| Date post: | 31-Oct-2014 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | teemu-ropponen |
| View: | 11 times |
| Download: | 6 times |
Designing E-government Services for Collaboration Between Citizens and the Public Sector
T-109.4300 Network Services Business Models, lecture 8.4.2010
Teemu Ropponen, [email protected]
Department of Media Technology
To give an introductory perspective on designing services and business models in e-government cases where traditional market logics of service production and consumption may not apply.
Present a model for analyzing such value creation, based on modifications to the STOF model.
To get questions, comments and improvement ideas to this model from YOU – for further research and development.
Goal of the Lecture
Background on e-government
Collaborative e-government services – research topics & goals
Case: Fillarikanava
Case: KommentoiTätä
Possibilities and difficulties in collaborative e-government
Modifying STOF for modeling collaborative e-government services
Cases: Fillarikanava and KommentoiTätä revisited & analyzed
Summary
Suggestions for further study
Contents
The Finnish E-government Concept
Source: Finnish Ministry of Justice, SADe-Report 2009
Finland has fallen in its e-government and i-society goals.
As much as 85% of e-government initiatives fail (11 billion USD per year investment).
Few tools exist for service innovation and analysis in e-government.
“Crisis of democracy“ vs. prospects of Internet technology and behaviors, push towards open, collaborative government.
Motivations
Sources, e.g., Heeks 2001, Esteves et. al 2008, Finnish Ministry of Justice 2009, UN 2008
“How to design and analyze digital services that encourage collaboration between citizens and the public sector agencies and create value to the different parties?”
Goals:- Concrete suggestions to the studied cases- Define some guidelines regarding collaborative e-
government services, on a general level- Give input to the development and application of STOF
model and method (which were used in the Thesis)
Research Questions & Goals
Towards Collaborative Government
Participation
Transparency
Collaboration
Sources: USA Gov/White House 2009, Australian Government 2.0 Taskforce 2009, Poikola 2009
Gov 2.0 refers to modernization of the way governments engage and collaborate with citizens and involves policy shifts in culture and empowerment of citizens, harnessing the opportunities of new technologies.
Social Media and the Public Sector?
Sources: Ahlqvist et al. 2008
How can the public sector benefit from the rise of the social networking services (SNS) and social media?
The cases that are studied are new kind of emerging e-government services. These cases the principle of engaging citizens into the processes in an open and transparent way, enabled by the use of Web 2.0 technologies and driven by people contributing their knowledge and insight without monetary compensation, sometimes referred to as participatory economics.
These kinds of applications could be called collaborative e-government services.
Collaborative E-government Services
Source: Ropponen 2010
Fillarikanava http://fillarikanava.hel.fi
”The bike channel” is a service in which the City of Helsinki is piloting a new kind of open and direct dialogue between citizens (bikers) and the administrative workers.
“Tell, discuss, and comment – and make Helsinki a better biking city”
KommentoiTätä - http://flexi.tml.hut.fi/kt
“An easy-to-use and effective web-based service (tool) for engaging document owners and their stakeholders in an open, social, constructive and deliberative commenting and discussion process”
Key use case piloted are commenting on public documents (i.e, e-consultation), pilots with Ministry of Justice and others.
Example cases
Fillarikanava
Fillarikanava
Ok, so what does this mean in terms of “business models”…
…the subject of the course, if you will.
T-109.4300 Network Services Business Models, lecuture 8.4.2010Teemu Ropponen, [email protected] of Media Technology
People have higher education and more free time than ever,
As well as cheap computing power & networking
Þ peer production & participation phenomena,
e.g., theories and concepts of:- Networked information society- Produsage- Crowdsourcing- Wisdom of the crowds
Intrinsic & extrinsic motivations for participation,
think e.g., Wikipedia, social networks & media.
What Makes This Possible?
Sources: E.g., Ahlqvist et. al 2008, Benkler 2006, Surowiecky 2004, Shirky 2008, Howe 2008, Bruns 2008
Roles of users => from consumers to fluid roles, switching from consumer to producer (cmp. Social media) => users & user community effectively part of the provider (value) network
However, users don’t have stated strategies or goals the same way as organizations => motivation mechanisms
”Revenue” and ”value creation” in e-government services – how to measure it!
Potential value creation outside of the service itself – e.g., through reuse of data (open API’s)
What Makes This Difficult?
“…a blueprint for a service to be delivered, describing the service definition and the intended value for the target group, the sources of revenue, and providing an architecture for the service delivery, including a description of the resources, and the organizational and financial arrangements between the involved business actors…”
Business Model - Definition
Source: Bouwman et al. 2008
“…a blueprint for a service to be delivered, describing the service definition and the intended value for the target group, the sources of revenue, and providing an architecture for the service delivery, including a description of the resources, and the organizational and financial arrangements between the involved business actors…”
Business Model – Definition, cont’d
Source: Bouwman et al. 2008
”EASY”
”COMPLEX”
STOF Model – No Explanation Needed!
Source: Faber & De Vos 2008
STOF: Assessment of Value Creation
Q: how does this model need to be changed for collaborative e-government services?Q: what can be found out about the studied cases?
Source: Faber & De Vos 2008
Summary of Changes to STOF Domains
Content Open API’s
User profilesDigital identity
Value (sources)Social capital
Reward mechanisms
User communityMotivations
Content interactions
CDI/CSF – User Value
Sense ofcommunity
is a
Uservalue
Socialinteractions
Incentives for participation
Sense ofCommunity
UserActivation
CDI/CSF – Network Value
SatisfactoryBenefits
ParticipationEncouragement
ParticipationRewards
AcceptableUser Community
ContentReusability
External Value Creation
Service
Value source
Content Interaction
Technology
Personalprofile
Digitalidentity
OpenAPIs
Content
extends
Content Interactions
create
Organization
Usercommunity
Motivation
Socialcapital
Finance
Value
Value sources
Value
Socialcapital
Is a form of
generate
Fillarikanava Revisited
Missing/weaknesses:
- Mobile context would be useful!
- Open data & reusability
- Sense of community (e.g., profiles) low
- Needs more presence and feedback from civil servants
- Integration to real processes unclear
- Some fundamental technical features missing
Positive/strengths:
- Good usage statistics from users
- High-quality input & discussions
- Public administration participating (vs. FixMyStreet)
- Strategic buy-in from public administration (Helsinki strategy)
- Value network well in place, potential revenue models exist
Fillarikanava Analysis
Fillarikanava Value Network
KSV
BikerUsers
Associations
Fillarikanava
Advertiser/sponsor
HKI ITTASKE
HKR
Public servantUsers
Other User agencies
Developers/aggregators
Open Streetmap
KommentoiTätä Revisited
Missing/weaknesses:- Clear value proposition & target group?- Integration to processes?- Motivations for participation? - Competition – similar, technically better tools in the market- Revenue model unclear, although identifiable- No social elements (but may not be necessary in all cases)
Positive/strengths:- An identified need exists in the government target group- Indications of improvement in process (efficiency) and
quality of comments exist- Potential to beat competition in selected use cases
KommentoiTätä Analysis
KommentoiTätä Value Network
PublicUsers Consulted
Associations(NGO’s, businesses)
KommentoiTätä
ValtIT and otherGov IT
organisation
OM(service owner)
Public servantUsers
GovernmentAgencies as
users Developers/aggregators
Infra Provider
Media
GovernmentAgencies (other
roles)
KommentoiTätä – a possible value network
STOF can be (and has been) used for analyzing e-government services. For “collaborative e-government” context, modifications are needed.
Items not applicable as such:- Revenue, Profitability, some mobile-related items
STOF is missing (or not emphasizing enough)- Motivations for participation- (User-generated) Content (vs. Data)- Community (vs. User/Customer)- Open Data and APIs (vs. Integration)- Value network still applicable? (vs. ecosystems)- Value (esp. non-monetary values) need to be thought more
Summary: STOF in Collaborative E-Gov
Does this make sense? What was missing?
How would you improve this model, presentation, thinking, etc.?
Contact:
Teemu Ropponen
http://somus.vtt.fi
Thanks! Questions & comments appreciated!
