Government in the global village

I leave my position as Government CIO tomorrow, and this is my last post on InDevelopment.  Over the last five years,  it has become crystal clear that we are in a single, globally connected world - both through the widespread use of internet based technologies by individuals everywhere, and through the common issues faced by all governments in responding to the challenges that this creates. 

The world has changed

The economics of ICT have been dealt another disruptive shock by the advent of cloud computing.  At the end of the 19th century, each organisation made their own arrangements for power generation.  The construction of the electricity grid fundamentally changed the cost of power, and inexorably led to the decline of organisation-based power generation, although this was strongly resisted by the suppliers and managers whose positions and expertise was based on effective management of power generation equipment.  We are seeing a similar shift in the world of information processing through the advent of the “cloud computing”, well described in the book The Big Switch.  

In addition, we are seeing a levelling of person to person connectedness that bypasses traditional channels.  This creates the opportunity for groups with a common interest  to create a tight community where ideas are generated, discussed, refined and crystallised from a diversity of participants. The velocity of circulation of information, across organisation and national boundaries, is faster than interactions between people physically located in the same building. It really does not matter where you are in order to join a discussion, which has a huge impact on the economics of social production. The Wealth of Networks explains this further.

 And a third example of how the world has changed is from the Gartner Symposium analysts keynote. “Business users are reading about technology and seeing new possibilities Did you see the BBC story about streaming video through your cellphone direct to a web site? Could we use that to improve our service calls? These business leaders don’t need IT to do this for them, they can fund it themselves because: Technology is no longer scarce; Technology expertise is no longer the domain of IT; and Technology is no longer a capital expenditure”

How is government to respond to these challenges?  Two areas need priority attention, and feature high on the agenda of government CIOs around the world. 

Offshore data

What do we need to think about when making decisions on where to locate government data? SSC released guidelines for the use of offshore ICT service providers earlier this month, which were incorrectly interpreted by some as being “protectionist”.  My view is that they were the exact opposite - they recognised the economic reality of cloud computing and that government would have to make a choice between operating our computing systems in New Zealand, and using offshore data centres at 20-25% of the cost.  What are the factors that need to be weighed up, and how compelling is the case for retaining data onshore, with the consequential cost premium.  As I outlined at the start of this blog, the shift is inexorable, and NZ will never have the scale to establish a data centre at the price points available from cloud computing, so we will need to decide how much value we place on the areas of risk outlined in the guidelines.

Open up government data

We need to recognise the network effects of opening up government data in a form that means others can access it. Economic value is created by businesses building innovative new services using government data. Public value is created by enabling a richer and deeper understanding and dialogue among interested individuals about what the data tells us about our lives.

We can immediately think of reasons why it is not a good idea - there has been no demand for the data we have already published, the data quality is not up to standard, the data was only collected for a specific purpose, the data will be misinterpreted, we do not have sufficient resources to properly present the data. In my view, all these perceived problems come from a historic perspective on information and data that is not adequate for a 21st century information economy, and does not reflect the new network economics outlined in the Wealth of Networks. 

The legal, policy, and moral position is clear  - New Zealanders own the data, having paid for its collection through taxes. These “problems” will all be solved by the community, and our role as government is to give priority to this. 

We can expect to see two other significant effects, in addition to value creation, from freeing up government data.  Firstly, we know that government acting alone cannot achieve the outcomes  - stronger economy, better education, sustainable development, safer cities, healthier communities - that New Zealand needs if we are to have affordable government in the future.  These outcomes will arise from government, individuals, NGOs, businesses, communities and whanau working together.  By opening up data, government demonstrates (by reducing information asymmetry) that they are committed to working with others parties in an equal partnership.

Secondly, the increased transparency and accessibility of government data will increase the level of trust that NZers have in government. Trust is our “bottom line” - the foundation of the democratic process, the core value espoused by the State Services, and an area for continuous investment if we are to maintain our position of world leadership.  Further insight into this can be found in the Transparency 2.0 article in Transparency and Open Government.

Where to from here?

I have been privileged to be in a leadership role for government use of ICT since I joined SSC from the private sector in March 2004. I look forward to commenting from the outside looking in, and observing these changes which are fundamental to the way governments will need to operate in the future - globally and transparently. New Zealand is well positioned to maintain our current leadership role.

 

Laurence Millar

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google

Technorati Tags:

8 Comments

  1. You’ll be missed Laurence. Good advice to your successsor - especially around open data.

    Posted April 30, 2009 at 11:40 pm | Permalink
  2. I’m really looking forward to seeing your contributions and ideas coming in from the outside!

    Joanna
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 11:58 pm | Permalink
  3. Great post Laurence. Excellent summary of the situation and the opportunities. Thanks for everything you’ve done and good luck for your future.

    Posted May 1, 2009 at 11:26 am | Permalink
  4. Hi Laurence

    As I said elsewhere, you will be missed.

    http://nzoss.org.nz/news/2009/government-cio-resigns

    That said, your thoughts on shifting *our* data to computers outside NZ’s jurisdiction are plain nuts :-)

    Build the cloud in NZ if you must.

    Don Christie
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 12:40 pm | Permalink
  5. Great post.
    I think it is a great pity you are not there to lead the changes.
    “Tis to be hoped your successor is as open as you were with his time and his intelligence.
    Really looking forward to seeing where you pop up in the cloud.

    Will we see you on Twitter?
    And can we hear more of your views on , say a personal blog, now that you are out of the cloister?

    Posted May 2, 2009 at 7:41 pm | Permalink
  6. Laurence is on Twitter, http://twitter.com/LaurenceMillar, and indicated he will be blogging.

    Posted May 11, 2009 at 12:17 pm | Permalink
  7. Great post Laurence, Best for the future.

    Posted October 30, 2009 at 4:08 pm | Permalink
  8. . . .

    kia orana, greetings.

    A few questions below.

    But first, some background.

    Had a little brainflash just now, a few moments ago. Relating all this web2, gov2, you2 stuff to areas of my news agency interest, corruption and transparency.

    “Why not transparency2 ?”

    So I did a quick google. Nothing. Bowing to accepted terminology I typed :

    “Transparency 2.0″

    You know, with the quotes.

    Magic. Vastly encouraged to find a wealth of material online already.

    Just for laughs, I then decided to confine my search to New Zealand.

    A ready sneer died on my lips when the one, single link to pop up was of course, this page.

    At State Services.

    State services? I wondered. Is this New Zealand? Or some weird stray from America? Scroll up. Nah. A blog. At the New Zealand State Services Commission. I gawped.

    On their official web site!

    All the way back from 30 April 2009!!

    And … comments.

    Eight of them.

    Hearty congratulations to the SSC for providing national leadership on something New Zealand needs to catch up on, like, really quickly.

    Lack of transparency across the board, despite freedom of information legislation, traverses beyond legal borders into outright corruption.

    The fact that a multi-billion construction scandal can be successfully portrayed as a common cold without a single prosecution strongly suggests systemic failure throughout the executive, if not legislature.

    Leaky House Syndrome, but one example.

    Another.

    “New” Zealand does not deserve it’s place at the top of the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. A little bit of digging raises questions about hundreds of millions here, a few billions there.

    Pretty soon, you’re talking real money.

    And lives.

    A colleague, giving me therapy for burn-out, blurted out how, over the years, there have been at least half a dozen deaths among journalists, freelancers and information activists.

    Unexplained. Sudden. A disappearance, or two.

    Here, in New Zealand.

    Corruption of a deep, ugly, kind, if even half the not-reported rumours are true.

    The challenge for the SSC is to not to avoid the minefield, but to lay one.

    Question is, what next?

    Having enabled a benchmark via this blog post, what is the SSC doing about it?

    What progress can we expect by the 12 month mark from this blog post, and others in the same vein from the author?

    As an independent news agency, we’ll be marking the 12 month anniversary with reporting, on what’s been done towards continuing the Laurence Millar legacy so warmly praised above.

    More of a challenge, really.

    Rationale for such a challenge is in itself part of the transparency2 paradigm shift. For example, this agency has already posted a copy of this comment on its own blog site. Date stamped, the post will be a useful benchmark against time of response from the commission.

    Bit of a chicken or egg process but done it a few times now.

    Typed this up first. Post it on my blog. Copy the links onto this blog post, this page, this comment box.

    Click “Post Comment”.

    Advantage for the commission is that they can respond in kind, and in full, instantly, by leaving comment on the blog.

    No journalistic gatekeeping.

    Even better, the comments are automatically linked to my page on Facebook and a global network of friends and associates as well as colleagues in the journalism community worldwide.

    Or the commission can issue a press release via Scoop, which is automatically picked up by news aggregators like Google News, just like I’ll do to publicise questions around the issue of transparency 2.0.

    Probably relates in some way to gov 3.0 concepts.

    Anyway, what I probably wouldn’t say face to face is this kind of editorial comment:

    “What the commission cannot do is continue to ignore criticisms from a broad range of CSO, civil society organisations that there are deeply shameful abnegations of responsibility within its main area of competency, i.e. good governance.”

    I’d pose it as a question instead.

    “How does the Commission respond to criticism from civil society organisations that there are shameful, even deeply shameful abnegations of responsibility within the commission’s main areas of competency, such as good governance?”

    “You know, preventing corruption and promoting governance. Stuff.”

    Like what?

    The commission may well ask.

    Well, like like the rainbow coalition of CSOs who mounted an extensive campaign named “Don’t corrupt aid?” alleging a complete break down in due process with the Murray McCully-inspired dismantling of NZAID. Three decades of aid harmonisation within global UN and other systems, tossed out the window.

    For example …of the criticism.

    You understand.

    Excuse the rather chatty style, but that in itself is part of transparency 2.0. It’s how I’d give background over the phone, or face2face, to use that hip, happening web2 style.

    As prelude to questions, in other words, like the ones above.

    Sending questions this way gives readers an insight into how the journalistic process works, whether it’s fair. Kinda thing.

    Don’t worry, transparency 2.0 has its limits.

    Anything marked news from this news agency will, of course, adhere to old-school, journalism 1.0 ethics.

    But, for now, Transparency. 2.0.

    Or maybe it’s transparency 3.0 ?

    Whatever.

    Brainflash over. Over to you guys and gals.

    kia toa, kia manuia

    jason

    COMMENT HERE:

    http://avaikinius.blogspot.com/2010/01/questions-for-new-zealand-state.html

    . . .

    Posted January 25, 2010 at 2:11 am | Permalink

One Trackback

  1. [...] enables government to hear what the community think and want. The open data message conveyed by Laurence Millar in his last blog post as Government CIO was echoed by many speakers at GOVIS. If you have the data, and it’s easy enough to open it [...]

Post a Comment

Please note that, in adding a comment, you will be taken to have read and agree to In Development's Terms of use.
Be constructive, keep it clean, stay on topic, no spam.

Your email is never published nor shared.