How should governments educate agencies about open data?

Australia now has eight whole-of-jurisdiction open data catalogues at state and federal level, alongside agency-based repositories such as at the ABS and Geosciences Australia.

There's now a recommendation, if not a clear mandate, that agencies release data in some kind of open form - although machine-readable data remains limited and some agencies have attempted to develop their own copyright processes rather than using a pre-existing scheme such as Creative Commons (the standard to by Attorney-Generals several years ago and implemented as default in several jurisdictions).

However the quantity of data released remains low - as does the quality and context around much of the data that has been released. Agencies still resist calls to release data, with some requiring FOI requests to prompt them rather than proactively provide data to the public for reuse.

While a growing group of public servants at both senior and junior levels are becoming more aware of open data, there is often still a low level of awareness about what open data means, why it is important, what agencies have been requested to do and what this means in practice.

This isn't an issue unique to Australia, it is a challenge in every jurisdiction releasing open data around the world - over 300 of them.

Fortunately some jurisdictions have recognised this issue and taken steps to address it.

A great example is the City of Philadelphia in the United States of America.

Philadelphia had been an early entry into the open data space, originally releasing its GIS (Geographic information system) data free to the public in 2001, long before the open data movement gained steam.

However they had lost steam by 2009, with other city, state and national governments moving forward with their own open data sites. As the city was in the midst of the GFC and couldn't afford to develop its own open data presence, it worked with a group of open data advocates and companies, who had an interest in accessing and using the data - particularly with Azavea, a data visualisation company.

The resulting site, OpenDataPhilly, is still a great example of a very usable open data site and the City has used it effectively to expose much of the data it already had made public and build on this with additional data.

However, like other jurisdictions, the City of Philadelphia struck the same issue in terms of many public servants not understanding the value or importance of open data. While I can't speak specifically for the City of Philadelphia's experience, this issue can lead to the gradual decay of open data sites, with few new datasets added, old data not being updated and data that is released not having been collected in ways designed to simplify and reduce the cost of publishing.

As a result, two years after launching OpenDataPhilly, the City's government has released the Open Data Guidebook, designed to provide practical guidance to City of Philadelphia departments and agencies on the release of open data to the public.

Released as a work-in-progress Google Doc and subject to regular updates, the Open Data Guidebook is an excellent guide for any jurisdiction seeking to increase internal awareness and understanding of open data and its value to government and the community.

Read full post...

View summary...

Will the Australian Government take an open government approach to developing its Open Government National Action Plan?

Now that Australia has finally sent a letter of intent to join the Open Government Partnership, I've been reading examples of how other jurisdictions went about developing their National Action Plans (a requirement of OGP membership) to foster and support government openness.

It is clear that one of the key attributes of the most meaningful Plans is broad engagement with external and internal stakeholders and with the public on what should be included and emphasised within the National Action Plan itself.

For example, the US's second National Action Plan states:

As it developed a U.S. National Action Plan (“National Plan”), the Federal Government engaged in extensive consultations with external stakeholders, including a broad range of civil society groups and members of the private sector. It solicited inputfrom theAdministration’s own Open Government Working Group, comprised of senior-level representatives from executive branch departments and agencies. White House policymakers also engaged the public via a series of blog posts, requesting ideas about how to focus Open Government efforts on increasing public integrity, more effectively managing public resources, and improving public services. Responsive submissions were posted online.

And Canada's National Action Plan states:

Over the past two years, we have consulted Canadians on both the development of a Digital Economy Strategy and on Open Government. Our Digital Economy consultation sought feedback from all Canadians on how to improve innovation and creativity, and achieve the shared goal of making Canada a global leader in the digital economy. More recently, in the fall of 2011, we launched a consultation to explore Canadians’ perspectives on Open Government in order to inform the development of Canada’s Action Plan on Open Government. 

In fact, it is a requirement for joining the OGP that nations engage in public consultation around their National Action Plan - not simply trump out previous consultations on related topics.

For example, the UK's draft for their second National Action Plan is currently out for public consultation at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/open-government-partnership-uk-draft-national-action-plan-2013

Something that will be keenly watched by the open government community in Australia is therefore not only whether the Australian Government releases a National Action Plan and completes its commitments to join the OGP, but how the Government goes about creating the plan.

This is a case of monkey see, monkey do - the tone of openness for future Australian governments could be set by how the Government consults and engages the public and external stakeholders in creating the plan.

If the Australian Government takes a 'lip service' approach, resting on past achievements and limited engagement, this will provide senior public servants with a lead that the Government wants to be seen to be open, but doesn't really wish to be open, leading to similar behaviour in future consultations and openness across the Australian Public Service (APS).

However if the Australian Government takes this opportunity to pursue a world-class approach to demonstrating it s commitment to being as open as a national government can realistically be, this sends a different signal, a signal of commitment to true transparency, which will provide a different lead to senior public servants, one which fosters ongoing commitment throughout the APS.

A lot rests on the approach the Australian Government takes to progresses its intent to join the OGP over the next few months - with a backdrop of a new Prime Minister, new Ministry and new agenda facing an upcoming federal election and an in-progress FOI review.

With the Attorney-General's Department in charge of the OGP process, rather than a government body more intimately connected with an openness agenda, we can only wait and see how the Australian Government will take this forward.

Read full post...

View summary...

Freedom of information advocacy: a global snapshot, from Open & Shut

I've had no time to blog this week due to family commitments, however thought it worth drawing attention to Peter Timmins' fascinating post on freedom of information, over at his Open & Shut blog.

Titled Freedom of information advocacy: a global snapshot, the post provides information on the recent report from the Freedom of Information Advocates Network about global Freedom of Information (FOI), also known as Right To Information (RTI), looking at the 95 jurisdictions (slightly under half of the world's countries) that currently have FOI or RTI laws.

Peter wrote the section for Australasia and Oceania and includes an extract in his post.

For the report itself, visit www.foiadvocates.net

Read full post...

View summary...

Delivering last decade's technology today - what has gone wrong with ATO eTAX?

Six months ago I blogged about the success of e-tax as an egovernment service.

Over the last 14 years the service had grown to an annual 2.5 million submissions, with growth of around 5% per year.

I called it an egovernment success story for Australia - and stand by that view. E-tax has done a great job of delivering a service most adult Australians needed, a way of completing our annual tax return in a much faster and simpler manner.

However the buzz around the Australian Tax Office's (ATO) launch of an Apple version of its e-tax software has been uniformly negative.

Error message in etax for Apple
Source: Sydney Morning Herald

Besides there being issues with the software not working under the default security settings for Apple's operating system (now fixed), the interface not complying with Apple's user interface standards (due to being a direct port from Windows), and the time it has taken for an Apple version (17 years), concerns have also been raised at the development cost (reportedly $5.2 million) and the entire approach - developing system-specific software rather than a web application.

When the ATO first launched e-tax (for Windows only) in 1997 on CD, it was considered a state-of-the-art egovernment service, showcasing the way ahead for government in moving from paper to a digital-first approach.

Over the years, as the service grew in popularity, so did the calls for the ATO to support other platforms - even create a web-based service.

The ATO continued developing e-tax, updating it every year with the latest tax law changes, refining the interface, improving the speed and logic and ensuring it worked with the latest versions of Windows - apparently spending over $39 million on the software to 2013, or an average of $2.8 million per year.

Of that, approximately $32 million went to the private company that developed the software, yes e-tax was outsourced from the start.

According to Crikey, in 2004 the Tax Commissioner indicated at Senate Estimates that the ATO hadn't seen substantial demand for versions of e-tax on other platforms, however by 2007 the ATO announced in a media release that they would test an Apple version in 2008.

These tests were subsequently abandoned and nothing further happened until 2011, when the ATO again said it had an Apple version almost ready - but again delayed it until 2013 due to issues.

The Apple version of e-tax released last Friday, reportedly cost $5.2 million to develop on top of the cost of the Windows product.

I can't verify how good this version is, as I've not yet succeeded in getting it to run on my Apple laptop.

However even if it runs perfectly, the ATO has reached a point where it needs to look beyond the current software-based approach to e-tax.

While understanding the ATO's commitment to security, in an age when the majority of Australians use the internet for their banking, companies use web-based financial, HR and CRM systems and the world's financial markets are managed through web-based trading systems, it doesn't make sense that the ATO is still developing and maintaining operating system specific software.

While I appreciate that not all Australians are online, that hasn't been a barrier to other commercial or government services offering online services, backed by face-to-face, phone or paper processes for people offline.

In fact the ATO's paper submission process works quite well - the design thinking employed by the ATO has borne a lot of fruit in this area.

From being a leader in the electronic tax return area, we've now dropped in the list significantly - with some other nations offering more sophisticated web-based solutions, or having opened the field to private companies who meet their tax office's requirements.

The ATO's centralised software-based approach is a good 20th Century solution, but an increasingly poor approach for the 21st Century as the range of devices people are using keeps increasing.

While the ATO might be able to justify cost-efficiencies in continuing to deliver e-tax as a software product, the writing is on the wall for operating system specific client software.

More and more software is moving online, with computers and other internet connection devices increasingly using web browsers essentially as their operating systems.

The risk the ATO faces is that the rising cost of maintaining and updating multiple copies of e-tax might leave the agency with less and less funds for product innovation.

In effect, if the ATO doesn't put a concerted effort into making the leap from software clients to software as a service it risks having e-tax become a white elephant, dragging down its future innovation capability.

Many organisations face this type of decision at some point. Deciding when to make a paradigm leap of  this type is hard, and quickly distinguishes good from bad management.

Microsoft is moving its products online as services, as is Adobe and companies such as Salesforce.com have led the way in replacing locally hosted CRM, HR, financial and other organisational systems with online equivalents.

Government agencies will need to make similar, if not identical, decisions. When to shift the services they provide, such as e-tax, from client to cloud, when to replace the services they use with cloud from client - and which they especially need to not replace.

Whatever impact the current media storm has on the ATO, I hope both political and public sector leadership is prepared to lead in this area. To change how they approach and deliver IT to deliver long-term efficiencies and improvements.

With the focus on the ATO, I hope they are able to step up. While their track record on egovernment is good, the environment has changed and they must change with it.

Read full post...

View summary...

My presentation to the UK Government Digital Service

I'm going to do a full post on my visit to the UK Government Digital Service (the GDS), but thought I'd lead with the presentation I gave to them regarding the state of Government 2.0 and open government in Australia, and how we've reached the point we're at.

Note this is purely my view of the situation - if I've gotten things wrong, please correct me so I keep it in mind when speaking to others.

Read full post...

View summary...