The White House issued a very timely page, which shows the self-reported progress of agencies toward meeting the open government requirements. Unsurprisingly, almost all agencies get the best compliance scores (“Meets Expectations”) on all they were required to do so far.

I have been browsing quite a few open government pages, and – although their layout varies – content is remarkably homogenous. In particular, again with few exceptions, it is relatively easy to get to both the open data sets and to the idea sharing page, which is powered – for most agencies – by Ideascale, a tool selected by GSA and used already in May 2009 during the first phase of the Open Dialogue, which ultimately led to the Open Government Directive itself.

The majority of agencies use IdeaScale, while some (such as the Department of Agriculture) use different tools and others (such as the Social Security Administration) offer alternatives, pointing out that IdeaScale runs on an external site and does not comply with federal policies about the use of persistent cookies. A waiver has been granted for the use of cookies in the context of open government initiatives: however it is interesting to note that not all agencies warn about this, while some do so quite explicitly (not being a lawyer, I wonder whether the waiver is enough).

It is too early to judge the value and innovation shown by ideas submitted and commented upon so far. There are still too few, with too few votes. It is evident that, in some cases, draft ideas have been put forward by agencies to stimulate dialogue: this is a good idea, as many people – who are not the usual suspects such as activists and advocacy groups – do need a solid starting point to start being engaged.

What struck me is that all those who use Ideascale and its template, show a bulleted list that looks like this:

Give us your ideas on how we can:

• Work better with others inside & outside the government
• Solicit feedback from the public
• Improve the availability & quality of information
• Be more innovative & efficient
• Create Social Security’s Open Government Plan. Learn More…

One would expect the “Learn More” link to go to a draft open government plan, but all of them pointed to the open government page. I would argue that, in order to more effectively engage people on building the plan, it would be great to have an evolving draft of the plan available for comment. This is clearly going to be the case after 7 April, by when the Plans are due (and as required by the directive), but there is no sign so far.

The only two exceptions I found were the Department of Transportation and the Dept of Health and Human Services.

The former positioned itself as a leader in open government compliance, by hosting an early event about how to develop plans. It does give access to a very early table of content for the plan, where it mostly outlines the intended methodology.

The latter provides a very clear layout, points to a blog rather than Ideascale to discuss (no comment yet though), and explicitly asks for comments on the Open Government Plan, although the current draft is no more than what the Directive already provides.

Finally, although this is not a beauty context, the page that I liked most was the one from NASA. It features an imposing countdown clock on the right hand side, which indicates days, hours, minutes and seconds to the deadline for idea submission. It also gives access to many NASA pages on social media, as well as a wealth of other information about iPhone apps, easy access to data sets, and so forth. On the other hand, isn’t it a bit easy to be cool if you have so much information that is already compelling to many people by its nature?.

The other one I would commend is indeed the one from the Department of Health and Human Services, because of its simplicity and its decision to take a different approach to sharing and discussion of ideas: something that, after having browsed over a dozen Ideascale pages, I found quite refreshing.

It seems to me that, although with different impetus and investment, all agencies have raised to the challenge. The proof of the pudding, though, will be in their Open Government Plans.

Which is why Gartner will be hosting a free webcast on March 1 on How To Develop and Leverage an Open Government Plan (I will post about it separately).

Quite often the use and misuse of the term “open” leads to almost hatred discussions, exuding religious fervor on both camps (those who are for “open” and those who are against). In my honest opinion, most of these battles are fought on the basis of a misunderstanding on either or both parties about what “open” actually means. Usually people confuse the end (such as making something more accessible) with the means (adopting one particular approach).

I would argue that many of those who fight the battle for “open” often lose sight of the reason why they do so. Nobody would deny that making something (a specification, a file format, a data set, a process) more open and transparent and accessible to a larger number of people is a good thing. This clearly implies that there should not be any obstacle for people to get that.

“Open” as in open source and open standard

Now, if I start with one the epical battles around “open”, which was Microsoft vs. the rest of the world, one could argue that what many were really  looking for were cheaper, more affordable office tools. Had Microsoft given Office for free or as a much cheaper value proposition, for instance making it pay by functionality used, I suspect that most proponents of open (source or standard) alternatives would have stepped back. Sure, the issue of not being locked in into a vendor is very important for governments, but would have they been equally vocal if they had got a (much) better deal from the incumbent? It is not by chance that many of the conversations I have with clients today are about cloud-based office suites rather than OpenOffice and the likes.

Isn’t it interesting that those who have benefited most from open source have been vendors? I see very few clients who would even consider to use an unsupported version of whichever open source software. They lock themselves into a vendor and external skills anyhow: sure, in theory they can ditch that vendor and get to a different one, assuming there is one and – if not – assuming they can get enough skills (internally or externally) to make that work. How likely or easy is that?

And what about all those Linux boxes that user organizations can deploy without paying extra licenses for the operating system? All very true, but those boxes are being hosted more and more by – guess who? – vendors, who sell access to those as a service (here is the cloud, again).

As I have been saying for quite some time, from a user perspective open source does make a real difference at the application level, where the open source licensing and development model together can change the way government organizations (but also other industries) can procure mission-critical applications, by relying on reuse and community development.

“Open” as in open government and open data

One might say that this is a completely different topic, but it isn’t. Today more and more governments put their faith to become more transparent and participatory in the provision of increasing quantities of open data sets. What “open” means here is somewhat subject to interpretation, as it ranges from XML and text files to XLS formats. All this openness is meant to benefit citizens, but it will not do so alone. There will always be the need for data aggregators, intermediaries, activists, businesses that turn that raw open data into something meaningful and useful to people. Be  it just a better way of visualizing data, or countless mashups and geolocations, the relationship between citizens and open data is the same that exists between IT users and open source: they also need intermediaries (i.e. product or service vendors) to make that work.

Of course there are exceptions. For instance, research organizations or statistical offices do use open source a lot, often manage their own IT infrastructure, and possess IT skills that are above average. Similarly, researchers or students or statisticians can benefit directly from open government data for their research papers, thesis work and reports.

But the average citizen is pretty much like the average IT user organization. He or she needs somebody in between who can package that data (or support that open source software).

Open for whom, open to what?

It would be great if future uses of the term “open” in whichever context gave a little contribution to clarifying the meaning of the term in that context. As I said, nobody denies that open is a good thing, but could we possibly know who is supposed to benefit most and how those benefits are going to be realized?

In my view, focusing on what is the value, cost and risk of choosing “high value data sets” in the context of the Open Government Directive is pretty much the same as articulating the value. cost and risk of choosing a given open standard or selecting an open source alternative.

Understanding both the value and the value chain is what will unlock the real power of “open”.

As I said a few times, while opening government data is great for transparency, what value it can create is yet to be discovered. Further, considerations about costs and risks rarely surface the discussions driven by open government enthusiasts.

This morning (my time) I found an interesting tweet by Tim O’Reilly (the inventor of the much popular definition of “government as a platform”), pointing to a blog post by Nat Torkington about Rethinking Open Data, which makes the same case I’ve been making for quite some time. What was even more remarkable is that in his tweet Tim says “Funny, I was in DC last week saying much the same thing”.

I do remember the discussion I had with Tim on this blog back in September 2009, when he looked like wholeheartedly supporting the open data approach, pretty much along the “if you build it, they will come” line, which Nat now criticized.

If Tim decided to take a more balanced view, this is great news, given how influential he is in the field. Maybe the other (Sir) Tim (Berners-Lee) who pulls the strings of open government in the UK could get some inspiration and advise the UK government about costs and risks before it’s too late.

My client conversation and Nat’s blog post made me think again about how to convey more effectively my point about the symmetry of government 2.0 (see the picture in a previous post). If one side of the relationship is “government as a platform”, the other side sounds like “citizens as a platform“. Citizens create data and engagement avenues that government can use pretty much like government provides data and creates engagement avenues. These two views are the yin and yang of government 2.0.

Here are a few excerpts from the document:

The Open Government Directive requires all U.S. agencies to produce a first draft of an Open Government Plan by early April 2010. While many agencies may be tempted to take a compliance attitude, this is a unique opportunity for them to reflect on the value of engagement to better meet their mission goals, and either initiate or accelerate initiatives in this important area.

[…]

This research provides advice about how to comply with this requirement of the directive, taking into account the relatively short time available to create a plan, the fact that it must be developed within the current budget envelope, and the importance of using the development of the plan as an opportunity to carry out a sustainable set of transparency, participation and collaboration activities.

My point is that, as the deadline is pretty close, some may be tempted to do the bare minimum and stick to what is required, as opposed to make this something that is valuable for them.

The note builds on the distinction I made in a previous post between participation and collaboration, for which I have used slightly different definitions as a result of our peer review process as well as of comments received through the blog

[…] Two different types of participation:

• Ongoing (or continuous) participation, in order for members of the public to comment in general about the agency activities
• Issue-based (or focused) participation, where the public is explicitly invited to provide feedback on specific events, topics or draft policies

[…] Two types of collaboration:

• Proactive (or top-down) collaboration concerns initiatives that are driven by the agency (or by another government agency) where the scope for collaboration from external stakeholders is somewhat constrained. Examples include crowdsourcing a problem resolution to the public.
• Reactive (or bottom-up) collaboration concerns initiatives that are started by external stakeholders and are mostly self-organized. In this case, the agency needs to be aware that they exist and seek ways to add value.

One other point is the need for a framework helping agencies assess value, cost and risk of open data, to better decide and prioritize how to make them available

The framework to determine the value of public information and how datasets will be prioritized for publication should also specify the intended audience, the value for that audience (as opposed to the value for the agency or for the general public), and the associated costs and risks

[…]

While examples of value are reported in the [open government] directive , it is advisable that agencies use a value framework that explicitly covers dimensions such as “constituent value,” “operational efficiency” and “mission alignment (or political return).”
The total cost of ownership of open data includes the cost to locate it, deidentify it (if it contains personal information or refers to it), transform it into an open format, update it and possibly retire it.
Risks include possible misuse by third parties and obsolescence.

The development of a value framework for open data is what I am currently working on.

The policy is helpful in so that it reminds employees that they need to behave professionally and according to their existing code of ethics when they are acting as government employees. This includes being factual, transparent,  maintaining public records as required, and so forth.

The policy provides also a list of steps that employees should follow in order to “represent EPA online in an official capacity”:

1. Get management approval by estimating time to research and write a posting, response, or edit, likely viewership and value of participating and Importance of the issue
2. Identify supporting sources, by providing links to EPA Web pages and other materials including video and audio (links to non-EPA information require a disclaimer against endorsement)
3. Identify EPA affiliation, creating a profile on social media sites that identifies the person as an EPA employee , and use work email address.
4. Inform the Web Content Coordinator, who is tasked with tracking these activities on behalf of the relevant program office or region.

The policy also includes a flow chart  suggesting how to decide whether to respond online on EPA’s behalf.

While the policy brings some clarity to the kind of approach that should be taken to adequately communicate on social media, it misses a key aspect, which is the constantly blurring boundaries between personal and professional roles. On certain social media sites, users can have only one identity, so they need to accommodate their professional persona (i.e. their role as EPA employees) with their personal persona. Furthermore, there is a lot of value, especially when it comes to citizen engagement, in leveraging those blurring boundaries.

Whereas it is important to remind employees that they are supposed to behave ethically in whichever situation or time of the day when they can be associated to the agency (i..e. not just Mon to Fri, p am to 5 pm), it is also important to provide them with a degree of flexibility that makes their engagement with social networks truly useful to the agency.

This policy is great for those whose main job is external communication. This is clearly shown by the fact that they need to articulate a fully fledged business case for their managers (see point 1 above) and they are supposed to inform a web content manager rather than the program manager (see point 4 above).

But what about the many others who may occasionally use social media in a professional capacity (or in a personal capacity that may have professional impact)?

This policy seems to suggest that engagement in social media is only a part of communication strategy, and little else. But, as I said a while ago, engagement and communication are on a collision course. So what the EPA and other agencies also need is not a policy (codes of conduct and ethical programs usually suffice) but an engagement strategy based on letting employees engage by leveraging rather than fighting the unavoidable blurring of their personal and professional personas.

Let me take this one step further, and make a three more considerations about the potential impact of this new device (as well as those that – I am sure – will emerge from competition, as we have seen after the iPhone).

Citizen engagement (aka Government 2.0)

There is a lot of talking about how to engage the citizenry by making them participate in the government decision-making process and collaborate on government service delivery.

One of the points I’ve always made is that engagement – at least for people who are not professionally interested in government (such as suppliers, advisors, lobbyists and the likes) – can be achieved most effectively when connected to something that people need or do, at the point in space and time where they have to interact with or think about government.

For instance, I file my taxes, I feel that’s too cumbersome or complex or just too much and I’d like to have my voice heard. I am applying for a school for my kids and I’d like to say something about programs or excessive teacher turnover or the cost of textbooks. I am checking my health record online (if I just could, of course) and I may want to express my opinion about health care reform. And so on.

But I may also want to be engaged as I read something on a newspaper or a book that raises a question in my mind, or when I watch the news on TV, or as I participate in a Facebook group discussing product recalls, or as I am reading my e-book on the train and I get stuck for the n-th time, and so on.

Of course I will be using different devices (or having them close to me) when each of these situations occur. A smartphone as I am walking in the street, an e-reader on the train, my desktop or laptop at home.

But could the iPad become my primary device from an engagement perspective, the one that is closest to me in most of the cases when I may be “engaged”? How many of my “life events” (to use an old e-government term) will feature an iPad in my hands? Quite a few, I’d argue. Several of these events involve various members of the family. Browsing for schools, checking for museums and other interesting places to visit in a trip, looking for hospitals and elderly care facilities (and related government financial support), for instance, is something I would be doing with my wife or other family members, sitting on the couch or maybe at dinner table.

The iPad is more than a personal tool, it is a social tool, that people will share for certain activities, and – as such – will be an effective platform to engage people at the point in time and space where they are more inclined to be engaged.

Apps for Democracy (and Teaching and Caring and…)

The several application and mashup contests that have been run in various jurisdictions as part of their “open government” initiatives have generated quite a few iPhone applications. What if the iPad led this to the next level? What if governments were able to mobilize developers to implement applications that support better access to public information or easier consumption of public services?

One way of course is to continue with the AppsForDemocracy contests. As I highlighted in a recent post, the British government has institutionalized the submission of applications that use open data on their data.gov.uk site. Presumably there will be more iPhone apps, which can run on the iPad, and then we’ll see the emergence of iPad-specific apps, which exploit the larger screen and some of the other peculiarities of the new device.

Besides this, governments may start reflecting about whether to create more focused incentives to develop more specific apps, in areas like education, elderly care, tourism, culture, environment, and so forth. Games for people with cognitive impairment or for kids who need different stimuli to better learn; animated maps with information about places of interest and the ability to reserve entrance or seats; courseware for new parents linked to information about baby care (can you imagine an app that teaches you how to hold the iPad as a baby, and links you to sites – including social networks – where you can fin relevant information about different aspects of parenting?). Possibilities are endless.

iEmployee

In my previous post I mentioned two categories – teachers and social workers – who may be natural users of an iPad. But there are many more, from doctors and nurses, to food or tax inspectors, from city councilors and their staff to planning and zoning officials, from customer relationship officers (think about them sitting with you at a table, sharing information with you on an iPad rather than behind a counter) to purchasing officers (as they sit with prospective suppliers, discussing different elements of their proposal).

Of course I am not suggesting that government agencies buy loads of iPads. This is meant to be a consumer device, and it is too early to judge reliability and usability besides what presented by Apple the other day, and whether it would make any sense to see it as a corporate device too.

However it may be interesting to start reflecting about how this new generation of devices may overcome some of the issues that were experienced with more traditional devices, while supporting the unavoidable blurring of personal and professional use of devices, which is one of the basic (although vastly underestimated) tenets of government 2.0.

Post Scriptum

Finally, for those who do not believe that the iPad will change much, take a look at this wonderful forum where people (mostly Apple fans) discussed the launch of the iPod, back in 2001. The comment I like most is:

I still can’t believe this! All this hype for something so ridiculous! Who cares about an MP3 player? I want something new! I want them to think differently!
Why oh why would they do this?! It’s so wrong! It’s so stupid!

I am definitely not an expert in consumer devices, but I’d like to make two points.

The first one is that when I bought an iPod Touch as a music and video player, it never occurred to me that it would become my newspaper reader and my primary Twitter client, as well as a toolbox, phonebook, map (and the list goes on and on). Still after more than two years I discover uses and applications that make it increasingly compelling.

The second point is one that Mark makes in his post. I had the same feeling he had, that the iPad could be the first device that my mother (who’s 82 and has a very bad relationship with technology ) would actually use. She lives alone, although not far away from us, and the only piece of technology she likes is a photoframe, where she can see a slideshow with hundreds of pictures of my kids throughout the day. I can see quite clearly how she could very intuitively shuffle through pictures, pick videos, and then use the notes tool to read what she’s suppose to do today, and then move to the bookstore and pick a book she’d like to read, and so forth.

Now, what does this have to do with government? Well, one of the evergreens in electronic government and digital society programs is how to overcome the digital divide. This has led to countless discussions as well as investments in Europe on digital TV as the best tool to engage senior citizens (not that I have seen many outcomes though) as well as the use of cellphones as more adequate tools for people to keep in touch with government. To address the digital divide in developing countries and disadvantaged communities, we have seen programs like Negroponte’s OLPC (One Laptop per Child) and an increasing interest for netbooks.

What the iPad could do is to help overcome lots of digital divides. People who do not feel too comfortable with a laptop or desktop, but also feel that a phone, doesn’t matter how smart, is still a phone. Elderly people with visual or cognitive impairment, who can find a much more natural form factor and interaction style than with other devices. Teachers or students who could use this to replace the big pile of textbooks and notepads they need to carry to and from school every day.

An important factor with the iPad is its price point. At 499 USD, this is affordable by many more of those who would not usually buy an Apple product and would not be prepared to pay a premium because.. it is Apple. Indeed there are some features missing, such as Flash support or a webcam. On the other hand, iPhone shows that applications make for the lack of Flash support (I do access most newspapers and other sites through iPhone apps), while a webcam makes sense when you sit in front of the device, for which there are already accessories like a keyboard, a stand and – soon enough I’m sure – tons of others, including webcams, mikes, and so forth.

What is intriguing about the iPad is not only the friendly user interface and the great Internet surfing experience, but also the likely usage patterns and the unlikely users. Many commented that this device will be carried around in the home (also depending on what accessories will be available to ruggedize it). But I would argue, it could be used by people who would never use a computer.

Some time ago I heard about the use of game consoles and GPS devices to both entertain and monitor elderly people with cognitive impairment. The problem is the user interface, as both XBox or PS3 and Wii are not too intuitive for an elderly person. But they are familiar with the gesture of turning pages or shuffling pictures, and touching an almost 10 inches screen that you can carry in whichever room is far easier than using a gamepad or a mouse. As the iPad is also a communication device, one can monitor what the person is doing, e.g. by using a bluetooth device that he or she would wear and would reveal their distance from the iPad. So, delivering social care to elderly people online is more likely to work through an iPad than through a PC or a digital TV (as some European tend to believe).

Education is a slam dunk. Governments that invest on more desktops or electronic boards may have to consider how a device like the iPad could transform the learning and teaching experience: rather than giving a check to kids to buy a laptop, they could give them an iPad.

But the device may make its inroad inside government too. I have been covering for some time, also in this blog, the theme of the blurring boundaries between the personal and professional life of government employees, through the use of social media. One of the typical examples I have been using is a social worker who needs to access non-profit communities, customer social networks as well as the traditional case management system to more effectively and efficiently deal with a case. As he or she is on the move, the iPad becomes an excellent example of a device that supports that blurring: social media, a bit of entertainment between two customer visits, access to agency information through corporate iPad apps, and a form factor and battery life that makes it far more usable as a mobile tool to support him or her in virtually every aspect of a working day.

The iPad has less than 24 hours and its possible uses from a government standpoint look endless. It is really true that life is full of surprises. Who would have thought about Steve Jobs becoming more relevant than Negroponte when it comes to bridging the digital divide?

This is a very comprehensive and well structured strategy document, which lays out the priorities for the UK government and the broader public sector in rather clear terms. Unlike the previous strategy (Transformational Government: Enabled by Technology), issued five years ago, this aims at covering a longer period of time (up to 2020) and it does not contain any reference to the use of IT to support or transform service delivery.

The longer timeframe is reasonable, as some aspects of the strategy imply a radical change in the way IT is sourced, delivered and managed, and this level of change will take a fair amount of time to be absorbed both by government and the market.

The disconnect with the service delivery part is more surprising. While the strategy makes reference to the Digital Britain report issued in 2009, it does not link in any way to the more recent document on Putting the frontline first: Smarter Government, published at the end of 2009 (see previous post). The latter addresses the streamlining of central government and the rebalancing between front and back office, and one would expect a significant role of ICT to support this.

The strategy is articulated in 14 different strands or work streams, which address three main areas:

• Common infrastructure: this includes Public Service Network (PSN), G-Cloud, Data Center Rationalization, Government Application Store (G-AS), Shared Services, and Desktop Services.
• Common standards: these include Architecture and standards; Open Source, Open Standards, Reuse; Greening Government ICT; Information security and assurance
• Common capabilities: these include Professionalizing IT-enabled change; Reliable project delivery; Supply management; and International alignment and coordination

What is quite clear from the structure and tone of the strategy is that the overwhelming priority is to make IT significantly cheaper than it is today. The “smarter” and “greener” attributes are purely instrumental to reducing the cost of acquiring and operating IT.

Asymptotically, the Public Service Network is meant to be the only communication network, G-cloud the only infrastructure, the Application Store (a sort of Apps.gov on steroids)  the only procurement channel and exchange for applications, and so forth. Also the increased focus on environmental sustainability, open standards and open source, the reuse of application components, a more integrated supply management, all go in the direction of reducing IT cost (or – putting it more politically – better managing those costs). The strands on data center rationalization, shared services and desktop services all look like intermediate steps toward a massive consolidation through G-cloud and the G-AS.

If the big picture is one where IT gets much more centralized, harmonized and rationalized, the strand on the IT profession does not seem entirely in sync. One would argue that departments, agencies and local authorities will become users and buyers of IT services, more than anything else. This should have a more disruptive impact on the role and size of government IT organizations than the strategy suggests. Also, rumors of radical outsourcing options being considered for the UK government IT would not look unfounded in the context of a triad based on PSN, G.Cloud and G-AS .

One simple answer to this migh be that IT staff will be working on agency-specific applications: but the strategy postulates that G-AS, together with the greater adoption of open standards and open source, will help here as well. And – as I noted earlier – there is nothing in the strategy about the front-office, citizen-engagement, service-delivery role of IT.

Finally, irrespective of how compelling and organic the vision is, this will pose formidable implementation challenges. The section on governance details the role of the CIO Council and how different strands will be managed. However the complexity of some of the strands is almost frightening: think about the implications of G-cloud on multiple roles in the IT organization and beyond, on the market, on vendor management, and (potentially) even on compliance with European internal market principles (more on this when I’ll dive into G-Cloud in a future post).

The only, very strong ally in keeping all these strands together will be, indeed, the Treasury and the significant cost savings that every government organization is required to achieve.

As I said, cheaper is stronger than smarter or greener.

Looking at Data.gov this morning (Central European Time) reveals a page with a list of new data sets provided by departments and agencies in compliance with the directive. When I visited the site (at 9:00 am CET, which is midnight on the US West Coast), there were 340 data sets (137 of which indicated as high-value) from 45 departments or agencies. This is a bit more than half of the entities that were supposed to respond (the US government has 15 executive departments, plus the executive office of the President,  and about 70 independent agencies).

Departments and agencies took very different approaches. Some – such as the Department of Justice or of Veteran Affairs – provided loads of data, only few of which were marked as “high-value”. Others – such as the Department of Transportation or NASA – reported exactly three high-value data sets. A few – such as the Nuclear regulatory Commission or the Office of Personnel Management – provided only one or two high-value data sets.

Two things are evident from browsing the list.

First of all, there is no explanation of what makes certain data sets high-value. The definition given in the directive is

information that can be used to increase agency accountability and responsiveness, improve public knowledge of the agency and its operations, further the core mission of the agency, create economic opportunity, or respond to need and demand as identified through public consultation.

and it would be great to be told why agencies picked those rather than different data sets as being high value.

Let me pick a few examples.

• The Department of the Treasury rates the 2007-2008 State-to-State Migration Outflow data set as high-value, but not the 2007-2008 State-to-State Migration Inflow .
• For the GSA, all the  Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Committee Member Lists from year 1997 to 2008 are high-value, but the Time to Hire a GSA Employee is not.
• The Social Security Administration rates as a high value the Hearings Held In-Person or Via Video Conferencing but not the National Beneficiary Surveys.

And so forth.

The second interesting aspect is that no “tool” has been submitted in this round. Data.gov “tools” are agency tools or web pages that can be used to mine data sets. Clearly, as the Directive asked for raw data, this is what Data.gov got. But the submission of some extra tools would have helped determine an agency’s view about the value of that data and would provide some starting point to figure out what to do with that data.

It is clearly too early to judge whether the Open Government Directive is having an impact. Departments and agencies are clearly moving, but the extent to which they are just complying or really leveraging the benefits of open government (see research note U.S. Open Government Directive: What Should Agencies Do? – Gartner login required) is still to be determined. Their Open Government Plans, due by April 7, will be much more revealing in this respect.

Early comments (see here) are positive, when comparing this to its US counterpart Data.gov, which has fewer data sets than the UK one, although it has been in operation for several months now.

As I do not judge success by numbers but by impact, I cannot really say whether the British version is really better. For instance, the format in which data is available is much more evident in the US site than in the British one, and in both cases data sets are listed alphabetically, which does not make finding those one needs very easy.

To be fair, the UK government has been working on this for a long time. The Power of Information report and the ensuing Taskforce, as well as the engagement of a high caliber like Sir Tim Berners-Lee witness the aspiration of making this right.

Data.gov.uk does not change my position about the fact that this is only one component of an open government strategy. There are at least three additional elements that will concur to the success of this initiative:

• Understanding that government data is only one part of public information that is available to people and that it is important to put it in the broader context of how people use and trust information. How will open government data relate to data collected by virtual communities in social networks? Will government use that external data and how?
• Understanding who is using government data sets, for what purpose and what value they add as well as what risks they pose. What if open government data is misused by mashing it up with wrong or intentionally inaccurate data?
• Articulating how to more actively engage employees in the open government data process and the development of innovative applications and processes that use that data. Will government allow employees to participate in communities on external social networks that use open government data? Will they be rewarded by spending time developing a mash-up with consumer tools to prove the value of publishing an additional data set?

It is too early to say whether the UK government will address these while growing data.gov.uk. But this is where one should look for the seeds of sustainable success of this important initiative.