USER INNOVATION AND EGOVERNANCE DESIGNNandan Nilekani and Srikanth Nadhamuni in 2003. Currently the...

HiddenSuccesses:UrbanInnovationsinIndia(MIT&CDF)

1

USERINNOVATIONANDEGOVERNANCEDESIGN

JessicaWallack&SrikanthNadhamuni1

August9,2009

Abstract

Thispaperprovidesananalytical case studyofan IndianNGO’sefforts toengagecity

government officials in developing and refining an e‐governance system for tracking public

grievances and city performance in redressing these. The eGovernments Foundation

(www.egovernments.org) developed the first version of its Public Grievance and Redressal

Module (PGRM) based on careful study of city government and citizen needs. Not all of the

needswereobvious,however,norwereusers (governmentsandcitizens)necessarilyable to

predict and expresswhat attributes of a then‐unfamiliar systemwould bemost helpful. The

foundationisnowseekingtoharnessuserinsightandinnovationstorefinethesystem.Users’

suggestions and observed efforts to customize and adapt the program, the practices they

employ toencourageothers (colleagues and constituents) touse the system, andeven their

effortstoevadeadoptionofthetechnologyareapotentiallyrichsetofdesigninputstorefine

the products, particularly as city officials become more adept with technology. This paper

documents our efforts to learn from city officials’ actions and ideas and identify city

governmentuserswhomightbeparticularlyworthfollowingupwithovertime.Theactivities

describedherearethefirstpartofanongoinginitiativetoinvolvemorestakeholders,including

citizensandpoliticians,inrefiningthePGRM.

1Theauthors’affiliationsareDirector,CentreforDevelopmentFinance,Chennai,India;andManagingTrustee,EgovernmentsFoundation,Bangalore,respectively.WewouldliketothankSudhaYadavforhelpfulresearchassistance,Mr.ZiaUllahforhissupportofthisinitiative,andalloftheKarnatakacityofficialswhorespondedtooursurveyfortheirtime


2

LocalGovernmentsand“CustomerService”

Localgovernmentsarethenaturalcustomerserviceorganizationsofthepublicsector.Whether

they are acting as intermediaries for funds transferred from higher levels of government,

implementingstateprograms,orsimplycarryingouttheirown

responsibilitiesandpolicies, localgovernmentsarecrucial links

indeliveryofgovernmentservicestocitizens.Manyofpeople’s

everydayneedsrelatingtowaterandsewerage,electricity,and

roads are linked to local governments or closely linked

parastatal agencies. Local governments are also the point at

whichcitizens interactmostwith thegovernment.Paying fees

and taxes (e.g. property tax, water tax/fee), obtaining

certificates (for birth, death, or registrations, for example),

gettingapproval forconstructingofbuildingsareall important

transactionsthatlocalgovernmentsaroundtheworldareoften

responsiblefor.

The challenge is how to create and enable a customer‐

servicementality in localgovernments,andespecially innewly

empowered local governments such as India’s.2 The literature

on decentralization extols the informational advantage that

local governments have in discerning and responding to local

needs,butglossesoverexactlyhowlocalgovernmentsmeasure

customer satisfaction and identify causes of customer

2Thehistoryofurbanlocalgovernments(ULGs)inIndiawithindependentpowersofdecisionmakingandrevenuecollectionsisrelativelyshort.The74thconstitutionalamendmentenactedin1992gavethesebodiesconstitutionalstatusandprescribedasetofresponsibilitiesforthem.Stateswerelefttooverseetheactualimplementationofdevolution,however,since“localgovernance”isconstitutionallyastatesubject.Theirenthusiasmfortransferring“funds,functionaries,andfunctions”varied.Manyjustifiedtheirhaphazardandgrudgingdevolutionbypointingtolocalgovernments’“lackofcapacity,”buttheuncertaintyandthelackofautonomyonlyperpetuatedintheproblemindevelopinganykindofadministrativeandservicedelivercapacity.

CityGovernanceinIndia

Acityisgeographicallybrokenupintowards,eachofwhichhasanelectedcouncilor.Thecouncilorsofthevariouswardsjointlyconstitutethecitycouncilandelectamayor(inthecaseofacorporationofover300,000people)orapresident(inthecaseofasmallercitymunicipalcouncil).Thecouncilcomesupwiththecitybudgetandtheprogramofworksthatwillbetakenupinagivenyear.Theimplementationoftheseworksrestsontheexecutivebranchofthecitygovernmentheadedbythecommissioner.Thecommissioner,dependingonthesizeofthecity,mightappointzonalDeputyCommissioners(DCs)andDepartmentHeadssuchasDeputyCommissionerRevenue,ChiefEngineer,ChiefHealthOfficer,etc.Eachoftheseofficialsmanagesateamofserviceprovidersand/oranyprivateserviceproviderscontractedintheirarea.


3

dissatisfaction.3 “Local” stillmeans hundreds of thousands of citizens toworkwith in India’s

cities.Electionsareacrudewaytoconveyinformation:justanopportunitytotakeabinaryup

ordownvoteonofficials’overallperformanceonamulti‐year,multi‐aspectjob.

Everyday citizen interactions with local officials – elected and bureaucrats ‐ provide

morefine‐grainedinformationoncitizenpriorities,andfeedbackonperformance,butitcanbe

difficultfortheorganizationtoabsorbthisinformationtouseittoshapeitsactions.Technology

can be used to bridge some informational gaps, butwriting software, creating awebsite, or

buildingadatabasenomoreguaranteeeffectiveperformanceinthepublicsectorthantheydo

intheprivatesector.Systemdesign ismatters:Howdoesacitizen’scomplaintgetregistered

andpassedontothedepartmentorpersonwhocanrespond?Whenseveralcitizenscomplain,

howdothesecomplaintsgettrackedtobetterunderstandwhetheritisaresourceoraneffort

problemthatiscausingthebreakdowninservices?Whenamultitudecomplains,howarethe

legitimate complaints separated from the cacophony? The organizational changes

accompanyingITandencouragingitsintegrationintoworkflowsandinteractionsareequallyif

not more important than the technology itself in translating the information into improved

performance.

Designing effective infrastructures for citizen‐state interaction requires bringing

togethertechnologyknowledge,governanceexperience,politicalsavvy,andthewilltouseall

oftheseskillstoeffectchange.Thechallengeisthatthesediverseskillsarerarelyfoundinthe

sameorganization,muchlessinasinglepersonorsmalldesignteam.

This paperdocuments “innovation squared” in seeking tobring together governance and

technologyknowledgeine‐governancedesign.Wefirstdescribeaninnovativewaytomanage

citizen feedback about public services, and second, our initial efforts to incorporate user

innovations–aboveandbeyonduserperspectives‐toimprovethise‐governancesystem.

3Localgovernments’informationadvantageinidentifyinglocalneedsandtailoringpolicythesewasoneoftheearliestargumentsfordecentralization:see,forexample,Tiebout(1956),Oates(1972,1977).Morerecently,seeBardhan(2002)andFaguet(2004).


4

The first section describes the eGovernments Foundation’s Public Grievance and

RedressalModule(PGRM).Publicgrievancesystemsarebeingimplementedacrossthecountry

at various levelsof government in variousdepartments, but theeGovernments Foundation’s

software isoneof themostwidely implemented systems.4ThePGRM is currently running in

Chennai(TamilNadu),morethan97citiesinthestateofKarnataka,andasacustomerservice

management tool for Delhi Transco Limited and the Haryana Transmission Corporation.We

discuss its features and evaluate the extent and nature of usage as one indicator of the

system’sperformance.

Thenextsectiondiscussesoneofthemaindesignchallengesindevelopingandrefining

asystemtoeffectivelyuseITtodrivebettergovernance.Informationonbothuserneedsand

solutions is “sticky,” or difficult to transfer between users and IT providers.5 The classic

definition of “sticky” information in the business context [VonHippel (1994)] focuses on the

costsofsharinginformation,buttheincentivestoshareinformationareatleastasimportant.

Information issticky inbothsenses. Importantdetailsabout informal institutions,cityworker

ability,citizens’accesstoIT,citizens’timeandlocationconstraints,andotherfactorsthatthe

systemhastorespondtoarenotalwaysreadilyavailableorcollectibleonanongoingbasisfor

developingandrefiningthesystem.Cityofficialsmayalsohaveincentivestoobfuscate.Those

whocanseeways that thesystemcouldconstrain theirdiscretionorhelp theirmanagersor

voters identify failings, for example, are unlikely to volunteer this information to system

designers. Users cannot be relied upon to answer questions truthfully, much less to

spontaneouslyposttheir ideas inchatroomsorother forathatdesignerscanmonitorat low

cost.

4Otherexamplesinclude:“Lokvani”(VoiceofthePeople)wasimplementedinruralSitapur,UttarPradesh.PRAJA,alocalNGO,hasimplementedanonlinecomplaintsmanagementsystemintheMumbaiMunicipalCorporation.Anincreasingnumberoflocalgovernmentshaveanemailaddressand/orasimpleformthatcitizenscanusetoprovidefeedback.

5VonHippel(1994)definesthe“stickiness”ofinformationasessentiallythecostofsharingit.Intheegovernancecontext,theincentivetoshareinformationalsomatters.Cityofficialswhocanseewaysthatthesystemcouldconstraintheirdiscretionorhelptheirmanagersorvotersidentifyfailings,forexample,areunlikelytovolunteerthisinformationtotheegovernancesystemdesigners.


5

The third section explores potential ways to overcome this sticky information in

designingthenextgenerationofegovernance

systems. The typical approach to e‐

governance design – and the eGovernment

Foundation’s initial approach – brings

information about governance to the

technologists so that they can design

solutions. The technologists become more

familiarwith governance in the process, but

this melding of knowledge about the

(governance) problems and (technology)

solutions is bounded by the fact that

engineersareunlikelytoeverbecomepublic

servants or actually experience the

governance process. We focus on the

potential role of technology users as

innovators. City officials are becoming

increasingly experienced over time as e‐

governance systems become more widely

used for managing everything from public

workstofinancestocitizencomplaints.Their

insightsareapotentiallyrichsourceofdesign

inputs.

Harnessing this knowledge, however, is the challenge. Similar strategies of “user

innovation” are already used in the corporate world to harness user ideas in fields from

scientific instruments to sporting goods6, but the fact that “information stickiness” includes

6See,amongothercases:HerstattandvonHippel(1992),Luthje,etal(2005),Morrison,etal(2000),RiggsandvonHippel(1994).

eGovernmentsFoundation

www.egovernments.org

TheeGovernmentsFoundationisanewbreedofITSocialStartup(aregisterednotforprofittrust)whosemissionistoprovideaneGovernanceSoftwareSystemforuseinCorporationsandMunicipalitiesallacrossIndiaforFree.ThegoaloftheeGovernancesystemistoimproveGovernanceinIndia,andbringaboutaccountabilityandtransparencythroughtheeffectiveuseofITandGovernmentProcessReengineering.eGovwasstartedbyNandanNilekaniandSrikanthNadhamuniin2003.

CurrentlytheeGovernmentsFoundationisworkinginmorethan130citiesacrossIndiainKarnataka,Delhi,AndhraPradeshandHaryana.TheNirmalaNagaraprojectinKarnatakatakenupbyeGovernmentsFoundationisoneofthelargestimplementationsofmunicipaleGovernanceintheworld,includingimplementationof6municipalapplications,accrualaccounting,worksmanagement,propertytaxation,birth/deathregistration,publicgrievance&redressal(PGR),cadastrallevelGISmappingandcitywebsitestofacilitateonlinetransactions,disclosureofdataandonlinepaymentoftaxesandfees.

Thefoundationalsoworksintheareaofeducation,focusingonimprovinglearningandretentioningovernmentschoolsinthestatesofKarnatakaandAndhraPradesh.


6

bothcostsofsharingandincentivestosharemeansthatharnessinguserinsightingovernance

poses unique obstacles relative to those outlined in the user innovation literature. The user

innovation literature focuses on screening for innovative users and tracking their ideas in a

cost‐effectiveway,butassumesthatuserswillberelativelyforthcomingabouttheirideas.We

face the additional challenge of motivating users to share their ideas. We outline some

potential strategies for harnessing user innovation in this context and discuss our ongoing

effortstoidentifyinnovationsandinnovatorsamongtheusersofthePGRsystem.

Section Four concludes. Technologists and technology‐focused organizations will

probably always play a central role in e‐governancedesign, as this iswhere experiencewith

technology, knowledge about

governance,andtheincentives

to exploit these two kinds of

expertise for better public

sector performance come

together.However,theredoes

appear to be unexploited

potential to learn more from

users in e‐governance design

and we urge technologists to

bemoresystematicinlearning

fromuserinsight.

The Nirmala Nagara Public

Grievance and Redressal

Module

The initial version of

thePGRMwaspartofa larger

Municipal e‐governance


7

project“NirmalaNagara”(beautifulcity)implementedin57citiesofKarnataka.Thegoalwas

to develop and implement e‐governance systems that would improve the city’s delivery of

services to citizens throughout the state by improving the municipality’s internal efficiency,

supportingrecordkeeping,andenabledisclosureofallpublicinformation.Thesemunicipale‐

governance modules included eGov Property to manage property tax collection; eGov

Financials, an accrual‐based financial accounting system; eGov Payroll to streamline salary

payments; eGov Inventory for inventory control; and eGov Birth/Death, a civil registration

system;inadditiontotheeGovPGRMformanagingpublicgrievanceandredressal.ThePGRM

wasdesigned to facilitate the registrationof complaints to the city government and support

backendworkflows needed to improve redressal of these complaints. Information from the

system can also help state officials, city managers, and citizens track urban governments’

performance in providing services that inspire few complaints and responding quickly to

complaintsthatdoarise.

ThePGRMisarelativelyrareexampleofaninteractivee‐governancetoolimplemented

in a developing country context. These types of tools are generally considered to represent

more“advanced”stagesofegovernancethanthemorecommonuseofITtoenablepublishing

ofgovernmentinformation.7Citizenscanregistertheircomplaintsviatheinternet,phone,or

by simply filling out a paper form and submitting it at one of the municipal offices. Many

choose to bring their complaint to a local leader of a community group or to an elected

councilorfromtheirwardwhothenregistersthecomplaintintheir(theleader’s)name.8Alocal

NGO, chosenby the city amongNGOswith ademonstrated strongpresence in the city,was

appointed to manage the front end in order to make the PGRMmore accessible and user

friendly to citizens. The goal in having the city choose an NGO from among those with a

demonstratedlocalpresencewastoensurethattheintermediarywastrustedbybothcitizens

(asdemonstratedby longerexistence)andgovernment (asdemonstratedbychoice),but the

7SeeBalutis(2001),Howard(2001),andLauetal(2008),forexample.

8Nearlyallofthe“frequentcomplainants”withmorethan20registeredgrievancesoverJuly2005–May2007identifiedthemselvesascouncilorsorspokespersonsforpublicwelfaresocieties.Wallack(2007)


8

Foundation has not verified whether the selected NGOs are in fact perceived as neutral

players.9

AllcomplaintsgetrecordedintothePGRMdatabaseinthesamestandardformatanda

complainttrackingnumberisissuedtothecitizen.Thestatusofthegrievancecanbechecked

24x7viatheinternet,phoneorbyphysicallycomingovertoamunicipalgrievanceoffice/desk.

Thecitizencanresubmitthecomplaintorprotestifitisrecordedas“redressed”whilethework

hasnotbeencompletedon theground.Fromcity’sperspective, this simplifies thecomplaint

managementtask–thesamesystemoffersfulldisclosuretothecitizenastowhoisworkingon

thecomplaint,regardlessofthechannelthatthecomplaintcameinthrough.

Figure2:Citizen’scomplaintregistrationform

9OnepossibilityistohavetheNGOrotateovertime,basedonsomeselectionmechanismthatinvolvedbothcitizenandcityinfluence.


9

The lifecycle of a complaint through its state‐transitions are recorded in the system,

whichhelpsmanagethelargenumberofcomplaintsthatacitygets.Complaintsarerecorded

as“registered”assoonastheyareenteredintotheelectronicsystem.Theyareautomatically

routedtothesystem’sinboxfortheappropriatecityofficialbasedonthecomplainttypeand

locationofthecomplaint.10Figure3belowshowsaredressalofficer’sviewofthesystemwhere

s/hecanrunvariousqueriestolistcomplaintsofacertaintype.Theofficercanthenassignthe

responsibility for redressal to another official (in which case the complaint status becomes

“Assigned”) or start to address it himself, at which time the status becomes “Processing.”

Finally,whenthecomplainthasbeenfixedthenthecomplaintgoestothe“Completed”state.

The feature simplifies urban management, as it embeds the organization chart of the

governmentagencyandauto‐routecomplaints to theappropriate redressalofficer througha

configurable rule‐drive engine that helps manage the distribution and load‐balancing of

complaintsamongstredressal‐officers.

The administrator and the complainant can also communicate through the PGRM

system itselfover the internetorvia thephone.TheNGOkeepsonlinewrittenrecordsofall

phone conversations. This has proven to be a very important channel of communication

betweenthetwotoclarifydetailsofthecomplaintaswellastheredressal.ThePGRMmodule

also uses SMS over mobile phones to communicate ‘emergency/urgent complaints’ to the

redressalofficersthroughtheruledrivenauto‐routingsub‐module.Thecitizenisalsocontacted

bySMSiss/hehasfilledoutamobilenumberduringcomplaintregistration.

10Allrelevantofficersaregiven“redressalofficer”accounts.


10

Figure3:RedressalOfficer’sViewofGrievances

The PGRM documents and publishes tallies of grievances and redressal in easy‐to‐digest

visualreportssuchasgraphs,pie‐chartsandGISmapstohelpbothcitizengroupsandcity

administratorsseelargertrendsandpatternsintheproblemsfacedbythecity.Citizenscan

generatereal‐timecustomizedreportsofcomplaintsbyareaortypeonline.(Figure4)The

analyticsbuilt intothevisualreportingsystemalsohelpdetectpatternsandtrendsabout

the common problems afflicting the city, which is meant to help administrators focus

resourceson themostpressingproblemsat the specific locationspointedoutby theGIS

mapsbuiltintothePGRMsystem.


11

Figure4:DistributionofcomplaintsbydepartmentintheMysoreCityCorporationas

ofDec12th2007

ThePGRM isuniqueamongeGovernments’applications in that it collects information

directly from the people and measures the responsiveness of the urban government in

responding to these grievances. Internal systems (such as taxation, accounting, works etc)

supportefficientcitymanagement;thePGRMprovidesnewinformationoneffectiveness.The

accuracyofthisinformation,however,dependsoncitiesandcitizensactuallyusingthesystem

tofacilitateaconversationabouttheirgrievances.

DoesthePGRMWork?


12

The first and feasible step to assess whether or not the system “works” is to check

whethercitiesandcitizensareusing thesystemto reportand trackcomplaints.11 Ideally,we

wouldbeabletoshowthatthesystemcontributedtobetterserviceoutcomes,butthiskindof

impactassessmentisbeyondthescopeofthepaper.12

Public sector usage of the PGRM has increased over time, but some important

exceptions indicate city officials’ resistance to using themodule to track citizen feedback on

theirwork.Ontheonehand,thestateofKarnatakahasfullyadopteditasameansofmanaging

citizen complaints for its cities. As discussed above, themodule was initially used in the 57

larger cities,but isnowbeingused innearly ahundred citiesof varying sizes statewide. The

state uses the aggregate reports to supplement official statistics on city priorities, and the

complaintsreportshaveaffectedbothcitybudgetsandstatetransferstocities.

Our small survey in Karnataka found that the cities are taking advantage of the

informationforworkplanningandshort‐termallocationofresourcesaswellasformonitoring

departments’performance. Table1 summarizes theanswers to thequestion “Does your city

use information on Public Grievances to plan for departments’ annual/monthly/weekly/daily

workprogrammes?”.13

Table1

AnswerOptions Yes No Sometimes ResponseCount

Annual work programme orpriorities?

13 10 13 36

11Trackingusageseemstobeafairlycommonshortcutforevaluatingegovernanceeffectiveness.See,forexample,Guptaetal(2008)andreferencestherein.

12Wedonotknowofanycredibleimpactevaluationsofsuchsystemsformanagingcitizencomplaints.Theproblemwithsimplylookingatwhetheroutcomeschangedaftersystemimplementationisthatthegovernmentsthatinviteandimplementpublicgrievancemanagementsystemsarelikelytobedifferentthanthosethatavoidtheminsomewaythatiscorrelatedwiththeirabilityandincentivestodeliverqualityinfrastructureandservices.

13Thequestionformatrequiredofficialstorespondyes/no/sometimesforeachtimeperiodmentionedonaseparaterow.


13

Monthlyworkprogrammeorpriorities?

18 3 11 32

Weekly work programme orpriorities?

27 4 2 33

Dailyassignments? 25 4 4 33

answeredquestion

45

skippedquestion 29

Weekly planning seemed to be themost common use of the grievance information.

More than half (26) of the 45 cities who answered the question used the PGR system to

determinetheirannualworkplansatleastsometime,whileonlytenexplicitlysaidthattheydid

not use the PGR for annual planning.Monthly, weekly, and daily planning all had the same

number of “yes” and “sometimes” (29), and fewer explicit statements that grievance

informationwasNOTusedforplanning.

The system has also attracted new customers outside of the urbanmilieu. The Delhi

Transmission Corporation, for example, monitors the performance of the (private sector)

distributioncompaniesusingthePGRM;theHaryanatransmissioncorporation isalsousing it

forasimilarpurpose.MembersofParliamenthavealsoexpressedinterest inusingittotrack

constituents’concerns.

On the other hand, Karnataka’s most prominent city, Bangalore, does not use the

systemandoneofthe largeearlyadopters,Delhi,hasstoppedusingthesystem.Thecitydid

notprovideanyreasonfordiscontinuingusage,andthecurrentdisuseissurprisingbecausethe

city was one of the early innovators in adapting features of the system for internal

communication among city officials. Informal interaction with officials suggested that the

systemhadbeenhighlightingmanymorecomplaintsthanthecitycouldactuallyhandle.


14

Several cities also use parallel processes for managing grievances. Some department

officials, for example, told us in various informal interactions that that they continued to

receive complaints directly from citizens or specifically went out to worksites to check for

potential complaints. Othersmentioned using phone calls or direct communication to route

complaints to theappropriatedepartments inemergencies. Survey responses support these

anecdotes:Evencityofficialswhoreportedusingthepublicgrievancesystem100%ofthetime

receivedandroutedcomplaintsusingfeaturesthatwerenotpartofthesystem.Modifyingthe

systemtomotivatemorecompleteusageisahighpriority:theperformancereportsgenerated

forcitizensandcitymanagerswillbeinaccurateandpotentiallybiasediftheseparallelflowsof

informationarenotbeingcapturedinthePGRM.

Citizen usage of the system is also varied. Wallack (2007)’ s study of the grievance

profiles generated by the system found that the types of concerns generated by the system

weregenerally in linewithmediareports,anecdotalperceptionsofcityservicepriorities,and

availabledataoninfrastructurequality.Nevertheless,thereisroomforimprovementtoensure

thatthePGRsystemispresentinganaccuratepictureofcitizenconcernsandcityperformance.

CumulativecomplaintsoverJuly2005–May2007,theperiodconsideredinthatstudyranged

from0.004(Bidar)to0.09(Ranebennur)percapitainKarnataka’scities.14(Figure4)Thisisan

upper bound on the number of individuals participating and incidents reported since the

recordsmightdouble‐countincidentsorberepeatrespondents.

14Theanalysisusespopulationfiguresfrom2001.Source:Census2001,reportedonhttp://www.citypopulation.de/India‐Karnataka.html,accessedJuly2,2007).RajarajeshwariNagarCMCdidnothaveseparatepopulationdataBangaloreinCensus2001,itspopulationfigureisfromtheCMCwebsite,accessedsameday.Sorabawasalsonotonthewebsite,asitwaslistedasaTownPanchayatratherthanacity.ObtaineddatafromalistofNirmalaNagaratownsonKUIDFCwebsited,whichcited2001census.


15

Figure4:PerCapitaUsage

Manyof thesecomplaintswerealso coming froma fewwards in thecity rather than

from a broader sample. Almost all cities in Karnataka had at least 20% of their complaints

comingfromafewwards,andmanyhave40%pluscomingfromthetopthreewards.15

PGRMDesignChallenges

ThePGRMisfunctionallysimilartobug‐trackingtoolsthathave longbeenusedinthe

software industrytotrackandfixprogrammingdefects.Theprocessofrecordingandrouting

problemsinsoftwareandcityservicesinvolvesomewhatsimilarworkflows,automation,state‐

transitions (registered, assigned, processing, completed, rejected etc), and reports. The

similarity ends quickly, though. Reporting citizen complaints, recording, and routing these

concerns to officials, and monitoring city government’s solutions involves complex social

dynamicsbetweencitizens,administrators,andelectedcouncilorsthatneedtobefacilitatedby

15Thesefiguresdonotaccountforthemanycomplaintsthatdidnothaveawardboundarynotedintherecord.Thesecomplaintshadaddressinformationembeddedinthecorrespondence–whichenabledcityofficialstorespondtogrievances–butthesewerenotreadilyabletobematchedtowardsforcomputingoverallwardstatistics.


16

or incorporated into thePGRModulebysoftwaredesigners.Thedesignchallenge is that the

expertsonsocialdynamicsand theexpertson technical solutionsmaynotbe readilyableor

willing to communicate to match problems with solutions to design effective egovernance

software.

Developing the PGRM required substantial information about how governments

function,whichmay notmatch the formal organizational chart even if one exists. Designers

have tomodel theworkflowof government agencies, for example, in order to automatically

routecomplaints.Thesemayormaynotbeentirelyuniformacrosscities,sothechallengeisto

comeupwithanapproximation thatworks formost. Thedesignersalsohave tounderstand

rolesandjurisdictionsinordertoprogramaccesscontrolaswell.Thesystemhastofit it into

theworkflowofwell‐intentionedcityemployees(e.g.notinterrupting‘emergency”responses

wherethecomplaintcomesinandthentherecipient immediatelyrefers ittosomebodywho

fixesit)aswellaspreventmanipulationbyill‐intentionedpeople.

Designers also have to factor in limited access to and familiarity with computers in

urban local bodies. It has to function in “hybridmode” ‐ electronicmode for the redressal

officerswhoareconnectedandamanualfilebasedmodeforthejuniorfieldemployeeswho

are not connected ‐without compromising key aspects of theworkflow, complaint tracking,

autoroutingofcomplaints,andproductionofperformancereports.

The PGRM also requires substantial knowledge about citizens and community based

organizations to design an effective citizen‐city communication platform. Designers have to

understandcitizenschedulesandcapabilities,forexample,todesignafeasibleandconvenient

ways for people to submit grievances. They have to understand how citizens experience

infrastructure and services, and what citizens can conceivable know about the problems

underlying poor service – citizens can, after all, only complain aboutwhat they see and this

“grievance”hastobemappedtoinformationthatisrelevantforadepartmenttoknowwhatis

wrongandwhatitcanfix.Thedesignerhastoanticipatecitizenpsychologyincreatingasystem

thatgivesenoughassurancetotheindividualthatacomplaint,oncesubmitted,is“heard”even

if it is not immediately redressed. It has to provide performance reports that citizens and


17

community organizations can access and immediately understand if it is to fulfill its goal of

“arming”citizenstoholdcitygovernmentsaccountable.

Finally,designingthePGRMrequiresunderstandingsocio‐politicalnuances.ThePGRM

isalsoattemptingtocaptureinformationabouttransactionsthathadbeenmanagedthrougha

“legacy” system of personalized interactions between citizens, city officials, and elected

councilors,withoutdestroyingpositiveparts of personalized contact.16Direct interaction can

conveysubstantialinformationabouttheimportanceandunderlyingcausesofagrievance,for

example. Responding to grievances expressed by individuals, and receiving the gratitude

personally, plausibly gives city workersmore pride in their work than checking a box on an

electroniclistofcomplaints.

Mostofthesefactsareeithernotreadilyobservableordifficulttouncoverduetocity

officialsorcitizens’ incentives towithhold information.eGovernmentsFoundation foundthat

working with city commissioners was useful for getting answers to questions such as who

reportstowhomingeneral,butnotashelpfulassitevisitsforunderstandingexceptionstothe

rules,informalconventions,ordeviationsthatmayhappenduetopersonalityconflictsorother

factors.Manyof thedetails of the complexworkflows are stored in cityworkers’ heads and

requirein‐depthinterviewstouncover.

eGovernments implementing staff has found that city officials’ willingness to divulge

detailsismixed.Someareeagertoprovidedetailedinformationabouttheirworkenvironment.

Oneofthepointsmadebytheenthusiasticthen‐CommissionerofHubli‐Dharwad,forexample,

wasthat“everycitizenwhohasaproblemthinkstheyneedtocallmedirectlytoresolvetheir

problem,thisisnotanefficientuseofmytime.”Othersaremorereluctanttopartwithdetails

quickly.Onecity,forexample,approvedtheformalstatementsofworkflowwhentheywerein

16Thisisincontrasttoothere‐governanceprocessinnovationswheretheobjectistofullyreplacethelegacysystem.EgovernancesoftwareforaccountinginIndiaexplicitlyseekstoendledgerandpenrecordsofpublicfinanceandreplacethesewithelectronicallyrecordedaccrualaccounting,whilepropertytaxorlandrecordregistriesseektoendtheinformalsystemofforged,non‐existent,ordifficult‐to‐accesspaperrecords.


18

tabular format,but then insistedonseeingand reviewing themagain inchart format,a step

thatdelayedtheoverallsoftwarecustomization.OfficialselsewherewouldnotletFoundation

employees see original records for understanding database requirements, but instead took

extratimetotranscribesectionsforthereview.Thesecasesdidnotseemtobebasedonany

particularfinancialmotive,butratherageneralreluctancetoopenthemselvesandtheirwork

upforcloserscrutinythroughanIT‐basedsystem.

Similarly, learning about citizen needs for the communications platform requires in‐

depthdiscussionswithasmanyindividualsaspossibleandcertainlywithrespectedcommunity‐

basedgroupswhowouldhavetobeidentifiedonacity‐by‐citybasis.Thelogisticsofthesein‐

depth interviewsarecostly:Karnakata isa fairly largestatewith itscitiesspreadoveralmost

200,000km2.Itwouldtakeabout14hourstogofromsouthern‐mostcitytothenorthern‐most

city,nevermindcoveringthemanydotsinthemiddleofthemap.

Existingcodificationofgovernmentprocessesormarketing/lifestylesurveysofcitizens,

which might defray software development costs, are limited. The Indian Comptroller and

AuditorGeneralpublishesamanualformunicipalpublicexpendituremanagement,butthereis

noanalogousguidebookforlocalgovernmentorganization.Stategovernmentsprescribesome

aspectsoftheorganizationeitherdirectlyorthroughtherulesfordisbursingfundstoparticular

functional units, but Commissioners have substantial latitude to work out their own

arrangements. The census andNational Sample Surveys are the primary sources of available

information about citizens, but neither contains enough information about work and

commuting patterns to assess what is “convenient” for registering complaints or about

computeraccess.TherearenoequivalentsofmarketingresearchreportsoninternetandSMS

usagetoassesshowdeeplyelectroniccollectionofgrievancescouldpenetrate.

Citizensandcityofficialsmayalsohaveincentivestoconcealatleastpartoftherelevant

information.Cities in Indiaareeffectivelyunder the thumbsof stategovernments thatoften

prescriberulesandprocesses.Cityofficialswhohavefiguredoutalternatewaystomanagethe

workflowmaybe reticent topublicize theirdeparture fromtheprocedures laiddownby the

state.Thisreluctancemayalsostemfromriskaversion:procedurescanalsobecomfortingto


19

revert to (or at least claim tohave followed)when something goeswrong. Similarly, citizens

maybeunwilling tocriticize theexistingwaythatcityofficials respondto theirgrievancesor

pushtoohardforabilitytostrictlymonitorperformance.

Neithercityofficialsnorcitizensmaybewillingtorevealtheexistingrelationshipsthey

havewitheachothertocommunicateaboutservices.Corruptionisnotsomethingpeoplejust

admit, nor are “connections.” Citieswith higher corruption levelsmay prefer the status quo

that involves rent‐seeking to deliver citizen services, PGRM brings about a high level of

transparencyatatransactionlevelthatmayeliminatethepossibilityofrent‐seeking.

Finally, cityofficials and citizensmaynotbe consciously aware andable todescribehow

grievancesareexpressedandredressedorhowcityworkflowsgetmanaged.Sometimespeople

just do things because that’s the way that they are done, and are not really self‐conscious

enough to fully describe the process even if they are asked. Knowledge might be tacit,

thereforehardtoverbalizeevenwhenpeoplewanttoconveyit.(Polanyi,1958)Thispresumes

that the software designers know enough about social processes to ask the right questions,

whichisitselfnotguaranteed.

Atthesametime,the ITsolutionsarealso“sticky” informationthatexperts–notcity

government officials – hold. Writing the software requires technical knowledge and

experience.Theorganizationofdatainastructuredformthathelpsrecombineandaggregate

information togenerate citywide reports (andhelp indecisionmaking) is somethinga good

technicalarchitectdoesbutdoesnotcomenaturallytoamunicipaladministrator.Aseasoned

softwareprofessionalbringstheexperienceof implementingITsolutions inseveralsectorsto

the problem at hand, this is vital in envisioning IT solutions to urban governance problems.

While the urban planner or administrator understands in detail the problems of urban

governance,ittakesgoodITprofessionalstoarriveatusefulITsolution.

Successrequires"unsticking"theinformationthatusersandsoftwaredevelopershave

so that theproblems canbematchedwith solutions to improve the PGRM’s contribution to

urban governance. This couldmean either eGovernments investing in collecting information


20

aboutcityprocessesorworkingtoconveyenoughtechnicalknowledgetocityofficialswithan

incentive to improve urban function so that they can develop their own solutions. The first

approachisfarmorecommon,andiswhattheFoundationhasfollowedforthemostpart.The

informationiscombinedatthefoundationlevel,andinnovationhastakenplacethereforthe

mostpart.Thesecondapproachhasincreasingpotential,however,asusershavebecomemore

familiar with the technology and its possibilities. Realizing this potential, however, requires

creativemechanismstonotonlyidentifyprospectiveuser‐innovators,buttomotivatethemto

reveal their ideas for improving thePGRM’sability toholdcityofficialsaccountable forhigh‐

qualityservices.Manyoftheofficialswiththehighestcapacitytoidentifyusefulinnovationsto

limitevasionofoversightor improvePGR’sability to shed lightonperformanceare thevery

people whose work environment would become more demanding if these changes were

incorporated.

ThePGRDesignProcess:Approachesto“Unsticking”Information

The eGovernments Foundation’s initial design approach focused on “unsticking” asmuch

informationaboutgovernanceprocessesaspossible so that softwaredesigners (whoalready

hadthetechnicalknowledge)couldcreateaneffectivePGRM.Theoutcome,describedabove,

has been reasonably successful. Casual interaction and chance encounterswith city officials,

however,haveuncoveredanewsourceofinnovationforrefiningthesystemfurther:theusers.

ThesecondpartofthesectiondiscussestheFoundation’sevolvingstrategyforharvestinguser

innovationsefficiently.

InitialDevelopmentProcess

The development process started with the creation of a ‘System Requirements Study’

(SRS) document. The Foundation studied several PGRM‐like systems that were already

operationalinvariouscitiesinIndia.ItalsointeractedwiththeUrbanDevelopmentDeptGovt.

of Karnataka, some City Commissioners, and elected Councilors. The team used this

informationtodevelopsomeofthekeypartsofthePGRMsystemdescribedabove.


21

CommunicationbetweenthegovernmentofficialsandeGovernmentsinthefirstphaseof

developmentwas not always easy, however.Many cityworkers (as inmany departments in

India)are first timeusersof computer technologyand it seemed tobequite intimidating for

themtotransitiontothisnewwayofworking.ComputersandITexpertswerenotwidespread

inKarnataka’scitiesbeforetheproject:about70ITpersonnelhadtobehiredanddeputedto

the57cities intheprojectandcomputerswerepurchasedandnetworkedspecificallyforthe

newegovernanceapplications.

eGovernments foundthatthegovernmentswerenotableto immediatelycommunicate

theirrequirementsbecausetheycouldnotrelatetoanITsolutiontotheirproblems,processes

andworkflowsatfirst.TheFoundationhadtoprototypesolutions(webpageswithallthefields

andinteractions)beforeitcouldgetgoodinputsonwhattheirspecificneedswere.

The meetings with stakeholders helped gain buy‐in as well as information about

governance. The detailed explanations and interactions also helped users become more

comfortablewiththesystem.Onsecurityofthedata,forexample,theFoundationexplainedat

the outset how IT systems authenticated users with a user ID/password, and told them

repeatedlyaboutnotsharingtheiruserID/passwordsincethesystemcouldbemisusedintheir

absence. The initial communicationdidalwaysnot sink in,however: anelderly gentlemanat

oneofthetrainingworkshopssaidthathewouldrathernotusethissystemsincehewasgoing

toretirein6moremonthsandhedidnotwantanyoneelsemisusingthesysteminhisname.

ThemeetingshelpedtheFoundationidentifyandaddressthesemisunderstandings.

The Foundation found that city officials had more and more useful insights as they

startedtousethesystemandbecomefamiliarwithitspotential.Citieswereusingtheproduct

inuniqueways:Delhi, forexample,usedthecommentfieldstotrackdelegationofcomplaint

redressalwithindepartments.17OneMr.Manivannan,earlierCommissionerofHubli‐Dharwad

(now transferred to Mysore) visited the eGovernments Foundation to requests custom

enhancements and systems for Hubli‐Dharwad. He described his own system for classifying

17Mostcitiesusethisfieldforinteractionbetweencitizensandredressalofficers.


22

grievancesasurgent,short‐term,andlongtermandroutingthelongtermtoformtheagenda

forcitizen‐cityplanningmeetings.TheChiefOfficerofKundarpur reportedusing thepending

complaints listas theagenda for internal staffmeetingsofalldepartments.Officials inother

citiesreportedacceptingcomplaintsviaSMS,androutingthemtoofficialsinthefieldviaphone

orwalkie‐talkieratherthanrelyingonthesystem’sautomaticroutingtoanofficer’sinbox.

Earlyinteractionswithofficialsandexaminationoftheusagedataalsouncoveredsome

lessexciting“user innovation,”oranomalies inthewaythatcitygovernmentswereusingthe

systemthatwouldaffectgrievanceaggregatesandperformancestatistics.Somegovernments

wereacceptingcomplaintsfromwalk‐insorpaperforms,forexample,butenteringtheseinto

the system through the citizen online interface in periodic batches. The complaints then

showed up in the system as being submitted through the internet, incorrectly implying a

middle‐andupper‐classbias.Thedatesofformalsubmissionofcomplaintsalsotendedtobe

laterthanactualdates,affectingtherecordedredressaltimesandrates.

Theearlyexperiencethushighlights twogaps:First, thequestionofhowtoreachout

moreefficientlytoindividualsliketheonestheFoundationhasencounteredbychance,aswell

ashowtoelicitsuggestionsfromabroadersetofcityofficialsincludingmiddleandlower‐tier

“street level bureaucrats” who actually responded to complaints and interact with citizens.

Second,howtoelicit informationaboutuserevasion,shortcuts,andother“innovations”that

thePGRMshouldberedesignedtolimit.

The sheerdistancebetween cities and thedynamicsof existing city‐state interactions

enabled by the PGRM impose some constraints. It is difficult (if not impossible) for the

Foundationtopullcityofficials,especiallymidandlower‐tiermanagersfromtheirjobstocome

to a central location, and the costs of visiting each city repeatedly are prohibitive. The only

meetingsinwhichrepresentativesofallcitiescometogetherinthesameroomarethestate‐

widemeetingscalledby theGovernmentofKarnataka,whicharenotwell‐suitedtobe focus

groups on innovation. The State Urban Development Department tends to use the

opportunities to impart information via capacity building workshops or critically review the

NirmalaNagaracities.Substantialtimeisspentonredressalratesandwhycertaincitieshave


23

poorredressalrates,creatingaclimateinwhichthecityrepresentativesarelikelytobeonthe

defensiveratherthaneagertooffernewideas.eGovernmentsFoundationactivelyparticipates

inthesemeetingtounderstandtheissuesfacedbythecitiesaswellasreviewtheprogressof

implementation, leaving little time to draw out information about enhancements and

improvementstoPGRMitself.

ThemeetingsalsotendtobedominatedbyCommissioners,whilemanyoftheinsights

observedhavecomefromjuniorofficerswhomaybereticenttospeakupinfrontofthesenior

officials.TheCommissioners,whoarespecificallyrequestedbytheStatetocome,arelikelyto

have lessdailyoperational contactwith the systemthan juniorofficers. TheFoundationhas

usedbreak‐awaysessions(effectivelystandingaroundandtalkingaboutthe‘realproblems’)to

elicit more open responses, but the time available for these is limited. These break‐away

sessions are alsounlikely to elicit anydiscussionof how the accountability embedded in the

system could be evaded, which is an important design consideration for the eGovernments

Foundation.

ScreeningforUser‐Innovators:TwoStrategies

Weused two strategies to attempt to uncover additional user innovations aswell as

honeinmoreefficientlyonbothuser‐innovatorswithproposalsforsystemenhancementand

user‐innovatorswhose“innovations”limitedthesystem’scontributiontogovernance.

Weusedanonlinesurveyasalow‐costscreeningdevicetoidentifyuserswithrelevant

ideasonhow toupgrade the systemor createnewkindsof reports to supportpublic sector

management.At aminimum,wewanted to takeadvantageof the survey toholda low‐cost

“meeting” of city officials. We also attempted to engineer the survey questions to elicit

informationaboutevasionofthePGRM,oruseofalternatesystems.Somequestionsprobed

circumstancesinwhichthey“didnotalways”usethePGR.Thesewerephrasedtentativelyto

avoidanysenseofaccusationthattheofficialswereshirking.Wealsoaskedmultiple‐response

questions asking them about how grievances actually were

registered/confirmed/routed/redressed that included both extant system features and


24

potentialfeaturesthatmightbeusedalongside.Lastly,weaskedopen‐endeddirectquestions

about what would be better ways to accept/confirm/route complaints and monitor

performance,aswellasaverybroadquestionrequesting“anysuggestionsforimprovement.”

Wealsoscreenedforproblematicuserinnovationsusingdatamining,orreviewofthe

complaints profiles to highlight unusual usage or complaints patterns that might indicate

systemmisuse.Dataminingalsohasthepotentialtohighlightbroadpatternsincitizenusage

thatcouldinformfurthersystemdesign.

OnlineSurvey

Thesurveyformatandprotocolweredesignedtobeaccessibleforallrelevantofficials,

buttoseparatetheactivefrompassiveusers.WedistributedaPDFcopyofthesurveyanda

link to the online version via email to Municipal IT Officers in the 57 Karnataka cities

participatingintheNirmalaNagaraprogramonNovember28,2007.WedescribedtheSurvey

aspartofgovernment‐supportedindependentevaluationofthePublicGrievanceModulethat

focused on city officials’ contributions as expert users. The title, “Nirmala Nagara Public

Grievance and Redressal System Improvement Survey,” wasmeant tominimize the obvious

connectiontotheproductdeveloper(eGovernmentsFoundation).Wedidenliststatesupport

to encourage users to participate; the email was signed byMr. ZIya Ullah, Joint Director of

ReformsinthestategovernmentUrbanDevelopmentDepartmentaswellasourselves.

The email asked the IT officers to distribute the survey to all city officials with any

responsibility for the PGR Module. They were asked, in particular, to urge the City

Commmissioner/Head Officer, a representative of the NGO charged with registering

complaints, an IT Officer, and an Official from the Revenue/Health/Engineering or other

departmentswhotypicallyrespondedtocomplaintstorespond.Weinstructedthemtoprovide

theonline linktothosewhowerecomfortablewithcomputers,ortoprintanddistributethe

PDFversiontobefilledoutbyhandandsignedbytheofficialinothercases.Weaskedthemto

then enter the completed paper surveys using the online interface as well as mail the

completedPDFformstoustobeverified.


25

Getting to the end of the survey requiredminimal effort.Many of the questions are

multiple‐choice and very few have required answers. An official could spend 2‐3 minutes

checkingseveralboxesandwritedownhisorhernametobeconsidereda“participant”forthe

purposesoffulfillingtheimplicitdutytothestategovernment.Wealsoincludedopportunities

formoreextensivefeedbackandopen‐endedcomments,however, forthosewhoweremore

enthusiastic. We tested the survey format with Mr. Zia Ullah, who has been working very

closely on the Nirmala Nagara project and has years of experience working with city

commissionersandotheradministrators.

DataMining18

Thedataminingexercisewascarriedoutusingcomplaintsdatafrom57citiesoverthe

periodJuly2005–May2007.Ourfocuswasonuncoveringunusualpatternsofusagethatcould

indicateeithercitizenmisunderstandingofthesystem,officials’evasionofthesystem’sinternal

complaints routing features that needed to be followed up , and city‐specific practices that

affectedthesystem’sabilitytoserveasaplatformformanagingcomplaints.Thegoalwasto

reducethesetofspecificsitevisitsthatwouldneedtobedonetounderstandhowtoreduce

evasionofthesystem.

We first compared usage rates across cities and over time to look for outliers in the

numberofcomplaintscominginorsuddenshiftsinthenumbersofcomplaints.Citieswithan

unusuallylownumberofregisteredcomplaintscouldsimplybecitieswithsatisfiedcustomers,

buttheycouldalsobecitieswherealternategrievancetrackingsystemswerestillbeingused

andwhere thePGRMfeatureswerenotasappealing topublicofficialsor citizens.Thereare

limitedobjectivedatawithwhichtocalibratethenumberofcomplaintscities“should”have.

Suddenchangesinthenumberofcomplaintsarealsoanindicatorofsomekindofshiftincity

usageofthePGRM,perhapstheintroductionofanalternativesystemwithfeaturesuperiorto

thePGRM.Wealsolookedatredressalratesovertimetoidentifycitieswithunusuallylowor

high rates of redressal. Poor redressal suggests that the grievance information is not being

18ThediscussionofdataminingborrowsfromWallack(2007).


26

incorporated into the city workflow, while perfect redressal suggests some degree of

manipulationofthesystem.

Wealsocheckedforseveralpatternsthatcouldshedlightonthenatureofcitizenusage

of thePGRM,namely:distributionofgrievancesacrosswardsandacross typesofsubmission

(paper, internet,orphone),repeatusers,clustersofcomplainttypesortimingthatstoodout

from the general flow of city grievances. As discussed above, the distribution of grievances

acrosswardsisameasureoftheeffectivereachofthePGRM,butvariationsacrosscitiesinthe

concentrationalsosuggestvariationincitystrategiesforpublicizingthesystemorencouraging

usagethatwecouldlearnfrom.Similarly,variationintypeofsubmissionprovidessomeinsight

into the system’s ability (or city governments’ ability) to reach across the digital divide that

couldalsoprovidebroaderlessonsforimprovingthePGRM.Repeatedusersareinterestingas

potentialuserinnovatorstocontactlatertoseekouttheirinputs,aswellasforunderstanding

whether (and where) the system was reaching a broad user base versus a narrow group.

Clusters of unusual complaints are more ambiguous symptoms, but we felt that these

anomaliesmightbegoodwarning signalsof either citizenmisunderstandingor somekindof

cityofficials’mishandlingofcomplaintsthatthesystemwasvulnerableto.

TheResults:UsefulUserInnovations?UsefulUsers?

Theonlinesurveyandthedataminingdidhighlightanumberofinterestingpossibilities

forimprovingthesystem,withsomeimportantlimitationsthatwediscussbelow.Bothseemed

tobemoresuccessfulasscreeningdevicesto identify individualswith insightsandcitieswith

practicesthatcouldbelearnedfromthanasdirectsourcesofinformationaboutinnovations.

Surveyresults

City officials’ responses provided some new insights into government function in

addition to some suggestions that showed increasing familiarity with the potential of IT for

supporting information flows underlying new ways to manage provision of public services.

Muchofthe informationconfirmedexistingknowledgeofuser ideas for improvementsofar,

which isnotespeciallyhelpful inoursearchfornewinsights,butahopeful indicatorthatthe


27

existing practice of intermitted contact with city officials is reasonably informative. The

responses confirmed the common reports from the city officialswe happened to encounter

that the systemwas cumbersome for routing emergency complaints, for example. “Entering

grievances slows down redressal,” and “Easier to communicate directly with departments,”

were the tworeasons fornon‐usageof thesystemthat themost individuals rankedas“Very

Important”or“SomewhatImportant.”

Thesurveyresponseratewaslow,butitdidappeartoreachadifferentgroupthanthe

city officials who aremost vocal in intermittent interactions with the Foundation as well as

meetings with state officials. There were 74 respondents from 40 cities. Many of the

respondents were relatively senior city officials: 29 were Commissioners, Deputy

Commissioners, or (in smaller cities), Chief Officers, but there were also 15 officials from

various departments and 26 IT staff. TheNGOs chargedwith registering complaints had the

lowestparticipationrate,withjustfourrespondingtothesurvey.

Thesuggestionsfor improvement,however,reflecteda levelofsupportforIT‐enabled

offices that was not clear before. Most respondents mentioned improved IT systems as

importantforefficientlyroutingcomplaints,andmostofthesuggestionsconcernedprocesses

orcontentratherthanhardware.ITstafftendedtowantmoreequipment:ITstafffromBellary

wanted walkie‐talkies to be compulsory for officials attending complaints, Tumkur’s IT staff

wanted a fully LAN connected office, butmost of the other respondents advocated various

formsofelectroniccommunicationwithout requestingspecifichardware.TwoEnvironmental

EngineerfromHospetandKolaradvocatedusingtheegovernancesystemtodisseminatemore

educational content to city officials. Ramanagara’s Commissioner wanted to send SMSs in

addition to the implied use of the communications infrastructure requested above, and

Ranebenner’sManagerwantedanautomaticallygeneratedemailtobesentatthesametime

as complaints are registered. Puttur’s Chief Officer and IT staff wanted officials other than

themselvesandtheNGOtocheckthePGRcomplaintslog.Trainingwasonlymentionedonce,

however,whichprobablyunder‐representstherealneedfortraining.


28

Thesurveyalsohadsomecomponentsdesignedtoelicituserfeedbackonthebenefits

anddrawbacksofusingthePGRMreportsasthebasisforexplicit internal incentivepay.This

hasbeensuggestedbysomecitymanagers(andimplementedbyone),butit isnotclearthat

grievances or redressal times/rates fully and uniquely reflect city workers’ effort or

departments’ performance. The number of grievances and the redressal rates, for example,

wouldhavetobeadjustedfortheresourcesthatthedepartmenthasonhandtoprovidehigh

qualityservices.Notallproblemsareequallyeasytoresolve–evenifdifferentcomplaintshave

differing benchmark redressal times, the underlying causes could vary and require different

amounts of effort. The Foundation could hypothesize about incentive effects and gather

informationonworkprocessestoassessthecostsandbenefitstomakeitsownjudgment,but

thisjudgmentisonlyasgoodastheamountofinformationaboutworkprocessesthathasbeen

transferred.Wealsowanted toaskcityofficials for their judgment,whichwould incorporate

theirtacitknowledgeaswellastheexplicitinformationaboutworkprocessesthattheycould

havesharedwithus.

Respondents seemed very attuned to the system’s potential as a management tool.

Three highlighted the importance of public participation (and public forbearance in not

repeatedly submitting complaints) to get an accurate reading of city complaints. Several

mentioned that redressal rate depended on more than just effort, but also resources and

jurisdictionandthatthesechallengesneededtobeacknowledgedratherthanlumpedtogether

with poor effort. Respondents seemed evenly split about the effectiveness of using

egovernancetoenablecitizenoversight/publicscrutinyversusfocusingonenablingmanagerial

oversight tomotivate redressal. Half suggested new kinds of reports formanagers, and half

suggestedvariouswaysthatthesystemcouldsupportmoreinformationflowtocitizens.

Thevaguenessofmanyof the IT suggestions so far,however, suggest that true“user

innovation”maybeslightlypremature.Still,thesurveydoesseemtohaveachievedsomekind

of separationbetweenthegeneralpopulationofcityofficialsand thosewhomightbeactive

participants in a user innovation group. Twenty‐six of the 74 respondents (from 18 cities)

statedthattheywouldbeinterestedinbeingpartofaworkinggroupwiththeEgovernments


29

Foundation to redesign the PGRM. These included Commissioners, Department Officials, IT

Officers,andNGOs,sothegroupwouldplausiblybringvariouspointsofviewabouthowthe

technology could support governance. Theopen‐endedquestions seemed to attract amore

“select”group:tenofthe74respondentsansweredfourormoreoftheopen‐endedquestions.

Mostofthesealsosaidthattheywouldbeinterestedinbeingpartofaworkinggroup.Bothof

thesesubgroupshadaboutthesamelevelofexperienceastheoverallgroupofrespondents.

Dataminingresults

The datamining exercise uncovered some interesting anomalies, especially in citizen

usage,thatfutureversionsofthesystemcouldaddress. Italsohighlightedsomevariations in

the geographic reach of the system and in redressal rates that could be used to hone in on

citiesfromwhichlessonscouldbelearned.

Thestudyconfirmedtheanecdotalevidenceontwotypesofcommonmistakesthatcity

officialsmade.Manycitieshadat least someexamplesof clusteringof complaintsover time

suggestedsomekindofbatchentryofcomplaintsratherthanreal‐timeentryofcomplaintsas

citizensregisteredthem.Somecitiesalsohaddiscontinuitiesinthenumberofcomplaintsbeing

registeredasinternetcomplaints,suggestingthatofficialshadbeenenteringpapercomplaints

asinternetcomplaintsbutthensuddenlychangedthepractice.

Thepatternsof citizenusageweremore informativeaboutdesignchanges thatcould

improve the system. First, they suggested that some kind of relabeling of complaint types

wouldbe important for trackingcomparativecitystatistics.Peoplesometimesmisunderstand

the complaint headings and used different terms to refer to the same thing. The comments

given for complaints registered about “HL18‐BioMedicalWaste,” complaints inDandeli, Sirsi,

andBijapur and the “HL20‐Hearseworks, Crematorium” inGokak generally referred to dead

pigs, cats, buffalos, dogs, etc., issues that others (in Davangere, Gokak, RabkavBanhatti,

Shimoga)referredtoas“DeathofStrayAnimals.19

19Perhapsthecomplaintsinterfacesweredifferent?AddingtheDeathofStrayAnimalsandHearseworksforGokakwouldmake“deadanimals”thesecondmostsignificantcomplaint,accountingfor21%ofcomplaints.


30

Second, it highlighted an interesting usage pattern among city officials. Serial

complainants (thosewith>20 complaints listedunder theirnames)werealmostalwaysCMC

membersorotherpublicofficials.Karwar,forexample,has1136of5075complaintslistedas

comingfromCMCmembers(mostly)orworkers–notincludingtheindividualswhodonotnote

theiraffiliationsomewhereinthecomplaintreport.AlmostallofthetopcomplainantsinTable

6 are self‐identified CMC councilors, though one non‐CMC (or not self‐identified as a CMC

worker) submitted79complaints, twosubmitted31each,onepersonsubmitted20andone

18. 20 Sirsi’s top complainant, with 60 complaints of 2956, also self‐identified as a CMC

member, and the second highest complainant (21 complaints) was a CMC member.

Chickmagalur’stopcomplainant(40of2158)self‐identifiedasa“nodalofficer”andthesecond

most frequent complainant (47 of 2158)was aDeputy Secretary of the Zilla Panchayat.One

interpretation: city councilors/elected officials are using the system as a means of

communicatingwiththebureaucracy.Somecities–especiallyUdupiwithover8%‐alsohada

significantnumberofcomplaintsregisteredinthenameofthe“public.”Thesemaybeevidence

ofNGOsorcommunitygroupsservingasaggregatorsofcomplaints.

Thedataminingprovidedsomeinformationfordifferentiatingbetweencitieswhohad

moreor less success inencouragingofficialsandcitizens touse thesystemasaplatform for

communicationaboutgrievances.Asmentionedabove,usagerateswereuniformlylowacross

cities.Thegeographicconcentrationofgrievancesvariedmoresubstantially, though.Figure5

showsthepercentageofcomplaintscomingfromthetopthreewardsineachcity.Citieswith

20ThesenumbersinthetableslightlyundercountthenumberofcomplaintseachsinceeachseemstohavespelledtheirnameslightlydifferentlyafewtimeswhensubmittingcomplaintsandIdidnotmatchonvariantsofspelling.


31

lowerconcentrationsmaybebettercandidatestolearnfromaboutpublicityaboutthesystem

aswellasadjustmentsthatmaymakeitmoreuniversallyuser‐friendly.

Redressal ratesalso variedacross cities. Figure6belowshows theaveragedays from

submissiontoredressal(cumulativeacrossdepartmentsandtime)incomparativeperspective.

‐

‐

These redressal rates are an imperfectmeasure of city performance in responding to

grievances since they are not adjusted for underlying differences in the types of complaints

coming inthroughthePGRM.Nevertheless,thevariation inredressalratesdoessuggestthat

somecitiesare respondingmoreeffectively thanothersandwouldbe interestingcandidates

forfurtherstudy.

NextSteps

Thesurveyanddataminingwerethefirststepinamorecompleteinitiativetoharness

userinnovation.Wehadhopedtoidentifysomeuserinnovationsandtrouble‐shootforsome

kindsofmisusefromthesurveyanddatamining,butbothseemedtohavemorepotentialas

screeningmechanismsthanassourcesofinsights.


32

Thenextstep istofollowupwithcitiesand individualswhoarehigh‐potentialtargets

for further, more resource‐intensive observation to understand how they have adapted the

systemordevelopedprocessesforencouragingmorewidespreadusage.

Over the longer run, we are also hoping to refine our ability to screen for user‐

innovators. We had initially considered following the protocol used in management‐science

efforts to identify predictors of user‐innovators: asking officials questions about their

backgroundsaswellastheirusageofandideasforthePGRM.Thefullsurveyendedupbeing

quitelong,however.Wewereconcernedthatwewouldhaveaverylowresponserateforall

questions.We were also not optimistic that the benefits of asking the additional questions

wouldoutweigh thecostsof “survey fatigue” forotherquestions,and the lowresponse rate

bore out this hesitation. Past work on user‐innovators suggests that they will have three

general characteristics: need knowledge, solution knowledge, and motivation. The first two

couldbecoveredwithquestionsaboutgovernanceexperience,training,andfamiliaritywithIT.

Thelast,however,isdifficulttouncoverbysimplyasking.Wewereunabletothinkofavalue‐

neutralwaytoaskifpeoplecaredaboutcitizenperceptionsandexperiences,oraboutcareer

aspirations.Wewerealsoconcernedthatofficersmightbereticenttorevealtheircareergoals

totheirsuperiors.

Given these constraints on directly asking potential user‐innovators to reveal

themselves, anotheroption is to shift focus fromability tobring together IT andgovernance

information towillingness to do so. Given that past experience interactingwith city officials

suggests that those who are on the front lines of citizen complaints and those who have

employeestodelegateworktoarethemostlikelytoseethePGRMashelpingthemorganize

andmanagetheirworkflow,wecouldsimplyinterviewthisgroupperiodicallytoseehowthey

areusingthesystem.

IntheEnd,WhatHaveWeLearned?

This is a paper about imperfect and ongoing innovation‐squared. The PGRM is an

innovationinthecontextofegovernanceinthedevelopingworld.Itisnotaswidelyusedasit


33

couldbe,andsometimesthegrievancesithighlightsareatoddswiththeconventionalwisdom

(andpossiblyreality)aboutcitypriorities,butitisahigh‐potentialforayintousingITtoenable

moreinteractive,notjustmorecommunicativegovernment.ThestepsthattheFoundationhas

taken to refine this system are also an innovation in NGO‐Government co‐creation. E‐

Governance design has often relied on technologist to develop the systems based on their

experiencewith IT solutionsand the informationongovernance that theyhavebeenable to

collect. It has not relied as much on people with expertise in governance to innovate and

determineprioritiesbasedon theirexperienceandwhatever informationon technology that

theyhavebeenabletoacquire.

Our preliminary results suggest that city officials are a long way from being able to

replacethededicatedtechnologistsas themainsourceof innovation ingovernance,but that

thereareemergingandobservabledifferencesincityandcityofficials’usageofthesystemthat

couldbetrackedtoidentifynewfeaturesforthepublicgrievancesystem.Wehaveyettoseeif

thepoolofofficialsandcitiesthatappeartohaveadaptedthesystemordevelopedprocesses

forencouragingitsusereallyhavedevelopedscalableinnovationsforthesystem.

Refining this ability to identify innovators and systematically harvest these new

innovators’ideaswillbeimportant.overtimeasyounger,morecomputer‐friendlycivilservants

climbtheranksandthecurrentegovernanceexperimentsevolve.Theuser‐centeredmethods

here have great potential to guide the next generation of e‐governance technology as

governance experts with a minor in technology emerge to work with the current group of

technologistswithaminor in governance. TheeGovernments Foundation’s efforts to involve

city officials in egovernance design may not bear immediate fruit, but the practice in

communicatingwithusersandidentifyingthosemostlikelytobeinnovatorswillcompletethe

feedbackloopthatismuchneededincreatingeffectivee‐governancesolutionsthatbridgethe

gap between the people, administrators and elected representative on the one hand and

technologistsandurbanadministratorsontheother.


34

References

Bardhan, Pranab (2002). “Decentralization of Governance and Development,” Journal of

EconomicPerspectives.16(4):185‐205.

Balutis, A. (2001). “E‐Government 2001, Part I: Understanding the Challenge and Evolving

Strategies,”ThePublicManager,Spring(p.33)

Balutis (2001b). “E‐Government 2001, Part II: Evolving Strategies for Action,” The Public

Manager,Spring(p.41)

Faguet,Jean‐Paul(2004).“DoesDecentralizationIncreaseGovernmentResponsivenesstoLocal

Need?”JournalofPublicEconomics88(3‐4):867‐893.

Gupta, Babita, Subhashish Dasgupta, Atul Gupta (2008). “Adoption of ICT in a government

organization in a developing country: An empirical study,” Journal of Strategic Information

Systems17,140‐154.

Herstatt, Cornelius, and Eric von Hippel, (1992). “Developing New Product Concepts via the

Lead User Method: A Case Study in a “Low‐Tech” Field,” Journal of Product Innovation

Management1992:9:213‐221

Howard, M. (2001). “E‐Government Across the Globe: How will “e” change government?”

GovernmentFinanceReview(p.1)

Johnson,Craig(2003).“Poverty,Politics,andPanchayatiRaj,”London:OverseasDevelopment

InstituteWorkingPaper199.

Lau,T.Y.,Aboulhoson,Mira,Lin,Carolyn,andDavidAtkin,(2008).“AdoptionofE‐Government

in Three Latin American Countries: Argentina, Brazil,Mexico,” Telecommunications Policy 32

(2008):88‐100.

Luthje,Christian,Herstatt, Cornelius, andEric vonHippel (2005). “User‐innovators and ‘local’

information:Thecaseofmountainbiking,”ResearchPolicy34:951‐965.


35

Mansfield, E. (1968). The Economics of Technical Change.W.W. Norton and Company, New

York.

Morrison,Pamela,Roberts,John,andEricvonHippel(2000).“DeterminantsofUserInnovation

and Innovation Sharing in a LocalMarket,”Management Science December 2000, pp. 1513‐

1527.

Oates,Wallace,(1972).FiscalFederalism.NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich.

Oates,Wallace, (1977).The Political Economy of Fiscal Federalism. Lexington,MA: Lexington

Books.

Polanyi,M.(1958).PersonalKnowledge:TowardsaPost‐CriticalPhilosophy.Chicago:University

ofChicagoPress.

Riggs, William, and Eric von Hippel, (1994). “Incentives to innovate and the sources of

innovation:thecaseofscientificinstruments,”ResearchPolicy23(1994):459‐469.

Tiebout, Charles, (1956). “APureTheoryof Local Expenditures,” Journal of Political Economy

64(5):416‐24.

vonHippel,Eric(1988).TheSourcesofInnovation.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

vonHippel,Eric.(1994).“Stickyinformationandthelocusofproblemsolving:implicationsfor

innovation,”ManagementScience40(4),429‐439.

vonHippel,Eric,(2005).DemocratizingInnovation.Cambridge:MITPress.

Wallack, Jessica. (2007) “Fire Alarms in Action: Making Sense of User Feedback on City

Services,”Mimeo,UCSD.

Date post:	25-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

USER INNOVATION AND EGOVERNANCE DESIGNNandan Nilekani and Srikanth Nadhamuni in 2003. Currently the...

Documents