
On the Open Data front (which is probably my <a href="http://sphereless.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/open%20data" target="“_blank”">main interest</a>, it's telling - and, yes,
extremely encouraging - that the debate at govcamp has moved on from choosing data and getting it in machine-readable formats, to how to embed date into debate, decision-making, and the wider world.
<br />
<br />
Coming back to theme 1 above, we are no longer having 'technical" discussions about what web services to use. We are talking about how to adapt to existing democratic processes.
<br />
<br />
Or if that doesn't cut it, how to change democracy itself.<br />
<br />
<h3>
3. Govcamp Got Guts</h3>
<br />
... which is where I waffle on about how, like every year, govcamp was unexpectedly not what I was expecting and how full of enthusiasm and renewed vigour I am again etc. (And also mention <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://www.podnosh.com/%E2%80%9C" target="“_blank”">Podnosh</a> and <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://www.delib.co.uk/%E2%80%9C" target="“_blank”">Delib</a> (and all the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://www.ukgovcamp.com/#involved”" target="“_blank”">other sponsors</a>) for the awesome free bar. Please do go and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCxEWPLDg5c" target="_blank">listen to some Neutral Milk Hotel</a>.)<br />
<br />
But unlike previous years, the fallout seemed more... "constructive" this time. Maybe it's an effect of a post-recession economy, some <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/category/gds/%E2%80%9C" target="“_blank”">inspiring central government work</a>, the election
cycle, Ant n Dec, or <em>those</em> mice.
<br />
<br />
But maybe it's finally enough years of everyone asking "so what (now)?" afterwards. Maybe it was <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttps://twitter.com/IBMCCLon%E2%80%9D" target="“_blank”">IBM's</a> pop-up plug-points and sci-fi projector screens, or the snazzy T- shirts, or the return to a one-day format, or the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttp://www.ukgovcamp.com/sessions/%E2%80%9C" target="“_blank”">electronic session list</a> or those <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttps://secure.flickr.com/photos/aljackson/8542243046/%E2%80%9C" target="“_blank”">Bytemark mugs with Your Name on</a>.
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/highgateharridan/8545206475/" title="A bit of guerrilla feminism at IBM by sharonodea, on Flickr"><img alt="A bit of guerrilla feminism at IBM" height="240" src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8245/8545206475_9d36778855_n.jpg" width="320" /></a>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">(<a href="https://secure.flickr.com/photos/highgateharridan/8545206475/" target="_blank">photo by sharonodea</a>)</span></i></div>
<br />
I’m not the only one. Do go and read <a href="http://ashinyworld.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/uk-gov-camp-2013.html" target="“_blank”">this post from LouLouK</a> too, where she writes:
<br />
<br />
<em>“Are you happy sitting in a room, being brilliant [but] never letting anyone else actually benefit from that brilliance, or are you going to stick your head above the parapet?”</em>
<br />
<em><br /></em>
Whatever it was, it feels like the ideas and debates at govcamp now have much heavier implications outside its gathering. I wonder if what people saw, heard and discussed made them feel more able to challenge the status quo, at a time when new questions, new answers, and fundamentally new ways of doing "government" are correctly needed.
<br />
<br />
Maybe we’ll find out next year.<br />
<br />Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-37352487411080573662012-12-19T10:58:00.000+00:002012-12-19T10:58:14.488+00:00"Local Government has been Emasculated" (But so has everything else)From a systemic perspective, the central-vs-local government clash continues to be pretty bemusing.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, central government decides how much localism there should be, and giveths and takeths away from local or super-local (regional/LEPs, etc, whichever the trendier?) all the time.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the hierarchy at all levels is being infiltrated by both the private sector, and the "new", networked form of group organisation which has managed to somehow avoid the "postcode lottery" moniker so far.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2012/dec/17/heseltine-local-government-growth-localism?CMP=" target="_blank">Lord Heseltine is advocating even more decentralisation</a> away from central government, and offers some small looks into where local-<i>interest</i> power means that Stuff Gets Done, ie. that the hierarchy needs to get out of the way of people just getting together to achieve something.<br />
<br />
A few days ago I started thinking about <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xZnd45uME_-x-3EMl6_U_q6rfplOrBkUvVbsxQUqks4/edit" target="_blank">how a community wifi effort (Google Doc) could</a> benefit and be hampered by a "network" approach vs a "hierarchical" approach. (Hint: there's no straightforward answer.) <a href="http://twitter.com/richardveryard" target="_blank">Richard Veryard</a> suggested that the network/hierarchy split (or spectrum) wasn't too useful, which I'm still unpicking, but it did get me thinking about <i>why</i> we organise into different types of group.<br />
<br />
It is perhaps most true to say that democratic models are the most <i>complex </i>they have ever been. This is different to saying that "we need to move to a network democracy" or that "it is local government's time".<br />
<br />
It is understanding instead that we have a very real situation of multiple, overlapping, integrating models of <strike>democracy</strike> organisation/objective/philosophy. There is no "one approach fits all" solution because <i>there never was</i> - we just managed to shoehorn the world into the latest mainstream model through a heavy imbalance of power.<br />
<br />
Local Government has been emasculated. But so has central government. And perhaps <a href="http://dashes.com/anil/2012/12/the-web-we-lost.html" target="_blank">so have ordinary citizens along the way</a>.<br />
<br />
I'm going meta. There is no such thing as democracy, but there is such a thing as a <i>democracy network</i>. Which, confusingly, includes networked democracy - but also centralised democracy, European democracy, local democracy and hyperlocal democracy.<br />
<br />
Which means there's no point arguing over which one's <i>best</i>, only over how we make sure they all get along.Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-53346017644557184952012-11-18T21:37:00.000+00:002012-11-18T21:37:00.592+00:00Why the Public Sector Needs to Get Stupider<i>...or "From Intellect to Intelligence".</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
There are a handful of people whom I've never met in person, but talked to a lot over the years online, and who have influenced my thinking more than I could suspect in that time. <a href="https://twitter.com/richardveryard" target="_blank">Richard Veryard</a> is one of those people. Even back when my blog "<a href="http://intothemachine.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Into the Machine</a>" was called "<a href="http://blunkettisanarse.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Blunkett is an Arse</a>", Richard prompted me to think heavily about the role of power in society - everything from CCTV through to newspaper headlines and reasons for going to war.<br />
<br />
Richard introduced me to Stafford Beer's concept of POSIWID (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does" target="_blank">The Purpose Of the System Is What It Does</a>) which trips off the tongue more easily and addictedly than you'd expect. Recently, he's focused his efforts on <a href="http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.co.uk/p/enterprise-architecture-ea.html" target="_blank">Enterprise Architecture</a> ("#entarch") and <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/RichardVeryard/organizational-intelligence" target="_blank">Organisational Intelligence</a> ("OI"), and I'm very much enjoying shamefully yanking ideas out of his <a href="https://leanpub.com/orgintelligence" target="_blank">OI Primer e-book</a>.<br />
<br />
I don't plug things very often on my blogs (and it's horrifically short notice) but I really do want to mention his 2 courses this week: on <a href="http://unicom.co.uk/businessarchitecture/" target="_blank">Business Architecture</a> and <a href="http://unicom.co.uk/orgintelligence/" target="_blank">Organisational Intelligence</a>. I think there are still spaces left. And obviously as I've never actually met Richard, I'm not guaranteeing anything. But if you're interested in this post, or this blog, check em out. There's also an <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Org-Intelligence-4422683?gid=4422683&trk=hb_side_g" target="_blank">Org Intelligence group on LinkedIn</a> for good discussion.<br />
<br />
But it's more than just a shameless plug - and more than just a way of paying him back for the insight over the years. Fundamentally, his driving factor (IMHO) is around something which is not just lacking in many groups, but <i>dangerously </i>lacking across society. In fact, my whole last post <a href="http://sphereless.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/pccs-nuclear-subs-and-mythological.html" target="_blank">on the PCC elections, nuclear subs and mythological engineering</a> was about this lack.<br />
<br />
In short, we lack <i>systemic intelligence.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>What does that really mean though? And more importantly, so what? Many smart people instinctively know that our most common modes of organisation lack an inherent "togetherness". I'm not saying anything new here.<br />
<br />
But what we <i>can</i> learn from Richard - and from looking around us, and from taking a moment to think clearly - is how to move from just knowing there is a lack of systems-thinking, to <i>doing something about it</i>. To rejoining the things which are fragmented.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Departments are Inherently Silo Factories</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://molinahistory.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pin_factory1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="141" src="http://molinahistory.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pin_factory1.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
In the public sector, the defragmenting process is bubbling under like the power behind the throne. It's why the <a href="http://patchworkhq.com/" target="_blank">Patchwork project</a> <i>makes sense </i>to people. It's why everyone goes on and on about <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=open+data+silos" target="_blank">breaking down data silos</a>. It's why <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/feb/26/publicservices.politics" target="_blank">joined-up government arose</a> - but ultimately, its fall also highlights not how difficult it is, but how <i>badly prepared</i> we are for it.<br />
<br />
Our <a href="http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/wealth_nations.html" target="_blank">pin-factory</a>-style, <a href="http://animals.about.com/od/scientificdisciplines/a/classifyinganim.htm" target="_blank">categorical hierarchy</a> mentality likes to divide work up into efficient processes. <a href="http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/Anthro/Anth101/taylorism_and_fordism.htm" target="_blank">Many people</a> claim this to be an "efficient" way to focus on a particular labour task - which it can be, <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/11088585" target="_blank">to an extent</a>. But this also leads directly to those data silos we mentioned earlier - because it's not the data which is inherently silo'd, but the labour itself. Once a person or a group becomes responsible for an organisational function, both the <i>data</i> and the <i>importance</i> that result from it become an <i>asset</i> - and assets are there to be protected, especially under competitive pressures.<br />
<br />
The same effect is at play whether it's one person keeping their spreadsheet private, a department keeping its data in obscure formats, or a company slurping personal data on millions of customers. Data goes hand-in-hand with function, and divided data leads to divided functions.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Road to Recovery is Balance</h4>
<br />
The first challenge in reconnecting these functions (and therefore departments, and data) within a system is to get <i>out</i> of the existing model. It's important to remember that an fragmented viewpoint is <i>mutually exclusive</i> to systems thinking. Systems thinking is <i>not</i> about the best way to get two existing units (departments, groups, people) to talk to each other, nor about opening everything up to the glorious light of transparency.<br />
<br />
Systems thinking <i>is </i>about how the units <i>depend</i> on each other and what it <i>makes sense</i> for them to share in order to do their (otherwise standalone) job. Object-oriented coders Get This.<br />
<br />
In other words, the underlying mental model for a more systemic form of organisation needs to shift to one of <i>multiple contexts</i> - <b>firstly</b>, the overall purpose of the entire organisation, and <b>secondly</b>, how the needs (data, assets, etc) of each unit within that organisation break up and overlap.<br />
<br />
That is, there needs to be:<br />
<ol>
<li>Balance between the output of each unit within the organisation, and the organisation as a whole - no one unit should be seen as "more" important, in the same way that the brain is not "more important" than the stomach. The priority is that the organismisation acts as a whole.<br /></li>
<li>Balance between the "internal" and "external" roles of each unit, so that effort is not wasted on either information over- or under-provision. <i>Each unit should have access to the information it needs to do its job.</i> And yes, this changes over time. Get used to it.</li>
</ol>
<h4>
Forwards, stupid workers! </h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Architecting" this is not just a role for a head honcho or a business consultant. Ignore what well-paid people tell you. It's not even a bottom-up process.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The needs of units <i>and</i> the whole organisation change over time - technology relating to certain tasks changes, staff change, external factors mean new pressure, political goals shift. As a result, this process has to be infused into the whole of the organisation. It is a culture and a strategy on one level, but on another level it is also an <i>individual choice</i>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The <i>divided labour</i> approach to work - ie. what <i>you have in your head </i>the moment you get to your desk in the morning - intrinsically ties together function with knowledge. "What do you need to be told in order to do you job?" - or from a more negative, jobsworthy viewpoint, "I can't do that because nobody has told me why or how."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Divided labour resists flexibility. And this is why joining everything together takes more than someone banging a gong or drafting a "data sharing" proposal - <b>the rules themselves need to be flexible for flexible working to work</b>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But so often, the body of working knowledge we hold - and the reasons <i>why</i> we hold it and <i>where</i> we should apply it - are <i>valued</i>. They form a set of ideas centred on our job function that I call "Intellect" - in other words, a specialised definition that takes the immediate environment, and hardens it - formalises it. This means we can know if what we're doing is "right" or "wrong". And we can't be judged for not doing stuff that lies <i>outside</i> of that context. <i>Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
Losing this "Intellect", this hard-wired context, is key to making our organisations smarter.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We need to become stupider.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathaninsandiego/5151202699/" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img alt="Bad day at the office" height="213" src="http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1256/5151202699_77b24d2328_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathaninsandiego/5151202699/" target="_blank">San Diego Shooter</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h4>
The Dashboard Wisdom of Stupidity</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<div>
Being stupid is not a weakness. I <i>heartily</i> wish that I had been more stupid in school, and wasn't so afraid to ask questions when I didn't fully understand something. Because <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/protest?INTCMP=SRCH" target="_blank">when all the parameters around you are shifting</a>, guess what? <b>Nobody really understands anything.</b> And even more so, nobody can predict what is happening to the people they're connected to.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Asking questions gives us feedback. One of the fascinating areas I looked into after reading Richard's book was the <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Does-Camerons-Dashboard-App-Improve-4422683.S.183613495?qid=4473be9b-b3c3-47c7-9bc0-df9daf3bb690&trk=group_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egmp_4422683" target="_blank">usefulness of dashboards</a> - which are basically designed to answer that perennial question, "What's going on <i>right now?</i>" </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Feedback is only useful if it's fast - fast enough to allow us to relate our <i>actions</i> to their <i>consequences</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And immediate feedback is awesome because it gives us an answer before we've even had time to ask the question. A dashboard, an ever-present source of up-to-date information, <i>assumes we are stupid</i> - or, at least, could turn stupid at any moment. "Hey! Driver! Sooner or later, you're going to <i>need </i>this information, you know?"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And when you're sitting there, protecting your body of knowledge and your data in order to protect your job, hanging on to that "Intellect" you've carefully gathered doesn't make you "Intelligent". It makes you "Wrong".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Your Silo is My Silo</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The world is changing at a much faster pace than we're ready for. No, scrap that. <b>The world is change, and we don't like change.</b> Everything we do is about <i>controlling</i> change. Our policies are direct descendants of the 17th century,and hence our mental models are struggling to keep up with the change going on - change that <i>we've</i> created, ironically. (Remember, pin factories didn't always exist.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Systems" intelligence and "Organisational" intelligence are misnomers, because people are individuals, not organisations - and organisations only really exist on paper and in law courts, and can't make me a cup of tea in the morning.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But individuals exist within organisations, within systems. There is little to differentiate the two except perhaps where we stand. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Accepting that we are <i>part</i> of a system is essential to realising that this "systemic" intelligence is also a part of <i>us</i>. It is an aggregative effect - a flow of cause and effect from person to person, and unit to unit. It is not a "culture" or a "programme" or any "Thing", because it is always a dynamicism that acts on every level.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Asking questions is key to opening up that flow - the flow of information and <i>understanding </i>between units, between silos, and between contexts. It breaks down the protection of Intellect. It is a form of empathic efficiency. It is flexibility. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is necessary.</div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Want to know more? Richard's courses on <a href="http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.co.uk/p/enterprise-architecture-ea.html" target="_blank">Enterprise Architecture</a> and <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/RichardVeryard/organizational-intelligence" target="_blank">Organisational Intelligence</a>.</span></div>
Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-31018950460000016772012-11-16T11:03:00.000+00:002012-11-16T11:11:10.390+00:00PCCs, Nuclear Subs, and Mythological Engineering<br />
With the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/16/police-commissioner-election-turnout" target="_blank">low turnout in the PCC elections</a> yesterday, and this interesting piece on the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/15/astute-hunter-killer-submarines-doomed" target="_blank">construction problems with the UK's new nuclear subs</a>, I can't help but think of <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23054.Mythologies" target="_blank">Barthes' "Mythologies"</a> and the state we're in regarding symbolism vs engineering.<br />
<br />
<h4>
i. asking the right questions</h4>
<br />
Barthes lays out a sketchy-but-useful/interesting framework for signs and symbols, and in an ever more mediated world (first through broadcast media such as TV, and increasingly through short-attention information-overload) this framework seems more relevant.<br />
<br />
The 3 main questions that a mythological viewpoint helps get at are:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Is what we're doing actually working?</li>
<li>If not, can we find out why not?</li>
<li>And if not, <i>are we willing to identify where our own beliefs are causing those reasons?</i></li>
</ol>
None of these are significantly mythological - we can fail at something because we lack understanding or experience, for instance. Indeed failing is also learning, if the context and expectations are set out properly.<br />
<br />
But the PCC and Nuclear Sub cases, when viewed from a symbolic, mythological viewpoint, become a lot more understandable.<br />
<br />
<h4>
ii. nothing to see here</h4>
<br />
In the case of the PCC elections, it's telling that many people voted not to improve the operation and efficiency of their Police force, but to keep out people who they think would make their Police force worse. Question #1 has moved from "is it working?" to "is it not breaking?". Or, in other words, from "how can we improve things?" to "how can we stop things from getting worse?"<br />
<br />
This shift in rationale is essential to understand. It shows that politics, a symbol in itself, has become a stronger signifier for <i>maintaining the status quo</i> than for setting out sustainable solutions that involve cross-society engagement. <b>We can say that Democracy has become about keeping people <i>out</i> rather than integrating people <i>in.</i></b><br />
<br />
The PCC elections are clearly to be seen in a light of localism and "democratic accountability". The elections are a <i>symbol</i> for democratic <i>principles</i>, but ones which have left behind everyday operations of how policy becomes policing. <b>The "polis", in every sense, has become an abstract notion</b>, and can only surely be less empowered because of that.<br />
<br />
Not only was it seen to be more important to make the system "votable" than have a working system, the <i>idea</i> of the vote itself took precedence over the <i>voting process</i>.<br />
<br />
<h4>
iii. an aside: symbolic actions</h4>
<br />
Barthes contrasts the object as a "symbol" to the object as part of an "action" - eg. a woodcutter chopping down a tree performs an action on the tree, and so there is a real-world interaction and effect with the tree. However, the <i>image</i> of a woodcutter cutting down a tree, or a generic image of a tree in itself, is "symbolic" in that it has no direct, real-world consequences. A logo of a tree may act as a standard, but is an indirect effect, and can certainly be detached from the actions it inspires. (Many people find it easier to be inspired by a logo than to act based on inspiration.)<br />
<br />
<h4>
iv. unclear power</h4>
<br />
Nuclear power is another symbol, as any fan of Dr Strangelove will understand. The paradox with nuclear power is that it is "inherently" (or "naturally", as Barthes would put it) powerful and therefore dangerous - we accept this without question. By wielding "Nuclear power" as a symbol, we also wield an intrinsic argument for more control and global sanctions - because power is concerned with <i>potential</i> rather than <i>actual</i> abilities.<br />
<br />
This paradox leads to the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/15/hms-astute-submarine-slow-leaky-rusty" target="_blank">problems</a> seen under the HMS Astute nuclear programme. <b>Building nuclear power as a symbol is very different to building nuclear power as a "thing" in the real world.</b><br />
<br />
The paradox is this: You cannot design a machine (or an organisation, or a person) based on symbolic or economic principles.Sure, they can feed into the process, but engineering needs to maintain an <i>inherent, internal coherence</i> to provide a "thing" which functions as a whole. Allow a <a href="http://www.demsoc.org/2012/11/15/can-we-say-pccs-are-a-failed-experiment-now/" target="_blank">fragmented economic-political process</a> to take priority, and you will end up with a fragmented machine.<br />
<br />
Ironically, the nuclear machine does not <i>depend</i> on the nuclear symbol in order to work, but the symbol <i>is</i> impacted by the effectiveness of the machine. In undermining the effectiveness of the machine, the symbol also devalues itself. <br />
<br />
<h4>
v. tappity-tap</h4>
<br />
<a href="http://www.todayinsci.com/C/Churchill_Winston/ChurchillWinston-Quotations.htm" target="_blank">Churchill said</a> that "Scientists should be on tap, but not on top". I don't believe it's a case of scientists (and engineers, and anyone that designs any kind of process) being on top of politicians, or vice versa though. The two "sides" have very different briefs and contexts that need to work with each other. There is a "what" and a "how", and the twain will <i>always</i> meet somewhere.<br />
<br />Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-57634717944964876552012-07-09T21:05:00.000+01:002012-07-09T21:05:26.261+01:00Kasabi, Nuclear Power, and the Data Developer DichotomyToday's big news is that <a href="http://talis-systems.com/">Talis</a> are <a href="http://blog.kasabi.com/2012/07/09/shutting-down-kasabi/">shutting down Kasabi</a>, their linked data platform, <a href="http://talis-systems.com/2012/07/refocusing-our-efforts-and-investments/">moving away from semantic data</a>, and <a href="http://blog.ldodds.com/2012/07/09/leaving-talis-2/">losing Leigh Dodds</a>. Talis have probably been the most <i>visible</i> entity in the commercial linked-data realm, and with good reason. They showcased an impressive local data portal for the <a href="http://opendatacitiesconference.com/">Open Data Cities Conference</a> a while back in Brighton, and drive various high-profile services like <a href="http://www.fixmystreet.com/">Fix My Street</a>.<br />
<br />But it turns out the demand for the linked data platform just isn't enough to support business. As a <a href="http://ocsi.co.uk/">data developer</a>, I'm obviously intrigued by this move from Talis.<br />
(<b>Spoiler:</b> There's a lot of background here, and I don't even answer my original question. Feel free to <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2595046214305051488#skipToTheEnd">skip to the end</a>.)<br /><br />
<h4>How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love Data</h4><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Pulstar1.jpg/220px-Pulstar1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Pulstar1.jpg/220px-Pulstar1.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Your front room? [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pulstar1.jpg" target="_blank">img</a>]</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Back at Uni, I read that nuclear power isn't just about physics, technology and war. To wield nukes, a state needs certain organisational structures <a href="http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ298695&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ298695" target="_blank">to support their centralised nature</a> - security structures to protect them, political structures to commission, deploy or maintain them, market structures to permit or prevent sales, and so on. In short, technologies and their usage depend on social-political contexts - and vice versa.<br />
<br />
At the other extreme, well away from nuclear power, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microgeneration" target="_blank">micro-generation</a> of power is slowly taking a footing. Feeding power into the grid from solar and other electricity generators also requires contexts to be put into place, but the nature and distribution of these are different to those of nuclear power. The consultations yield different emotions, the networks require bi-directional structures, as do tariffs and security measures.<br />
<br />
Overall, there is a big difference between the "central" nature of nuclear power, and the "decentralised" nature of micro-generation.<b>This maze of contexts is what Open Data is trying to navigate right now.</b> And Linked Data is part of that, often trying to straddle worlds.<br />
<br />
<h4>Platform Non-Wars</h4>
<br />
Once upon a time, XML was the saviour of the data world. Up until then, people had put up with CSVs and related 2x2 grid matrices. Data was a <i>person-to-person </i>communication tool, not a machine-to-machine one. Machines kept their own data, and made it available through their own interface. So passing data around was a presentation job, and people liked doing that in 2D.<br />
<br />
XML changed that by structuring data differently - the <i>context</i> of XML was a <i>machine-to-machine</i> medium. Some simple XML can be coded by hand, such as HTML. Other XML (and lots of HTML) is really intended only to be generated and read by machines, which will do the validation, parsing and rendering without the aid of human hands.<br />
<br />
XML can afford to be complex then, because the context is strictly defined by standards and parsers. Maybe XML is the nuclear power of the data format world.<br />
<br />
Then people discovered <a href="http://json.org/" target="_blank">JSON</a>, a much more lightweight format which was still supposed to be machine-readable, <i>but</i> which also caters more to a second context - <i>person-readable</i>. Because JSON is <i>so</i> lightweight, it's much easier to debug by hand. And while there are huge industries booming around XML, the lure of JSON appeals to those who don't have rigid structures and definitions in place, who need to do something quickly and often by hand, at least at first.<br />
<br />
Like nuclear and micro-generation though, XML and JSON aren't a "versus" or a battle. They're both just about what's appropriate for what context. This is an <b>Important Point</b>.<br />
<br />
<h4>Open Wide, Please</h4>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Tour_de_babel.jpeg/350px-Tour_de_babel.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="232" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Tour_de_babel.jpeg/350px-Tour_de_babel.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">What could possibly go wrong? [<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tour_de_babel.jpeg" target="_blank">img</a>]</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This is where we return to Open Data, and the position of Linked Data within.<br />
<br />
Right now, I argue that Open Data is trying too hard to cover everything in one breath. It's doing this because it very rapidly became a <i>cultural</i> symbol rather than an <i>engineering</i> symbol. With the agenda being led by "transparency" and its <a href="http://5stardata.info/" target="_blank">associated technical underpinnings</a> (yes, the 5-stars of open data are a <i>political</i> quest, not a technical one), we tend to overlook the idea that Data - the other part - is not a standard but something which <i>requires</i> context.<br />
<br />
Without context, data is just entropy, and entropy is already handled pretty well by our underlying electronic veins: the binary transistor.<br />
<br />
In other words, is "Open Data" an oxymoron? If something is to build on its openness, it needs to flow, and if it is to flow <a href="http://sphereless.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/dissecting-still-breathing-body-of-open.html" target="_blank">from place to place</a>, it needs to acquire meaning - at which point, is it no longer "Data"? Are we better off talking about "Open Information" - and if so, what does that mean for our tools?<br />
<br />
So where does Linked Data and the plight of Kasabi fit into this? From the above, we can see that as "data" moves around <a href="http://sphereless.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/data-engagement-as-healthy-ecosystem.html" target="_blank">the ecosystem</a>, the people using it want different things from it, and will do so using different tools. This is a translation task - to adopt someone else's data, not only do you need to know how the data works in itself, you also need to know how it integrates with your own data. (This is also why <a href="http://www.opendataimpacts.net/engagement/" target="_blank">Data Engagement</a> is so important.)<br />
<br />
The data developer's instinct is to build something generic and beautiful. This is further impounded by a commercial instinct that conforms to economies of both scale and scope.<br />
<br />
But in reality data often resists the genericism that technical and economic efficiency loves. A generic data handling system would need to be <i>so</i> generic that it could do <i>anything</i> - at which point, is it any different to any database? Any computer? In her <a href="http://opendatacitiesconference.com/" target="_blank">Open Data Cities Conference</a> talk a few months ago, <a href="http://www.twitter.com/emercoleman" target="_blank">Emer Coleman</a> said that "People are messy." And if people are messy, than people talking to other people is even messier - think <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel" target="_blank">Tower of Babel</a>. In the real world, data is equally messier than we think it is.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2595046214305051488" name="skipToTheEnd"></a><br />
<h4>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2595046214305051488" name="skipToTheEnd">
One Chance Out Between Two Worlds</a></h4>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Armchair_Parent_Louvre_OA11736.jpg/398px-Armchair_Parent_Louvre_OA11736.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Armchair_Parent_Louvre_OA11736.jpg/398px-Armchair_Parent_Louvre_OA11736.jpg" width="212" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Not your usual armchair auditor [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armchair_Parent_Louvre_OA11736.jpg" target="_blank">img</a>]</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This is why it's difficult to talk about Open Data and Linked Data in the same sentence, or sell all-encompassing data tools, or come up with <a href="http://standards.esd.org.uk/" target="_blank">"universal" standards</a> that try to transcend contexts. The contexts differ, and translating data from one to another also means translating mindsets, working practices, learning processes, and organisational structures. <a href="http://sphereless.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/ukgc11-general-theory-of-data.html" target="_blank">Data Relativity</a> is still being ignored.<br />
<br />
Right now, Linked Data and the Semantic Web are in a funny position. They aim big, and are trying to solve an important problem about data quality. But this big aim means big technology and paradigm shifts - putting Linked Data much more into the realm of an "Enterprise" app in the same way that nuclear power and XML require a certain, quite hefty, amount of planning and structuring to achieve.<br />
<br />
A lot of large organisations with "heavy", nuclear-style data have a lot of systems already in place, and a lot of knowledge and resources tied into these - in other words, they have a lot of <i>momentum</i>. This is where Linked Data could make a real difference I think, but the inertia that needs to be overcome is a fundamental issue. Not only that, but because the success of Linked Data is inherently tied to <a href="http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/network_ex.htm" target="_blank">network externalities</a>, that inertia is multiplied up through inter-organisational lines. To be <i>good</i>, many people need to adopt it at the same time.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the <i>economic</i> agenda of Open Data wants armchair auditors and clever freelance developers to innovate quickly for low cost. And the tools, knowledge and skills these kind of people have are geared up not toward "Enterprise-level" data, but toward quick-fire, loosely-knit, human-readable innovation. Find a small problem, and solve it quickly.<br />
<br />
These two worlds are currently circling each other. All too often "Open Data" becomes confused with "Big Data" because there's a lot of it. Some of the challenge involves filtering out "Open Data" so much that it's invisible - background noise - leaving just the "Small Data", the useful stuff. Learning a 5-page API reference doesn't help this.<br />
<br />
The other challenge is to make the link between "Big Data" and "Small Data" bi-directional. Or omni-directional. There's still <i>massive</i> amounts of work to do around microgeneration of <i>data</i> and feeding user-generated data into "<a href="http://data.gov.uk/" target="_blank">the grid</a>". There's still no real work around standards for data sharing, as far as I know, other than those that exist for content such as RSS, etc.<br />
<br />
Right now though, <b><i>the</i> main challenge is just getting out of the Open Data mindset that data <i>needs</i> to be Big and Open in order to work</b>. It's really important not to get too caught up in the lure of simplicity and easy wins for quick economic and political gain. Ecosystems are not built on top of economies of scale and scope.<br />
<br /><br />
Remember Babel.<br />
<br /><br />
<br />Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-50718980856384929452012-04-27T16:56:00.000+01:002012-04-27T16:58:21.706+01:00Dissecting the still-breathing body of "Open Data"<a href="http://twitter.com/#!/bmwelby" target="_blank">Benjamin Welby</a> has a great <a href="http://bm.wel.by/series/open-data-magic-from-the-inside-out/" target="_blank">5-part series on Open Data</a>, summarising a lot of the current state in local government, and raising some good questions about how local government can lead on a lot of this. His <a href="http://bm.wel.by/2012/04/24/open-data-magic-from-the-inside-out-part-1/" target="_blank">first article</a> picks up on my "<a href="http://sphereless.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/open-data-needs-to-die.html" target="_blank">Open Data must die!</a>" post, and got me thinking about the term itself again.<br />
<br />
Why is this an interesting thought exercise? Maybe the names don't matter, and function is everything. But at the same time, names crystallise our shared understanding of <i>why</i> we're doing something.<br />
<br />
So <i>why</i> <b>do</b> we use the term "Open"?<br />
<br />
Partly legacy - open source, open access, open-not-closed. All good stuff.<br />
<br />
But in the context of governance, what role does the term "open" play? In fact, if we look at the two aspects of a) <b>service delivery</b> and b)<b> democratic engagement</b>, why is openness important? Answering this question, I believe, is key to moving open data forward - by clarifying new purposes other than openness in its own right. By setting an agenda other than "being open" we can start to look at being smarter and more productive, but within a context of accountability and shared decision-making.<br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<b><u>Service Delivery</u></b><br />
<br />
Let's take a break for a moment and consider the <i>commercial </i>world of "open data" - the Flickrs and the Googles and the like. A lot of the push for open government data came from a shift in the web paradigm from "data-as-a-website" to "data-as-an-API". Suddenly <i>control </i>of the data opened up - an essential inevitability as websites moved to a social model of <i>importing </i>data from users more and more. The website became a store, rather than a presence in itself.<br />
<br />
Openness in this commercial world meant (or means) that developers were no longer restricted to the path to access this data that the website builders had pre-determined. You could suddenly write your own slideshow script based on your (or someone else's) Flickr photo stream, for example. Or print it out. Or turn it into text.<br />
<br />
To return to government services, we have two types of user though, and two types of data.<br />
<br />
First, we need to differentiate between data <b>used by</b> <i>individuals</i> and data used by <i>policy-makers.</i><br />
<br />
Second, we need to compare data <b>about</b> <i>individuals</i> with data about <i>systems</i>. By systems, I mean any organisation or structure that can be seen as a "whole" - such as transport systems, finance systems, demographic systems and geographic areas, etc.<br />
<br />
This gives us a basic 2-way matrix on to which we can position "data" (which, after all, is ubiquitous):<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn21DrBdQ5d9tOJIFmo1QPiN6KK_A-hNsO1_jVuHT1qw4NfVWoLNY2tmXw0tDzRuGxCzf_3uPOM2eAr0LeLdGlOlVVC448ouaiSuIXPIR2-Svd8X40poksMXbxJOSTEm-Wip8bdFF3cWo/s1600/Data+Matrix.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn21DrBdQ5d9tOJIFmo1QPiN6KK_A-hNsO1_jVuHT1qw4NfVWoLNY2tmXw0tDzRuGxCzf_3uPOM2eAr0LeLdGlOlVVC448ouaiSuIXPIR2-Svd8X40poksMXbxJOSTEm-Wip8bdFF3cWo/s320/Data+Matrix.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Box 3 is greyed out because it doesn't count, imho. Ignore it?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The commercial data mentioned above falls into <b>box 1</b> - a user accessing their own data. This is largely ignored (or discussed in fairly esoteric circles) under the governmental "Open Data" banner because it's hard. It's probably also the most useful, but maybe one to come back to. People tend to think of health data and benefit information, but one could also include library data (reading histories, current books, etc) and so forth in here.<br />
<br />
<b>Box 2</b> - systemic data used by individuals - is where a lot of people would <i>like </i>to position Open Data, whether it fits or not. The idea of the "individual" accessing data appeals to our consumerist lifestyle, like governments fulfilling their public-good role for the ultimate satisfaction of the private citizen.<br />
<br />
(The "Armchair Auditor" idea falls into this precise trap of supposing that <i>individuals </i>will hold Government to account. There is nothing more romantic than a single person overcoming Universal Might.)<br />
<br />
Some of this data is<i> </i>actually <i>really, really</i> useful. Transport data, opening times, prices, etc - this is the realm of information that we all use on a day-to-day basis. But that kind of data is "small" information - we consume something very specific in very short bursts, such as "<i>next bus from stop X</i>", or "<i>who is my councillor?</i>". These could almost be considered "facts" about the world.<br />
<br />
Other data is also relevant to individuals, but from more of a research perspective. Being able to present data differently, such as with <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/" target="_blank">TheyWorkForYou</a>, or aggregating data up to make <a href="http://www.mysociety.org/2006/travel-time-maps/" target="_blank">travel-time-vs-house-price maps</a>, starts to address the notion of how we can <i>interact</i> with the data in a user-experience kind of way. But to engage, users must not only interact with the data, but also with the democratic process (see box 4). The boundary between these two seems relatively unexplored so far.<br />
<br />
<b>Box 3</b> - policy-makers accessing data about individuals. I'm actually going to call this a void box, because I think at this point we transmogrify into <i>anecdotal evidence</i>, rather than data. Policy-makers love using stories about individuals, far more than comparing their stats in a Top-Trumps-esque kind of way. Comment if you feel differently.<br />
<br />
<b>Box 4</b> - systemic data used by policy-makers - really leads us into the idea of "democratic engagement", because it's where the overarching power lies. This is the data/evidence used to make decisions at a higher level. It needs to be aggregated to resolve complexity (and gain understandability), but be reliable and resilient enough for decisions to be made confidently.<br />
<br />
This box includes data about government activities, such as spending data, as well as data about geographical areas, such as the <a href="http://www.communities.gov.uk/corporate/researchandstatistics/publicdatasources/communitiesneighbourhoods/" target="_blank">IMD</a> and National Indicators and demographics and so on.<br />
<b><u><br /></u></b><br />
<b><u>Opening up Box 4</u></b><br />
<br />
Box 4 is the most interesting, because <i>it hasn't really been done before</i>. Or rather, not in an open sense. Plenty of companies use "systemic" data - or "big data" if you like - to explore trends and make decisions. But all that data is <i>valuable</i> and therefore <i>closed</i>.<br />
<br />
This is where and why Open Data hits challenges: the systemic data in this box is <b>fundamentally tied to how administrations work and think</b>. That is, it represents a worldview upon which certain <i>types</i> of decision can be made - accountable ones, justifiable ones, trackable ones. Data here, whether it's financial, organisational, demographic statistics or what-have-you, has gone through a long history of hammering out. To be usable, it must be comparable, and to be comparable it must be rigourously defined, in terms of what's collected and what it means.<br />
<br />
It's why we have National Indicators and the <a href="http://www.esd.org.uk/esdtoolkit/default.aspx" target="_blank">ESD</a> and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2012/apr/27/open-standards-consultation-rerun-conflict-interest-microsoft?newsfeed=true" target="_blank">consultations on standards within government</a>.<br />
<br />
And this leads to a bit of a paradox, which the Open Data world is currently trying to grapple with:<br />
<br />
First, <b>the data needs to be understood</b>, <i>because</i> it's so well defined.<br />
<br />
Second, the data - even after being understood - is <b>only useful to its original context</b> (the policy-making hierarchy), even after being understood.<br />
<br />
Both of these together form an interlocking puzzle: If people don't understand the data, how can they use it? And if not's useful to them in <i>their</i> context, why would they want to understand it?<br />
<br />
(Additionally, this paradox is semi-locked inside a Japanese puzzle box. Even if you get both, do you necessarily have the power to influence decisions?)<br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<b><u>
Democratic Engagement</u></b><br />
<br />
This gives us effectively a 3-way combo lock on Open Data, which immediately answers our second purpose - that of democratic engagement. There is a philosophical argument for democracy, and indeed a philosophical argument for "openness". But I would say we <i>have</i> that already - people <i>want</i> to engage, even if out of a sense of ownership ("I pay my taxes and vote, therefore I should have a say.").<br />
<br />
But people are also busy and/or lazy - there's no philosophical drive to see how government works any more than I have a philosophical drive to see how my computer works while I'm using it. Rather, I look at source code when I want to <i>change</i> it or write my own. The philosophy of "openness" rapidly transforms into a reality of "effect". And it's this sense of being able to "effect" that the idea Open Data comes down to.<br />
<br />
Next time you see a dataset being opened up, ask ye 3 questions of it:<br />
<ol>
<li>Can I understand it?</li>
<li>Is it useful to me in <i>my</i> life?</li>
<li>Who's listening for answers that might lie within it?</li>
</ol>
<div>
Too often "Open" data ignores all 3 of these questions. "Raw data now" ignores these questions. You cannot separate data from policy and expect engagement.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Open" is a mindset, not a piece of content.
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Open" cannot be an end in its own right. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-45556818415150036542012-03-07T20:38:00.000+00:002012-03-07T20:38:31.110+00:00Supporting a System of SpacesI can only describe <a href="http://ccbtn.demsoc.org/" target="_blank">CityCampBrighton</a> last weekend as an organised maelstrom of ideation. I don't know what that means, but it <i>sounds</i> great, kind of sums up just how much stuff was going on, and at the same avoids any real definition. Bingo.<br />
<br />
So there are a few thoughts I'm hoping to blog shortly. But to begin with, why not talk about <b>space</b>?<br />
<br />
<b>Stuff Has To Happen Somewhere</b><br />
<br />
There is a notion that says the Universe exists so that everything that happens can happen <i>somewhere</i>. In our virtual, post-Universe model of the world, we often assume that things can happen in a zero-size, flatworld-like dimension which <i>doesn't really exist</i>. From bricks-n-mortar to clicks-n-, um, whatever, the physical idea of "space" is something that has been <i>done</i>. Physicality is expensive, and all that.<br />
<br />
But "virtual" or "real", spaces are where things <i>happen</i>. People gather, drink coffee, discuss ideas, make stuff, drink beer, and learn. People dance, have rubber band fights, listen to music, watch their babies, play board games, race cars. Everything happens <i>somewhere</i> but not everything happens <i>everywhere</i> and not everything can be done <i>anywhere</i>. Everything has its <i>own</i> idea of what space it needs.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="Eagle Nebula" src="http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2003-34-a-small_web.jpg" /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #686868; font-size: 10px; font-style: italic;">Stuff happening in space. Source: <a href="http://hubblesite.org/" style="color: #686868; font-style: italic;">Hubblesite.org</a></span>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<b>The CityCamp Space</b><br />
<br />
CityCamp itself follows an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-space_technology" target="_blank">open-space meeting</a> style space, with its own rules - namely that a) the sessions are set at the start, and b) you can attend/leave whichever session you want, even halfway through. <b>You are not allowed to be offended if someone walks out on you.</b> (Although I never worked out if I was allowed, theoretically, to walk out of my own session.)<br />
<br />
CityCampBrighton obviously discusses a larger "space" - Brighton and Hove - with an aim of setting out the existing "participants" (population) and "rules" (local regulation, <i>etc.</i>) and working out how new ideas can take these forward. In the process, the multitude of "local" spaces (shops, galleries, public facilities, tourist attractions, homes, <i>etc.</i>) come into play. All of these, I believe, are <i>massively</i> important to Things Being Done - to bring people together absolutely requires that idea of <i>a</i> space, set aside from everything else and with its own specific sense of purpose.<br />
<br />
Reconstructing these kind of spaces is what geeks like doing. We come up with forums and MUDs and social media so that we can talk to people a) across the world, and/or b) when it's too wet to go out. So there has to be an intrinsic link between "real" space, and these simulations of space. They <i>have </i>to encourage the same kind of interaction and sense of environmental purpose that allows people to talk, and to support Things Happening <i>somewhere</i>.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nisuspi/6953754515/" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" title="Brighton City Camp 2012 Day 3_4 by nisuspi, on Flickr"><img alt="Brighton City Camp 2012 Day 3_4" height="159" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7192/6953754515_a78a34e356_m.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>CityCamp discussion in full swing. Source: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nisuspi/6953754515/" target="_blank">Adam Oxford</a></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
In her <a href="http://curiouscatherine.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/citycamp-brighton-my-20-things/" target="_blank">20 CityCamp Things</a>, Catherine Howe picks this up at point #19:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
19. I want to spend a lot more time looking at the intersections of offline and online networks and spaces.</blockquote>
And in <a href="http://tobyblume.posterous.com/the-gig-society-reflections-on-city-camp-brig#comment" target="_blank">his reflections on the day</a>, Toby Blume (one of the judges) also makes the bridge between within-CityCamp space and without-CityCamp space, and the purpose of the former:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Using technology to develop social innovation has huge potential but I still feel it’s an invited space which non-techies are welcomed in to, to a greater or lesser extent. I can’t help feeling there’s more we can do to establish and support social spaces that put technology second to community action</blockquote>
There were so many good ideas at the weekend, but as Toby points out, not all of them were necessarily "right" for the funding prize on offer. Some were fresh ideas and needed more direction. Some were too large. Some might even be too small. In a way, there's perhaps a dilemma over whether CityCamp is there to award funding<i> Dragon's Den</i> style, or to foster networking and new ideas. (Personally, I think this dilemma adds to the creative tension. Don't change it.)<br />
<br />
<b>Grow the System</b><br />
<br />
But the whole point of this piece is to highlight that a space isn't just a space - it's one space in an integrated system of spaces. The original purpose of open-space meetings and the Law of Two Feet is that ideas shouldn't be constrained or killed by the space (or conversation) they were born in.<br />
<br />
A new idea often requires a new space. Sometimes that's 2 people standing around a different table. Sometimes it's a cafe instead of an office. Sometimes it's a mailing list or a wiki instead of a cafe. Sometimes it's a meeting involving dozens of stakeholders. The idea moves and proliferates from one space to another (or even to <i>many </i>others) depending on who's taking it forward, and what needs to be done about it.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/amid/2815546288/" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" title="Post and barbed wire by Andrew Middleton, on Flickr"><img alt="Post and barbed wire" height="160" src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3206/2815546288_78efb4de1b_m.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>An open space. With an obstacle. Source: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/amid/2815546288/" target="_blank">Andrew Middleton</a></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
What can <i>really </i>kill an idea, then, is throttling this ability to jump from space to space. Either the space that someone would like to use isn't there, isn't quite right for the idea, or the person can't get to it. Taking each of these in turn, how can we support a <i>system </i>of spaces that means <i>any</i> idea has a better chance of survival?<br />
<br />
<b>1. Turn private spaces into available spaces.</b> I almost put "make more spaces" here, but I'm not sure that's useful. We <i>have</i> enough space, but more often than not it's parcelled off as "private". The commercial mindset has shifted us to a world in which it's more acceptable to have adverts plastered over everything than it is to have public notices, or even art. This needs changing.<br />
<br />
In the physical world, this can mean more negotiation to get more/cheaper/longer access agreements. Or it can mean taking space without permission (think flashmobs, or graffiti).<br />
<br />
In the virtual world, gathering has tended towards "private" spaces - i.e. commercially-owned ones - more recently, with the onset of Twitter, Facebook, Google Docs, etc. If the rules bother you, then remember that there <i>is</i> always an option. Learn to code. Use open-source. Host your own service. People do this all the time.<br />
<br />
<b>2. Make spaces flexible.</b> Sometimes a space is good, but not quite good enough. It needs <i>tweaking</i>. Physical spaces might need to be rearranged, or items might need to be brought in from outside (projectors, flipboards, power sockets, wifi, kettles). Virtual spaces are actually often harder to change - but should have enough options available to be adapted to the need.<br />
<br />
In other words, don't be stingy with what people can do to a space. Too many seminar rooms still have tables all facing the front, and all bolted to the floor. You probably don't know - or <i>shouldn't </i>know, even - what people want to do - trying to predict this can limit the flexibility, or influence the purpose of the space. Be open to change. Ask people to put things back if you like. But don't just put the space before the idea.<br />
<br />
<b>3. Allow Ideas to get out, even if People can't (yet).</b> OK, a slightly odd/different one this. But it's fundamentally important to realise the <i>creation</i> and <i>value</i> of an idea, even if nothing can be done about it <i>right now</i>. And to that end, any space that wants to be part of the system of spaces needs to allow/encourage a) somewhere for ideas to be "put on hold" - whether it's someone taking notes for themselves, post-it notes on a window, or an alternative to-do list - and b) a way to connect the people interested in that idea <i>outside</i> of the current space. For instance, attendee lists, Twitter lists, and feedback forms all allow sub-groups to re-connect, form and potentially move elsewhere.<br />
<br />
<br />
That's 3 starters, anyway. The aim is really just to let ideas - and the people interested in them - to be able to do what they want, where they want to. It's to unlock all that potential currently caged up through middle-scale, short-term management. It's to turn missed opportunities into a framework that can nurture the next generation of ideas, rather than try to control them.Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-6827100253380471302012-02-15T16:11:00.000+00:002012-02-15T16:11:01.874+00:00Data Engagement as a Healthy EcosystemWriting up the "Data Engagement (Everyday Data)" session from <a href="http://buzz.ukgovcamp.com/" target="_blank">#ukgc12</a> is tricky, because it opened up a whole set of new questions and thoughts for me. I'm still trying to tie these thoughts together, and might break it down into a series of posts. This one starts out by looking at the many <i>uses</i> and <i>users</i> of data, and how this fits in with the Data Engagement Charter (<a href="http://www.timdavies.org.uk/2012/01/21/5-stars-of-open-data-engagement/" target="_blank">see Tim's post</a>) that others started to put together in the Saturday session.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Data as an Ecosystem</span></b><br />
<br />
A year ago, I asked some questions around the <a href="http://sphereless.blogspot.com/2011/01/ukgc11-general-theory-of-data.html" target="_blank">relativity of data</a>. It feels like I have some vague answers now, even if they're shifting about still.<br />
<br />
The BBC are currently showing an awesome series about the history of plants on Earth, called "<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bywvr" target="_blank">How to Grow a Planet</a>" - but it's not just about plants, it's about how plants developed alongside rocks and Sunlight, and then how they developed alongside animals. It's a story of <i>opportunity</i> and of <i>symbiotic relationships</i> - in other words, of how co-dependence can lead to vitality and huge, thriving ecosystems.<br />
<br />
The idea of data as an ecosystem <a href="http://blog.okfn.org/2011/10/31/scaling-the-open-data-ecosystem/" target="_blank">isn't a new one</a>. But it is one that's easy to forget, especially when we're staring at technical formats or CSV files, or when we're on a <a href="http://sphereless.blogspot.com/2012/01/open-data-needs-to-die.html" target="_blank">crusade for a much larger philosophy</a>. However, understanding how different data users interact is key to a data itself thriving. During the session, I drew something like this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlvsrnqAVaQTRanvxxcietSUZejEL21-eBtnzTyDfBxNIc3_qMk6BbYuStUr7_13vPbQoPh5VaBddn0_s8m_pE5OT4EHxPXp9iwzPNDg0B4iIHj-k3jNUSK1S6deoUiC7-2H5R47fQcgs/s1600/IMAG0687-1-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlvsrnqAVaQTRanvxxcietSUZejEL21-eBtnzTyDfBxNIc3_qMk6BbYuStUr7_13vPbQoPh5VaBddn0_s8m_pE5OT4EHxPXp9iwzPNDg0B4iIHj-k3jNUSK1S6deoUiC7-2H5R47fQcgs/s200/IMAG0687-1-1.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
At the time, I wanted to capture the important thing - the <i>links</i> from one group to another. In other words, data <i>flows</i> from user to user, from group to group, and gets <i>transformed </i>as it does so. This is the fundamental reason why data is good - not because it is easily automate-able, or easily packageable into binary, but because it <i>can</i> and <i>does</i> mean different things to different people. And yet we are also intrinsically linked through that flow of data at the same time. All different, yet all the same.<br />
<br />
Each group has different needs and different backgrounds, and so each link in the diagram, at a data-level, will involve different...<br />
<ul>
<li>Access needs</li>
<li>Numerical understanding</li>
<li>Contextual, <i>real-world</i> understanding</li>
<li>Quality needs</li>
<li>Reliability needs</li>
<li>etc.</li>
</ul>
<div>
A systemic/network view of data moving around means we can move from a "one size fits all" perspective to a narrower, more specific viewpoint. This means we can ask questions such as:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>What is <i>our role</i> and our position in the system?</li>
<li>Who are our <i>audiences</i> (current and potential) and what do they want?</li>
</ol>
<div>
This gives us a less scary starting point than the idea that every data-handling party needs to cater to every other data-wanting party. Not everyone needs to do everything. We've come to grapple with this the last few years, with the shift from central authorities specifically providing data to an "end user" (if such a user exists) to providing "raw" data for a different audience. But the debate is still murky and needs to be made more explicit.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Data Engagement Charter - A Star Map?</span></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Which is where a Charter can really help, I think. Although not just in terms of giving people an easy-to-follow guide, but also as a way to really map out the different uses and users of data. <a href="http://siwhitehouse.co.uk/blog/2012/01/31/constructing-an-open-data-platform/" target="_blank">Si Whitehouse's blogpost on the subject</a> has a 4-way use-case diagram positing 4 different types of people who want to find data:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://siwhitehouse.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/UseCaseDiagram-OpenDataukgc12.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://siwhitehouse.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/UseCaseDiagram-OpenDataukgc12.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Can we use this to start working out what the most important needs of each are, and more importantly, who could be filling those needs? And vice versa - if you have an existing audience who are struggling to engage with your data, what can you do to make it meet their needs?<br />
<br />
I wanted to use <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/8929612@N04/6073970121/" target="_blank">this image</a> to illustrate this post, for some reason:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/8929612@N04/6073970121/" title="The Gatekeeper by Gerry Balding, on Flickr"><img alt="The Gatekeeper" height="180" src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6087/6073970121_ecc354b361_m.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />
At some level it represents an opening up of barriers, which can summarise the ongoing efforts to open up data. But at another level it's a great image because it mirrors both the links in the first image above, and the <i>two dimensional axis</i> sitting nonchalantly in the Use Cases diagram. It not-so-neatly sums up the way in which data <i>flow</i> changes according to what the data is being used for <i>right now</i>. Sometimes cars need to flow. Sometimes trains need to flow. With the right barriers and the right flexibility, we can have both. Or all, depending on how many users we're talking about.<br />
<br />
So there's no "right" answer to how data should be opened up, any more than there's a "right" answer to which programming language I should use. There is what's <i>most appropriate</i>, perhaps, and certainly what's <i>most fun</i>. Linked data and SPARQL are good in some cases. Excel and Word reports are fine in other cases.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">How to Have a <i>Healthy </i>Data Ecosystem</span></b><br />
<br />
Having said that, it's not <i>quite</i> true. To keep an ecosystem alive means sticking to <i>some</i> rules, otherwise we end up with fragmentation, infestation, and/or the possible collapse of large parts of that ecosystem.<br />
<br />
The 2 main components of a healthy system are, for me, <b>openness</b> and <b>feedback</b>.<br />
<br />
<b>Openness</b> allows for flexibility and the ability to rapidly make new connections - vital when the environment changes (climate-wise, but also economically, politically, and technologically). Without openness, things can <i>exist </i>for a while, sure, but there is little <i>resilience</i> as time goes on.<br />
<br />
Which standard gets used for data doesn't matter as much as whether we can interface with it in the future. We need to avoid <i>data lock-in</i> (or lock-out, depending on where you're standing) - whether that comes from legal, technical or economic aspects. There may be reasons <i>for</i> certain barriers (such as privacy), but these shouldn't translate into a general attitude of making data difficult to obtain. <i>Legal</i> barriers should not prevent <i>technical</i> access from being as easy as possible, for example.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/lapstrake/4441405224/" title="Intertwined by Tom Gill (lapstrake), on Flickr"><img alt="Intertwined" height="160" src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2677/4441405224_e2e99b94e2_m.jpg" width="240" /></a>
</div>
<br />
<b>Feedback</b> is also vital, as it provides a way to negotiate the value of data without resorting to a "survival of the fittest" regime. Feedback in a data sense means that the fruits of Data Engagement benefit <i>both </i>parties involved - and that the link between parties gets stronger as a result of it being used.<br />
<br />
In other words, we need to consistently and continually make sure that data is useful, otherwise the disadvantages of providing it and acquiring it will outweigh the benefits.<br />
<br />
A Data Engagement Charter is an awesome first step to understanding and realising this. Such a Charter, alongside technical prowess and legal openness (another post), can be a very real call-to-arms for this recipe for an ecosystem. To make data successful, we have to understand that we are co-dependent on each other, and that it <i>cannot</i> be a one-way flow, even if we try to make it one.<br />
<br />Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0Brighton, Brighton and Hove, UK50.842941 -0.13131250.762729500000006 -0.2892405 50.9231525 0.026616499999999987tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-40529624337252160312012-01-23T18:42:00.002+00:002012-01-23T18:42:52.307+00:00"Open Data" Needs to DieAmongst all the <a href="http://buzz.ukgovcamp.com/" target="_blank">UK GovCamp 2012 buzz</a>, point #18 from <a href="http://tomsprints.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/digital-daydreams-and-network-nightmares/" target="_blank">Tom Sprints' write-up</a> caught me as being one of the more curious:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: justify;">18. A lot of “open data” sessions just seemed to me to be variations on a theme, and didn’t sell themselves to me at all. I am therefore worried that some of those discussions are either very esoteric, or insufficiently informed by people who understand the issues rather than the tech.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Where have we come from?</b></span><br />
<br />
As a data geek (I like the word "mechanic" myself), it's been intriguing to see the conversation around "open data" change over successive GovCamps. A few years back, the question was heartily "<b><i>How can we get hold of data?</i></b>" - Tim Berners-Lee was starting out on his comeback tour, and <a href="http://www.mysociety.org/" target="_blank">mySociety</a> were beginning to show that data <i>could</i> be made useful with some clever tools.<br />
<br />
As I remember it (likely in a fairly <strike>biased</strike> narrative way), the conversation then switched fairly rapidly into "<b><i>What's the best way to open up data?</i></b>" - in terms of what data and what platforms were most useful to developers. Suddenly data stores had (experimental) APIs, and the public realm had massive amounts of spending data. There was some loose rhetoric about transparency and accountability, while developers picked things apart with fine Excel toothcombs.<br />
<br />
Then things got more interesting, as it turned out everything that had happened so far didn't <i>automagically</i> lead to Amazing Stuff Happening. The question became a necessary "<b><i>So what?</i></b>" - as if transparency and accountability weren't enough by themselves! The topic turned to <i>users</i> and <i>reasons</i> and (more often) to <i>interesting <a href="http://www.madwdata.org.uk/" target="_blank">examples</a></i>. Surely, <i>somebody</i> was clamouring for this stuff after all this?<br />
<br />
I'm kind of hoping this explains something about <i>why</i> "open data" sessions are a bit fumbly-jumbly now.<br />
<br />
Open data got complicated, quickly. Because data <i>is</i> complicated. Jump to the present, and conversations rapidly flit between <i>all of the above</i> either because everybody is involved at the same time, or the people who should be involved, aren't.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">"Open Data" is harmful</span></b><br />
<br />
Or both. The paradox is that it's become difficult to talk about open data firstly because those who <i>were</i> talking about it from one point of view are now talking about it from <i>many</i> points of view. And secondly because those who weren't talking about it before aren't talking about it now. Data silos still exist. Most people still use Excel. Statisticians still output reports.<br />
<br />
The term "open data" is meaningless now. Not just meaningless - <i>actively harmful</i>. If you're used to talking about it, then the conversation has begun to fragment and coalesce around more subtle outcrops. And if you're not used to talking about it, then you're put off because nobody can explain what it means - and more importantly, <i>what it means to you</i>. So you carry on as normal.<br />
<br />
My session at GovCamp <a href="http://www.livescribe.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/LDApp.woa/wa/MLSOverviewPage?sid=WjPtDcNTKpfH" target="_blank">on Data Engagement</a> was, in retrospect, an attempt to get back to the previous question of "So what?". What I really want to do is fence the conversation off from the technical, economic and political aspects of data (although I'm still into all these things) and focus on the <i>why</i>. I desperately tried not to use the term "open data" because I think it would have distracted the discussion. (To be honest, I wanted to find something better than "data engagement" too, hence the phrase "Everyday data".)<br />
<br />
And I'm really glad that some of the idea got <a href="http://www.timdavies.org.uk/2012/01/21/5-stars-of-open-data-engagement/" target="_blank">taken up on day 2</a> by Tim Davies and others. A "Charter" for engaging with data really starts to delve into how we think about how to make data useful.<br />
<br />
I admit I'm a little afraid that the term "Open Data Engagement" just makes the discussion even more vague. What does that mean to you if you have no idea what it is, or what Open Data is supposed to be? Is it all at risk of becoming another buzzword? What about "Data Usability", or "Public Data Engagement"? I'm still aware just how much I hate the terms "Public Understanding of Science" and "Public Engagement with Science". Are we going round in circles?<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Should we call a Stats Spade a Stats Spade?</span></b><br />
<br />
Many people with useful, everyday data and databases really don't think in terms of data. Because the data is about stuff they know, they think of it as "information". Maybe even a "resource". But ask them what "data" they have and they'll probably give you a back-up of their website.<br />
<br />
One of the interesting points coming out of the Data Engagement session was that people deal with data all the time - think football, Formula 1, house prices, etc. But do people even refer to this as "data"? Or - more likely - do they call them "stats"? Mention "stats" and people think of tables, averages, and counts.<br />
<br />
In a way, "stats" makes sense where "data" doesn't. "Information" makes sense where "data" doesn't. "Data" is tricky because it's all of this and more. It's figures, it's formats, it's visualisations. No wonder even those who understand this get confused when talking to each other. The more you try to take "Data" into the real world, the less the term applies.<br />
<br />
Should the "open data" moniker be scrapped instead of more "useful" terms like these? Would this make talking about implementing it <i>more</i> difficult, or <i>easier</i>? After all, any conversation on how to make data useful quickly turns away from talk of even data<i>bases</i> and on to other issues (standards, protocols, best practice, comprehension).<br />
<br />
Maybe if we talk about our bus times as "public information", and spending figures as "spending figures" then people will be interested in it, and we can stop trying to work out what "open" means.<br />
<br />
Maybe.<br />
<br />Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-37976944891280508512012-01-22T20:36:00.001+00:002012-01-22T20:38:51.539+00:00UKGovCamp 2012 - 5x5 (plus one)So Friday and Saturday were host to the indispensable <a href="http://buzz.ukgovcamp.com/" target="_blank">UKGovCamp 2012</a> - a huge gathering of people interested in making public stuff better with technology, roughly speaking. I got along to the Friday day all about <i>talking</i> (rather than Saturday's <i>doing</i>), and gorged myself on thoughtmeat. Seriously, I was feeling dizzy by lunchtime.<br />
<br />
Somehow I think I managed to carry on talking sensibly enough to feel useful. I also took notes and recordings of the sessions I was in, but here are 5 points from each that struck some kind of chord with me. They're a mix of things people said, and stuff I thought, but I think I can remember which was which.<br />
<br />
I've put up <a href="https://www.evernote.com/pub/exmosis/ukgc12" target="_blank">audio from each session here</a>.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Session 1: <b>Data Viz + maps issues + challenges</b></span><br />
- <a href="http://www.twitter.com/vickysargent" target="_blank">Vicky Sargent</a><br />
<br />
This seemed to focus largely on <b>data quality</b>.<br />
<ul>
<li>Poor quality data can be exposed through openness.</li>
<li>Different users/uses want different levels of quality/reliability. </li>
<li>Bringing together those who want reliability with those who want usability is hard.</li>
<li>Getting <i>useful</i> "infoporn" is hard.</li>
<li>Start by knowing what you're trying to achieve.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">Session 2: <b>Open Data as a Business Model</b></span><br />
- <a href="http://www.twitter.com/johnlsheridan" target="_blank">John Sheridan</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This went into how to sustainably <b>fund</b> both open data, and businesses based on it.</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>It's not just a choice between "open"/public and "closed"/private.</li>
<li>Perceptions of data <i>reliability</i> (including being up-to-date) are inherently linked to data management and its economics.</li>
<li>i.e. Some people think you need a tightly controlled team / contract / business model to maintain data quality... Whereas others think openness is a viable form of reliability. (Cf. Wikipedia "vs" Encyclopedia Brittanica)</li>
<li><i>Licensing</i> offers multiple funding models depending on end-user, a la open source software. Chris Taggart doing a lot of this with <a href="http://openlylocal.com/">openlylocal.com</a></li>
<li>Does the data business model depend on the size/resources of the dataset/audience?</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">Session 3: <b>LinkedGov tool to clean up & link data!</b></span><br />
- <a href="http://www.twitter.com/DanPaulSmith" target="_blank">Dan Paul Smith</a></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This was a demonstration of the really impressive work being put together by @LinkedGov (<a href="http://www.linkedgov.org/">http://www.linkedgov.org</a>).</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Software that extends Google Refine to let you easily link data structures and tidy data.</li>
<li>If letting people edit data ("cleaning", "linking", etc), you have to be careful not to introduce "new" data such as assumed defaults for new values. </li>
<li>Suddenly linked/semantic data is starting to look really powerful. I'm almost converted :-)</li>
<li>The ability to "modularise" links to other external data lists has huge implications for data as a <i>Distributed Ecosystem</i>.</li>
<li>Metadata for what's been edited <i>needs</i> to be accessible and clear, to understand who's done what over the lifetime of a dataset.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">Session 4: <b>Data Engagement / Everyday Data</b></span><br />
- <a href="http://twitter.com/exmosis" target="_blank">me</a></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This was an attempt to think about how to get data into something everyday and, not perceived as a "technical" thing. <a href="https://bitly.com/bundles/scribe/2" target="_blank">"Slides" and audio available</a>.</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>People love data if it's about something they love - e.g. football, F1, sales...</li>
<li>Language used is massively important - often 2 groups will talk about the same thing, but in totally different ways.</li>
<li>A range of "necessary" precision was brought up again - how can you transform the complexity of data into simplicity without misleading?</li>
<li>Does data visualisation <i>have</i> to be 'comprehensively accurate', or can it just be enough to get people to ask more questions?</li>
<li>Give data <i>context</i> and it's easier to turn data into <i>feedback</i> and so <i>learn</i> from it.</li>
</ul>
<div>
There were some great examples, and some amazing ideas coming out of this for me, which I'll blogpost properly soon.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">Session 5: <b>Network society engagement</b></span><br />
- <a href="http://www.twitter.com/curiousc" target="_blank">Catherine Howe</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This wasn't to do with data at all... This was about the advantages offered by moving to a more networked, more engaging approach to decision-making.</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Catherine claims that the current system of engagement/consultation is actually a method to mitigate our own ongoing disappointment in political participation.</li>
<li>If done better, political participation can be enlightening, rewarding, and <i>fun</i>.</li>
<li>Bringing people together as part of the consultation process can mean they understand it/others more, and are less disappointed if they don't get what they want.</li>
<li><i>Feedback</i> as part of the consultation is vital to success. In effect, consultation moves towards conversation rather than just gathering views. (Does this that <i>changing </i>people's views is an <i>objective</i> of a networked approach? Does this raise questions around the accuracy of the final result, or does a more involved process and more post-process feedback negate this?)</li>
<li>While I generally agree, I wasn't sure how much success from trials was down to using a networked approach, and how much was down to just using a <i>different </i>approach (i.e. novelty can often be fun in itself) - more consultation iterations needed?</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br />
I'm running out of time so won't go over Mike Bracken's speech or the Closing Note. Here are 5 random, general points instead:</div>
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>The data landscape is slowly coming together in my head. I know I know something important about it, but I don't know what it is yet. Like Cooper in Twin Peaks. You know, when he has that dream. I need to mull it over and chuck some rocks at a bottle.</li>
<li>It feels weird not having twitter usernames on name tags.</li>
<li>GovCampers are a bunch of (mostly beardless) ale-swillers. Much to the surprise of the pub.</li>
<li>The engineering/development going into the new gov.uk single domain is <i>seriously</i> good.</li>
<li>The medium T-shirts this year are definitely smaller than the medium T-shirts last year. Or did I get a ladies' one?</li>
</ul>
</div>Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-66079823163062691552012-01-13T21:52:00.000+00:002012-01-13T21:52:36.993+00:00Pintless Debate<b>[In which the debate for/against the regulation of pub companies is ultimately broken down into the futility of arguments.]</b><br />
<br />
The Parliamentary debate <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2012-01-12a.351.0&s=speaker%3A24910" target="_blank">on the future of pub licenses</a> has me hooked. Living in Brighton, it's difficult to describe, or even imagine, just what effect local pubs have on every day life - from evening entertainment, to decent food, to convenient meeting and organising places, to Damned Good Beer.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So it was great to see my MP <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2012-01-12a.372.1" target="_blank">Caroline Lucas weighing in</a> with views from the Landlord of the Greys in Hanover - in fact, this was why I clicked through to the rest of the debate.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Two Pints, Please</b></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In a nutshell, the debate is a classic "is market self-regulation enough?" argument. Most voices in this one argue that large pub companies ("pubco's") have too much power when it comes to setting a) rents for licensees, and b) rules and rates for "guest beers" and other things that help make pubs "interesting" (or affordable).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The motion moves for regulation to free up licensees from this "<a href="http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1681949/The-beer-tie.html" target="_blank">beer tie</a>" and to review the self-regulatory nature pubs by an independent body.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But as you read through, it becomes clear that the debate is <i>really</i> about:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1. BIS' response to CAMRA's complaint <i>appearing</i> to be taken fairly word-for-word from a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Beer_and_Pub_Association" target="_blank">BBPA</a> (British Beer & Pub Association) submission without much further input - recently discovered <a href="http://gregmulholland.org/en/article/2012/548932/foi-reveals-that-the-government-response-on-pubcos-is-actually-the-work-of-the-pubcos-representative-organisation-the-bbpa" target="_blank">through an FOI request</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2. The Government's apparently "weak" action of apparently rubber-stamping the self-regulatory guidelines as what should constitute the statutory code. (See <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2012-01-12a.354.4" target="_blank">Adrian Bailey's comment</a>.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
3. What seem to be otherwise fairly "liquid" but one-sided negotiations between tenants/licensees and the pubco's (<a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2012-01-12a.354.5" target="_blank">see here for example</a>).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2012-01-12a.357.1" target="_blank">Brian Binley makes a very interesting point about the unsustainable debt model</a> used by pubco's basically being passed on to landlords - and hence on to consumers, who unsurprisingly either go to a cheaper local pub (if one exists) or the supermarket. Andrew Bridgen goes on to call it "<a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2012-01-12a.358.0" target="_blank">almost feudal</a>".<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>How [the] debate rages</b></span><br />
<br />
But over time, the debate threatens to emerge from its pretence of being about the pub model, and into an attack on the political process that is driving it (or being driven by it). At this point, the debate breaks down into 3 types of discourse:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1. <b>Anecdotal/qualitative rhetoric</b>: Stories from constituents, traders, etc. I suggest that the Select Committees' evidence also falls under this as they adopt an "interview" style approach. (Also, <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmberr/26/2602.htm" target="_blank">here's a good SC report from 2009</a> on the matter.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2. <b>Statistical evidence for/against intervention</b>: <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2012-01-12a.389.4" target="_blank">Ed Davey seems to use stats</a> more than others, for example.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
3. <b>Attacks against process and character</b>: With the nature of the BIS response and its apparent "close ties" to the BBPA being thrown open by the FoI request above, this is a third line of argument which seeks to undermine both of the above, on matters of <i>personal principle.</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are also appeals to "external" authority. The OFT, for instance, <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2012-01-12a.359.3" target="_blank">seem keen not to be involved</a>, which leads some to say they're not relevant, but <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2012-01-12a.397.1" target="_blank">others to say</a> this merely means regulation has no place in an apparently successful market.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Welcome to politics. What's interesting is how - or if - each of these types of argument "trump" each other. In other words, should we give pubs more choice over beer because </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
a) <b>a lot of people</b> say it's a problem?</div>
<div>
b) data suggests there is a <b>link</b> between lack of freedom, and pubs closing?</div>
<div>
c) the people behind the non-choice have <b>too much</b> economic and political <b>power</b>?</div>
<div>
<br />
In my mind, this is a bit of a paper-scissors-stone situation. Can any of these really be more important than the others, or do they just lead to a cycle of disagreement? How much do each of these - or all of them combined - duly influence any voting on the matter? And should I really have bought that four-pack of Speckled Hen from Sainsbury's today?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Exit, Stage Left</b></span><br />
<br />
I also liked the general response to <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2012-01-12a.396.5">Ed Davey's comment</a> which reads a little like the script for a bad school comedy play: <br />
<br />
<i><b>Brian Binley</b>: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?</i><br />
<i><b>Edward Davey</b>: No, I want to make some progress. </i><br />
<i>[<b>Hon. Members</b>: “Oh!”]</i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2012-01-12a.397.2" target="_blank">Also</a>:<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #111111; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"><i><br /></i></span></span></div>
<i><b>Martin Horwood</b>: Will my hon. Friend give way?</i><br />
<i><b>Edward Davey</b>: No, but I will in a second.</i><br />
<i><b>Brian Binley</b>: Will the Minister give way now?</i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-24711615695351494032011-10-30T22:31:00.002+00:002011-10-30T22:31:50.948+00:00Occupy is not equality, it is Equality.Read <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/30/occupy-london-nursery-mind">Occupy London is a nursery for the mind</a> by Madeleine Bunting at the Guardian. Think this through. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let's be clear. The Occupy movement is <i>not</i> about equality. Sure, they talk of "the 99%", but this is more a description of the world around them, rather than <i>who</i> should act. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is not about forcing a one-size-fits-all, globally-empowering solution, but about the <i>personal</i> ability to <i>build </i>a better world where <i>you</i> are. The most important message coming out of the Occupy movement is that <b>there is no global solution</b>. There is only what <i>you</i> can do.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Those striving for equality rely on some kind of Universal Right - but such Rights always require a centralised and authoritative power to maintain that equality. Capitalism "fought" against communism with this very tenet in mind - that the network is more sustainable and more adaptable than a single viewpoint.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now maybe history is being repeated - the New Network is flexing its strength around an old one that has crystallised. The old market has laid out its flaws for all to see (imbalance, resource exploitation, workforce exploitation, future exploitation), and challenges the centralised authorities (the State) to fix them. The enemy and the saviour are on the same side.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Occupy movement is not about equality <i>as we understand it </i>because requires effort, and responsibility, and right now, the motivation to employ this effort scattered between individuals. Instead, t is about <i>inspiration.</i> The idea of "equality" is shifted <i>fundamentally</i>, from a notion of identicality - in terms of living arrangements, in terms of spending power, in terms of life expectancy - to a notion of <i>potential</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The difference is huge. It almost seems to speak more to traditional market values than those who defend the markets as they stand. The idea that you get out what you put in, and that if you create <i>true</i> value then you will be valued. Be smart. Be authentic. Be happy. Be hard-working. Be connected. Be helpful. All of these are <i>network </i>values.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And all of these are values inherent to each and every one of us, not "skills" that we "choose" to get "taught".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Commonality is the new equality. Everything else - how you live, how you die - is just what you do with it.</div>Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-23880474796351867212011-10-02T22:12:00.000+01:002011-10-02T22:12:43.763+01:00The Networked Knowledge Worker in the 21st CenturyHarold Jarche <a href="http://www.jarche.com/2011/10/the-new-knowledge-worker/">talks about the new knowledge-worker</a> (via @<a href="https://twitter.com/DavidGurteen">DavidGurteen</a>) as defined b<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">y <a href="http://www.shareable.net/blog/knowledge-workers-and-the-commons-a-reflection">Neal Gorenflo</a>, </span> highlighting the role and importance of <b>information sharing</b>, <b>systems thinking/complexity</b> and <b>mixable politics</b> to a certain (emerging?) group of people.<br />
<br />
But I like the way Harold ties the idea into a lot of what I've been thinking - that this kind of "worker" is a big part of the puzzle staring us in the face. He raises the question of how companies and organisations can attract such a person, and says they need to become more <i>caring</i>, <i>flexible</i> and <i>ethical</i> to take advantage.<br />
<br />
But why is this such an important question?<br />
<br />
Because right now, it feels like we've run out of map. We can see a cliff looming, built out of superfluous bureaucracy, management fear, economic uncertainty, and political distrust. There's no map, no plan. Optimism is the main strategy still running, and another bit of it drops off the cliff every week.<br />
<br />
Knowledge workers, as outlined above, are fundamental to where we go next, for the following reasons:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><b>We need to know what the possibilities and the alternatives are.</b> The "solutions" we've been relying on at all levels - economic cutbacks, party politics, representative democracy, quantitative easing, debt-first economics... - will take either a long time, or will continue to entrench non-solutions. New solutions, or new takes on existing solutions, require local/small-scale thought and experimentation, but rapid communication to interested parties, like any other meme.<br /></li>
<li><b>We need to understand a more diverse population and set of viewpoints.</b> Maintaining a <i>status quo</i> "intended audience", or idea of what constitutes the "general public", will result in outdated and narrow answers. To caveat, I think there's always a danger of birds of a feather forming into networks, rather than diversity being realised inherently, but at the same time networks are key to "making diversity more transparent". The old, broadcast-only models of understanding who we are are no longer relevant or useful.<br /></li>
<li><b>We need to maintain a systemic perspective</b>. This is tricky, because we're so unused to organic modes of thought. We like to simplify in order to communicate and persuade, but over-simplification is useless - it leads to faulty solutions and worse, to solutions that create new problems. The logical approach of a single person is irrelevant when dealing with organic systems. The "wisdom of the crowds" needs to step up to meet the way of the world - some people will have some of the solution, but networking is the only way we can bring the pieces together.</li>
</ol>
<br />
Blocking the transfer of ideas happens all over the place for all sorts of reasons, good and bad. Yes, it's bad to inflict rapid change on people. Yes, it's bad to inflict badly-thought-out change. But it's also dumb to wait for an answer that everyone will agree to. It's dumb to old back from doing something because there's no short-term economic gain. Understanding <i>when</i> and <i>how</i> to apply change needs to be a skill that knowledge workers, and knowledge <i>management</i> need to get to grips with.<br />
<br />
Guess what? The networks are massing. But in their raw form, they're only good at disrupting - tearing down existing structures, routing around "slow power". But the ability to problem solve collectively - to bring about unity rather than entropy - still has yet to be proven.<br />
<br />
It's about more than knowledge. Or work.<br />
<br />Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-43717068248190912282011-09-22T17:20:00.001+01:002011-09-22T17:20:33.972+01:00Why we need Worst Value GuidanceCLG's recently-published <a href="http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1976926.pdf">Best Value Guidance</a> (2 page PDF) is a fascinating subject, all wrapped up in some <strike>fairly</strike> dry linguistics. At its heart is the question "H<b>ow can we get most bang for our buck, without screwing up communities and the environment?</b>"<br />
<br />
(For further background, go and read Toby Blume's piece "<a href="http://tobyblume.posterous.com/planning-for-people-or-for-profit">Planning for people or for profit?</a>" and Jo Ivens' piece <a href="http://joivens.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/blogging-against-the-clock/">on the risks of open data being used primarily by the private sector</a>. Done? Good.)<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/karlfrankowski/303949689/" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" title="Muffin Tops by karlfrankowski, on Flickr"><img alt="Muffin Tops" height="240" src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/105/303949689_b7f0875af5_m.jpg" width="192" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/karlfrankowski/303949689/">karlfrankowski</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It's fascinating because this is <b>the</b> big question that we (as a whole, interconnected society - even if we don't know it) are grappling with today. On the one hand, we've come to define "efficiency" as money spent vs money gained - or rather, in today's new landscape of austerity, money spent vs money <i>saved</i>. Headlines dealing in rhetoric proclaiming "£100,000 OF TAXPAYER'S MONEY SPENT ON STATIONERY/MUFFINS/HOOKERS" are a stab at <i>inefficiency</i> - and the idea that we can get the same thing for less, or even do without it.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, we all know that Money Isn't Everything (although you wouldn't think anyone actually <i>believed</i> that schmaltzy crap, given recent doom-mongering, market-crumbling headlines). It's easy to see what happens once we f--k the environment enough - it goes from not having green space to "enjoy", to pollution, health problems, food supply issues and a generally over-industrialised future which people love to see in movies, but not on their holidays.<br />
<br />
Community is a funny one though. We've kind of divided up and lived without "community" for a while now. We have TV and the Internet to hold our hands, and large-scale institutions that we pay up front for to catch us when we're ill/depressed/untrained. Is "Community" too often seen as something that fills in the gaps where both the market <i>and</i> the state fail?<br />
<br />
But intriguingly, it's when it's clear that economics alone isn't going to get us out of our current troubles that the impetus to reach out to alternative lines gets stronger. We expand our idea of "measurement" to include the stuff which we don't normally measure - and/or that we might consider important. We start looking at things like <a href="http://www.data4nr.net/resources/crime--community/">crime stats</a> to get an idea of how "nice" we all are. Or <a href="http://www.data4nr.net/resources/environment+scomm/">community perception stats</a> to see what we think of each other.<br />
<br />
<b>Worse Value</b><br />
<br />
Is this enough though? In fact, let's go crazy for a minute - is the "Best Value" approach enough any more? When does "Best Value" turn into "GREAT VALUE BARGIAN BASEMENT"?<br />
<br />
A digression. Years ago I realised the need to become, at least partially, an "irrational consumer" - that is, to disregard the assumption that you want to spend as little as possible and get as much as possible. Over the years, this has kind of happened. Freed from <i>needing</i> to find the next bargain (assuming that "rationality" is defined fairly narrowly), I feel more able to focus on some other <i>hugely</i> important factors:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><b>Long term quality.</b> An item might look and act the same as another, but the old phrase "you get what you pay for" often stands up. Pay 50% more to get 5% better now, but with the hope/expectation that you won't have to replace what you're buying in the next week.</li>
<li><b>Funding values I agree with.</b> Sometimes it's not just about what I get. It's what I give. And what I give can support some hugely talented people to create some amazing, inspirational things - things of <i>real value</i> (at least to me). In-advance music pledges are a great example - I don't buy anything immediately, and I may even pay more than latecomers, but at the end of the day, I feel <i>happy to put money into something I like to exist</i>.</li>
<li><b>Buying The Unknown.</b> Some time back, I went through a phase of buying random music albums. Often they'd be dire. Every now and then I'd be in awe. But it kept me on my toes. It introduced me to things I didn't know I liked, and it introduced me to things I didn't like, but glad I know are out there. That's pretty huge in terms of staying flexible, staying creative. Don't just stick to what you know.</li>
</ol>
<div>
If I'd have stuck to the idea of "Best Value" then I'd probably only buy the stuff I was <i>sure</i> I wanted, and I'd probably only get it if/when someone offered it to me at half-price. This is the world of Christmas sales. A world of bargain basements. But it does nothing to help me grow into new ideas.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>So what is value then?</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/29233640@N07/4389226590/" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" title="value by Robert Couse-Baker, on Flickr"><img alt="value" height="171" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2691/4389226590_7ccdd31042_m.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/29233640@N07/4389226590/">Robert Couse-Baker</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div>
Sure, not spending all your cash on crap is important too. I don't go buying luxury food because I don't have that much money. But there <i>is</i> more to life than money, so nor do I try to buy crap, industrialised food - which would probably, under a few definitions at least, count as "Best Value".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Remember that the "Value" range in supermarkets is always the cheapest. "Value" is a weird, indefinable quality. "True value" is something else. "Beyond value" is probably just a dodgy marketing device. But "Value" - what is <i>valuable</i> to <i>you</i> - isn't necessarily something that we can purely base on measurements. It's a gut feeling. An unexpressed response. An imagination.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There <i>are</i> things we can measure, beyond the realms of economics. We should do this. We should make it open.<br />
<br />
But measurabilityness isn't everything. Money isn't everything <i>because </i>money is <i>just</i> a measure of life. Money is not a "thing", in the same way that a survey about emotions is not a "thing". The emotions are the "thing". People feeling those emotions is a "thing".<br />
<br />
Numbers have a <i>value</i>. But it's these "things" which are <i>valuable.</i></div>
Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-49722638791936864012011-08-12T22:18:00.003+01:002011-08-12T22:38:11.651+01:00Not on social media blocking after allOh God I was going to write a blog post about how social media blocking could work in practice, and why it wouldn't work. But then I came to my senses.
<br />
<br />Seriously. I mean, how distant an understanding of the world do you need to try to get communication services shut down whenever some 18-year olds are planning trouble? If that's the route to go down, why do we even let anyone under the age of 30 have access to the Internet, or phones, or paper? It's like people think we can be parents on the whole Internet. It's like technology MUST have a master. (Although ironically this is the reason why AI will always tend towards either failure or SkyNet [tm]. OMG that's it - teenagers are the manufactured cyber warriors we've bred to become in perennial war with. The only solution is to send Justin Bieber back in time to KILL TIM BERNERS-LEE in an increasingly self-parodying series of movie-style events.) Come to think of it, it's probably best to ban youth clubs and schools as well. At least that might achieve something of value. It's not like young people trust, respect or believe anything that supposed teachers and role models tell them. I mean, young people seem to have all these <i>ideas</i> and <i>passion</i> to change the world and make it a better place - or at least a more fun one with, y'know, trees and shit in - but then when they realise how the world works and that there's no money or enthusiasm to do it, or the whole "change" thing is oppressed with "process" and tut-tuting, you can ACTUALLY SEE their eyes roll back in their head. There's a reason why zombie films are so popular now, y'know, and it's nothing to do with the gore. The long, slow, gradual, crushing drudgery towards inevitable consumption. The lack of flow. The life which never ends, but never goes anywhere. When was the last time you saw a happy zombie? Welcome to the real world, here's your desk and a keyboard.
<br />
<br />STOP HAVING IDEAS. IDEAS COST MONEY.
<br />Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-36004706863499751182011-07-31T20:04:00.006+01:002011-07-31T21:06:49.786+01:00Overviewing the Government Web PresenceThe Government released a list of about <a href="http://bit.ly/naO6Ck">440 current websites</a> listed by department, which was fairly easy to turn into some PHP code. Hoping to release the code soon (once I've got Github working), but so far you can see what's below. Both projects try to get an overview of the Government's total web impression - it'd be interesting to repeat this, say, yearly to see what changes.<br /><br /><a href="http://bit.ly/nc80nQ">Click here for a page showing screenshots for all 400+ homepages</a><br /><br />I also scraped the listed pages and did a bit of processing to turn the content into Wordles. OK, not terribly exciting. But I kind of like the idea of turning open data into "art".<br /><br />Here's the front page content with some common and site-related words removed (click through for original):<br /><br /><a href="http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/3882575/UK_Government_websites_%5Bunfiltered%5D" title="Wordle: UK Government websites [unfiltered]"><img src="http://www.wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/3882575/UK_Government_websites_%5Bunfiltered%5D" alt="Wordle: UK Government websites [unfiltered]" style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd"></a><br /><br />Here's the same data but with more common words removed by wordle.net:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/3882590/UK_Government_websites_%5Bfiltered%5D" title="Wordle: UK Government websites [filtered]"><img src="http://www.wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/3882590/UK_Government_websites_%5Bfiltered%5D" alt="Wordle: UK Government websites [filtered]" style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd"></a><br /><br />As I say, hope to post code and data soon, even though it's not much work to re-create... In the meantime, any suggestions welcome.Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-14281464123926760002011-07-15T09:06:00.004+01:002011-07-15T09:25:10.169+01:00"Forget the data."Holy crap, Emma Mulqueeny's (<a href="http://twitter.com/hubmum">@hubmum</a>) blog from yesterday <a href="http://mulqueeny.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/whats-the-next-challenge-for-open-government-data/">on the next challenge for Open Data</a> is possibly the. Best. Thing. I. Have. Read. In. A. Long. Time.<br /><br />In particular:<blockquote>Open data? Awesome, and we are making tracks.<br /><br />Open Government? HARD, and we are not banging on that door yet."<br /></blockquote>and:<blockquote><strong>So what’s the next challenge for Open Government data?</strong><br /><br />Forget the data.<br /><br />Find a way to enable these revolutionary ideas, apps, websites and widgets that save time, money and mind-numbing frustration from those who have to engage with government.<br /><br />Do that, and only that.<br /></blockquote>This is <strong>the</strong> conversation we need to be having. Why? Not to work out "how to do it", but <strong>because it questions what is valuable and necessary in government</strong>.<br /><br />Open data isn't a technical thing. It's about relevance. If you could do everything, what would you do? If you were hungry, would you eat, or would you talk about how to find out what the best thing to eat is and what the best way of eating it is?<br /><br />"Open data" that lacks a medium for turning creative use into real-world change is irrelevant. It's what bad businesses do - they invent a million great things, but never actually want people to use them. Instead they use them as examples to tout how great and creative they are, in the strange hope that a people will think a symbol of progress is as good as progress itself.<br /><br />Until, that is, someone comes along and not only has a <em>better</em> idea, but also <em>actually builds it</em>. For everyone to <em>use</em>.<br /><br />Is that difficult? Of course - building stuff requires foresight, management, flexibility and the wisdom of knowing what your goal is. Do people do it all the time? Look around you.<br /><br />Open data <em>needs</em> to be about other things now - including <a href="http://sphereless.blogspot.com/2011/07/open-data-funding-experiments-and.html">how it's funded</a>, what the audiences are, and what the future holds. But none of these are about data. None of these are technical. We already have a society that runs on data, so data itself isn't a new paradigm. <br /><br />We can't keep thinking of open data - and possibly even our entire creative efforts - as some kind of "continual prototype". We need to apply it like we applied sewage systems and electricity. <br /><br />We need to understand that this isn't just about making the game easier to play, but about a whole new game.Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-88696907910813047232011-07-13T10:55:00.007+01:002011-07-13T13:07:40.759+01:00Open data funding - experiments and ecosystems<strong>Paying for the Open</strong><br /><br />The funding aspect of open data development came up at <a href="http://odbh.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Open Data Brighton & Hove</a> (<em>#odbh</em>) last night - who should (or shouldn't) pay for it?<br /><br />While one camp says that there are lots of people who will build on top of open data for free and for passion, the camp at the other end of the hall wants to see return on investment for work paid for. The latter works both ways - people want to be paid to develop, and people want to pay for development. If the pay<i>back</i> is enough, of course.<br /><br />In a sense, both camps are "right" - the model you believe in depends on your daily interests, daily funding models, and where else you get money from. So it's easy to see that some people are fine building free side-projects, while for others it's a day job. Sometimes one person may have a foot on both sides, depending on what's going on that particular day/week/whatever.<br /><br />This will always be the case. So it's really really important to understand that <strong>there is no "correct" model</strong>. Any open data <em>ecosystem</em> needs to fundamentally take this into account. Making data available is great - some people <em>will</em> run and play with it. But working out funding and collaboration is also great. Both are <em>essential</em>, even in the context of open-source, cutbacks, austerity and liberal progressiveness etc etc.<br /><br /><strong>Bountiful</strong><br /><br />The more I think about #odbh, the more I notice how much I'm influenced by the openness of the <a href="http://forum.bitcoin.org/" target="_blank">Bitcoin community</a>. Other open communities exist, of course, and do similar things, I'm sure, but Bitcoin is the one I'm closest to at the moment.<br /><br />(Background sidenote: Ignore what <a href="http://www.bitcoin.org/" target="_blank">Bitcoin is</a>, and whether it's a good idea or not. The relevant and important point is how people are organising around it.)<br /><br />One funding model that seems to work is the "Bounties" model - a kind of funding pledge, but one based on identifying desired functionality rather than, say, <a href="http://www.pledgebank.com/" target="_blank" title="Pledgebank">group activity</a> or <a href="http://www.pledgemusic.com/" target="_blank" title="PledgeMusic">a band's next output</a>. This <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Active_Bounties" target=_"blank">list of bounties</a> isn't complete, but it illustrates how it works and the kind of work people want done.<br /><br />Could this work for open data development? If people are serious about wanting an idea turned into reality, shouldn't they put their wallet where their mouth is? Does it offer a "third way" to both working for free or having to "prove" your idea in advance?<br /><br />I suppose what I'd envision is a bit like the <a href="http://data.gov.uk/ideas" target="_blank">Ideas section on data.gov.uk</a>, but with more ... oomph, more "I really want this" instead of "This'd be nice".<br /><br /><strong>So...</strong><br /><br />To wrap up, what this says to me is that open data is more than just about getting data out there, and even more than just about how we weave data into our everyday lives. It's about how we commission progress, how we organise collaboration, and how we identify needs.<br /><br />All stuff we've been doing for ages, really. But here's a chance to try new ways of approaching old problems, and to bring all of that experimentation together. To create a very real open ecosystem.Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-33184582161068136512011-07-06T15:12:00.001+01:002011-07-06T15:12:34.270+01:00Averages in the TabloidsComparing the <a href="http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/public_private_sector_pay_july2011.pdf">original report on public-vs-private pay</a> to the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk.nyud.net/news/article-2011414/Public-sector-pay-State-workers-earn-MORE-equivalent-private-sector-staff.html?ITO=1490">tabloid coverage</a> just makes me want to give up talking.<br /><br />Nearly all of the caveats in the report are missed out of the tabloid piece. All of the interesting analysis is omitted. The result is a headline designed to get people angry. <strong>The common name for this is "ignorance".</strong> Irresponsible ignorance.<br /><br />As the report points out <em>extremely clearly</em>, many factors affect what is basically a comparison of averages between apples and oranges:<ul><li> The public sector has recently outsourced low-cost jobs, pushing up averages</li><br /><li> The public sector similarly has more educated people, pushing up averages (at no time does the tabloid ask what value is added by staff)...</li><br /><li> ... but also, people with a degree earn almost 6% <em>less</em> in the public sector than they would in the private</li><br /></ul>There are some other interesting points such as whether banks are classified as public or private, age and gender differences, and comparison between highest and lowest earners in each sector.<br /><br />For me though, this is a reminder that <strong>averages are hard</strong> - especially for people who "just want to read a newspaper". Understanding evidence is tricky, and presenting is even trickier (something we tried to take into account on the <a href="http://improving-visualisation.org/">Improving Visualisation</a> project.) It's too easy to fool people, and the tabloids keep. doing. this. all. the. time.<br /><br />How much stats do people need to know to engage "fairly" with demcoracy? Should they <em>need</em> to know about mean, median, mode? Should they trust the media? Should they trust statisticians?Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-61864853011365662222011-06-29T10:46:00.005+01:002011-06-29T10:58:17.681+01:00Re-uniting Democracy: 1: The myth of limited power<em><strong>Part One, in which we try to escape the trap of thinking of power as a limited resource.</strong></em><br /><br />Synchronicity is a useful thing - it allows us to begin to make connections we otherwise wouldn't have made.<br /><br />For example, this morning's diverse reading brought together two articles that really need to be meshed. Hence this blog post.<br /><br />First read Richard Veryard's post on <a href="http://posiwid.blogspot.com/2011/06/contradiction-and-ambivalence.html">Contradiction and Ambivalence </a>. <br /><br />Now read WeLoveLocalGovernment's post on <a href="http://welovelocalgovernment.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/1351/">whether Central Government cares about Local Government</a>.<br /><br />Both look at the ongoing issue of whether we should be more centralised or more decentralised. Reading through <a href="http://www.lgcplus.com/5031847.article">the speech that David Cameron made</a> shows how embedded in our thought this issue is:<br /><br /><em>"When we see a problem, we don’t ask what central government can do...<br /><br />...we ask what can local people do, what can councils do?"</em><br /><br />...and...<br /><br /><em>"That doesn’t mean I want us locking horns on an ongoing basis.<br /><br />In fact quite the opposite."</em><br /><br />It's clear from this that the modern political model is <b>fundamentally competitive</b>. It views Power as tension, as a <em>resource</em>, as something that is owned and fought for and handed out by one group just like money can be. <br /><br />Allocation of a resource depends on division. In the same way that we're forced to deal with party politics and left-vs-right, we're also shoe-horned into a political model that plays central-vs-decentral, inner-vs-outer, top-vs-bottom. Zero-sum all the way. A quantum of power can be given to one group or another, but not both.<br /><br />Power-as-a-resource means it can be bargained with. I'll give you X power but it means I can do Y. A barter under difficult conditions. An assumption that there is a limited amount of power to go round.<br /><br />This is wrong. It is a distraction. Smoke and mirrors.<br /><br />Guess what? All the exciting stuff happening right now is all about people <em>collaborating</em>. Not just across parties, but across layers. Left/right/top/bottom/centre/edge/institution/freelance/private/public. <br /><br />Synchronisation, rather than tension. Collaboration is a new form of power. <br /><br />No, not a new form of power. A new form of <em>power creation</em> - collaboration is more than just a way of distributing power, it is a <em>meta-power</em>, a means of actually increasing the power available to all.<br /><br />How it does this is another blogpost. What matters now is that this creation of power is essential. As the power/resource/money model gets itself into knots and ever-decreasing circles, things get more and more vicious. Things get underhand. Things get confusing. We divide ourselves and we end up conquering only ourselves.<br /><br />We need a way out, to reverse the trend, to grow rather than shrink. And right now, collaboration is the one act firmly keeping real progress alive.Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-51624847522536620422011-04-14T11:22:00.003+01:002011-04-14T11:35:37.208+01:00Kettling: Illegal and Counter-productiveThe High Court has ruled that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/14/kettling-g20-protesters-police-illegal" target="_blank">kettling tactics at the G20 protests</a> in 2009 was illegal. But the Police say that kettling "is a necessary tactic to tackle the potential for violence".<br /><br />Potential is an interesting word. Crowd control is a fine line between structure and chaos.<br /><br />But that line isn't one created or maintained by the Police. It's one that manifests through <em>trust</em>. <br /><br />Public demonstration is inherently problematic - if an issue has reached this stage, then there's already a lot of anger around. A lot of people who feel like they haven't been listened to. Of <em>course</em> the potential for violence exists in a demonstration - "successful" politics avoids all physical confrontation, walking or fighting.<br /><br />A demonstration is a final call to be listened to - but more than that. It's a final show of order and solidarity, a challenge for the ruling parties to trust this potential. If the Police - as the on-the-ground representation of the parties - cannot display this trust, and actively <em>suppress</em> this physical demonstration, then <em>of course</em> anger will turn violent.Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-75041991507208341892011-04-06T10:50:00.008+01:002011-04-06T22:01:50.302+01:00How do you network yours? (Why the medium is not the message.)Even co-operation is in competition, it seems. Social media has sprung up all over the place, and even those that "get it" are feeling fairly confused. Should we set up a new conversation, or find an existing one? Should we post our thoughts to Facebook or to a blog? Should we be broadcasting or engaging?<br /><br />For some people, the answers to these will be "obvious". But often what we think is obvious is actually just what's lacking - what we're arguing for <em>more</em> of.<br /><br />Really, the answer is that there is no answer. Sometimes broadcasting is useful, sometimes listening is useful. Sometimes blogs are fine, sometimes Facebook is fine. It depends. It matters. And yet at the same time, it doesn't matter. Conversation is more than a blog post or what-have-you, because conversation is about <em>ideas</em> - and good ideas will spread across networks, across media.<br /><br />Stepping back a moment, <a href="http://twitter.com/LouLouK" target="_blank">Louise Kidney</a> does a great job of picking up on <a href="http://ashinyworld.blogspot.com/2011/04/telling-truth.html" target="_blank">digital inclusion/exclusion <em>within</em> existing groups</a>, and takes a practical line of engaging people with the communication tools they need in the modern world.<br /><br />I think this is vital. It's ridiculous to think that our democracy is limited to pre-defined routes of communication. Imagine if you couldn't phone a council because they were afraid of misusing the telephone. Imagine if you couldn't e-mail them because they weren't sure whether to say "Hi" or "Dear Sir".<br /><br />But at the same time, I think we need to look beyond this. (Hey, I like big ideas.) We need to look under the hood and ask <em>why</em> there seems to be a continual mismatch between the tools being used by citizens, and the tools being used by authorities. Can we really afford to re-assess every new website as it forms? Following on from that, should all forms of communication be used to engage with citizens? And if not, which ones should be? When should support for old networks get killed off?<br /><br />(I don't have answers for these. What I do have is a different way of approaching the situation, rather than going in circles. I'm a geek. I abstracterise things. Big ideas come out somewhere along the line. Sometimes these make things clearer. Sometimes not.)<br /><br /><strong>In my mind, the "problem" is not, fundamentally, one of tools - but of how and why we organise ourselves.</strong><br /><br />Go and read this article on <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/voluntary-sector-network/2011/apr/05/redefining-big-society" target="_blank">Scotland's social media efforts</a>. Go on. I'll wait.<br /><br />Now notice - the strapline there mentions social media. The article mentions Twitter and Facebook a couple of times. But really, the core point of it, is not <em>what</em> people are using, but <em>who</em> is doing it, and <em>how</em>. Social media are just one way this manifests.<br /><br />But the tools are ephemeral. In the real world, groups form around issues, and tools form around groups. Not the other way around. I use many websites and I even go to a few face-to-face meetings. But, largely speaking, the networks are the same across all of these. Sometimes bits of these networks use tools I don't use (e.g. Tumblr) but that's fine - I participate using the tools I find most useful (e.g. Beer).<br /><br /><strong>Learning how to use a tool/interface is <em>useful</em>, but it's not <em>essential</em>. True engagement happens whatever the tool</strong> - it comes from getting involved, turning up to meetings, listening to people, feeding back, taking things seriously, having fun.<br /><br />And I think it's this level of engagement that people are struggling with - <strong>new social rules, not new interfaces</strong>. People are afraid of turning up to workshops or pubs in the same way they're afraid of using new websites, but if we're to make something that benefits <em>everyone</em>, we have to work out what methods and, more importantly, what networks suit each person best. (That's one to return to in a different post, though.)Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595046214305051488.post-57803428226185644292011-02-14T20:17:00.005+00:002011-02-14T21:10:25.432+00:00Hackers, transparency, and the zen of failure<div style="float: right"><img src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4148V1WT9ML.jpg" width="200" /></div><br />This week I picked up <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10301435-the-hacker-ethic" target="_blank">the Hacker Ethic</a> from my library (remember them?) by Pekka Himanen, with an intro by Linus Torvalds and an outro by Manuel Castells. It was hard to resist it with names like that splashed across it.<br /><br />The book was written in 2001, back when the browser wars were in full swing and streamed video was still a bit of a novelty (so nothing's changed that much). But the theme addressed by Himanen is anything but dated - and contains some key threads which I want to think about and blog about more.<br /><br />A lot of the text deals with the idea of what makes a "hacker" tick -and not just geek hackers, but anyone with a passion for what they do, rather than a bitter feeling that they work because they have to. Central to this hackerness is a <em>passionate creativity</em>, and a <em>desire to share knowledge</em> - including the results of that knowledge, such as code.<br /><br /><strong>The truth and untruth of progress</strong><br /><br />This act of sharing knowledge is partially a form of status, true. But when you read <a href="http://www.lgcplus.com/home/blogs/dclg-must-play-fair-with-figures/5025554.blog" target="_blank">articles like this</a> about incorrect data being published, you start to notice what else open knowledge (including data) is about - <em>social learning</em>.<br /><br />Hackers and open government are both (now) keen on sharing data - knowledge, code, ideas. But the real difference is in how they learn - for the hacker, openness brings about learning and improvement through <em>public failure</em> - there is an assumption that what you create <em>can be improved</em>, and an attitude that anyone else is welcome to improve it.<br /><br />Now compare this to <a href="http://www.communities.gov.uk/issuesandresponses/newsroom/1840171" target="_blank">CLG's response to the LGC article above</a> - a response filled with defensive language and finger-pointing. There is something rather scientific - or, rather, legal - about this discourse: claims are made by one party and refuted by another. Slowly the "truth" is "sculpted" from what is left.<br /><br />But for the hacker, the truth is only what is created - not what is undisputed. Hackers fork code, create new communities, start new websites, run unconferences. If "truth" exists, then it is what <em>emerges</em>, not what is discovered, or what remains.<br /><br /><strong>What do hackers sit on?</strong><br /><br />Can a highly hierarchical structure such as our democracy adapt to be creative rather than competitive? The open data movement is driven by both of these - data for transparency can be thought of as "evidence" in a legal bid for the justification of an organisation's existence. Data for new apps, on the other hand, only needs a use, and to be useful in a creative context.<br /><br />This split in attitude is key when considering efforts like the recent <a href="http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/codepracticeladataconsult" target="_blank">consultation on local data transparency</a>, which clearly puts "open data" into the evidential context:<br /><blockquote><br />The Government wants to place more power into people’s hands to increase transparency by seeing how their money is spent.<br /></blockquote><br /><div style="float: right; font-size: 85%; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 10px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/amagill/22774997/" title="Transparent screen 1 by AMagill, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/16/22774997_d5026fc1c5_m.jpg" width="240" height="180" alt="Transparent screen 1" /></a><br /><em>img by AMagill</em></div>My fear is that this inherently makes "open data" <em>unuseful</em> to the hacker crowd - an essential crowd to interest when the data is being released in CSV files, or other formats that require some parsing. If hacker's can't create something with the data, they won't do <em>anything</em> with it. The idea of an "army of armchair auditors" becomes a functional paradox, as the people the Government has in mind for the data apparently sit in armchairs, while the hackers sit in cafes, meet in pubs, and generally find comfy chairs far too comfy to code in.<br /><br />To return to this post's title, what role will failure and learning play in this paradox? Looking at the draft code, we can see a desire to use the "many eyes" approach to fixing data:<br /><blockquote><br />18. Data should be as accurate as possible at first publication. While errors may occur the publication of information should not be unduly delayed to rectify mistakes. Instead, publication and use of the data should be used to help address any imperfections and deficiencies.<br /></blockquote><br />The hacker approach agrees with this - fix things as we go along. But does this fit with the idea of "armchair auditors"? As we saw in the LGC article, how can an auditor tell the difference between what is <em>incorrect</em>, and what is <em>wholely disagreeable</em>? And if they can't, why should they trust any of it?<br /><br />(Maybe we need a "stable release" system like that of open source projects? Maybe, like the Linux kernel or desktop distributions, data can be released with an "unstable/testing" tag, then marked up as "stable/trustable" after enough testing has been done on it.)<br /><br />Transparency is a lovely thing - but everyone has different uses for it. If it's used for creativity, then there is, perhaps, an implicit assumption that things can and will change. If, on the other hand it's to be used for accountability, then <em>there needs to be trust in it</em>.Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com1