Managing Expectations II: Open Data, Technology and Government 2.0 – What Should We, And Should We Not Expect | Open Knowledge Foundation Blog

“This is second of two pieces about ‘managing expectations’ (the first is here)... Open data has come a long way in the last few years and so have expectations. There’s a danger if open data is seen as a panacea that will magically solve climate change or eliminate corruption because it will inevitably fail to do so and hope and enthusiasm will be replaced by disappointment and dis-engagement.  This would be a tragedy as open data is valuable to us socially, commercially and culturally. However, we do need to think hard about how to make effective use of open data. Open data is usually only one part of a solution and we need to identify and work on the other key factors, such as institutions and tools, needed to bring about real change.  More than two years ago a UK Government civil servant came to visit me. A new government had taken power in the UK for the first time in a decade and she wanted to ask to me about ‘Government 2.0’, open data and transparency.  One thing was immediately apparent from our discussion): while she was already excited by these ideas it wasn’t entirely clear to her what they involved or exactly what problems they would help with — something that has remained a common feature of conversations I’ve had since.  In my view (a view expressed in that conversation two years ago), there are (at least) two distinct — albeit related — ideas for what ‘Government 2.0’ means: [1] Improving (Government) services by utilizing current information technology and open data — open data being especially interesting (and novel) as it could turn Government from the direct supplier of services to the supplier of the data (and infrastructure) needed to run those services (‘Government as a Platform’) [2] More interactive, participatory governance (and therefore more democratic) via the use, again, of open information and technology (though the connection was somewhat vaguer).  Put like this it’s clear why ‘Government 2.0’ can appear so exciting — after all it appears to promise a radical improvement — even transformation — of government.  But it also should make us concerned. Unrealistic expectations can be dangerous — something that is generally beneficial can get confused with a miracle cure and then blamed when it fails to deliver.  Moreover, there’s the risk that we start fixating on this wondrous new possibility (open data and technology) and ignore other key (but less exciting) elements in solving our problems — with the consequence that we much reduce the actual benefit we got from these new innovations in policy and technology.  This second point seemed especially important as it could lead to the dangerous assumption developing that open information + IT would magically turn into better (and more participatory) governance without much examination of how this exactly would come about and any changes to the form and structure of governance that would be needed.  The danger here was of confusing necessary with sufficient conditions: open data may be necessary part of better and more participatory governance but they are likely not sufficient without, say, substantial other changes in the structure and machinery of government (e.g. who gets to vote, when and where).1 These latter changes are normally costly and much more difficult than adopting new IT or opening up data. Thus, whilst new IT and open data are important, they are likely only one part of a solution...”