Transcript Web 2.0 as a KM Tool

Web 2.0 as a KM Tool
how it can be leveraged for E-Government
Robert Jentoft-Valenzuela, Daniel Nordstrom & Travis Shirk
3/11/2009
Thematic Presentation Outline
• What is Web 2.0?
− Tim O’Reilly’s definition and essay
− Examples of technology and services
• What is KM 2.0?
−
KM 2.0 as a socio-technical practice (Dr. Allen’s research)
• How are Web & KM 2.0 part of Government?
−
Accenture Report on trends in Government
• Examples of Web & KM 2.0 in Government
−
Case Studies of E-Government initiatives using Web 2.0
• Controversies of Web & KM 2.0 in Government
−
Digital Divide, Change Management, Costs
Before Web 2.0 [3,6]
• Interactivity existed, but to a lesser extent. Below is
Web 2.0 by example.
Web 1.0
DoubleClick
Ofoto
Akamai
mp3.com
Britannica Online
personal websites
evite
domain name
speculation
page views
screen scraping
publishing
content management
systems
directories (taxonomy)
stickiness
Web 2.0
Google AdSense
Flickr
BitTorrent
Napster
Wikipedia
blogging
upcoming.org and EVDB
search engine
optimization
cost per click
web services
participation
wikis
tagging ("folksonomy")
syndication
Source: http://web2.socialcomputingmagazine.com
Web 2.0 Origins [2,7]
• The term was originally coined in 2003 by Tim
O’Reilly
• It functions as a construct that symbolizes the
dramatic changes the web has brought to
society.
• Below is O’Reilly’s most cited definition of the
term:
“Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web
2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of
that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that
gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from
multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data
and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network
effects through an ‘architecture of participation,’ and going beyond the
page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.”
(Library 2.0 and Beyond, 2007)
O’Reilly’s Expanded Definition [2,7]
• In 2005, O’Reilly expanding his definition of Web
2.0 in an essay for the 2005 Web 2.0 conference.
• In his essay, O’Reilly describes Web 2.0 as a set of
the following seven principles:
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
The Web is a Platform and Software is a Service
Collective Intelligence is Harnessed
User Data is the “secret sauce”
Extinction of the software release cycle
Lightweight programming
Software above the level of a single device
Rich User Experiences
Source: http://www.tangyslice.com
AJAX-Applied
• Some direct results of AJAX technology
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
BitTorrent
Digg
Drupal
Facebook
MySpace
Pandora
Second Life
Wikipedia
Enterprise 2.0 [10]
• A knowledge management concept surrounding
Web 2.0
• Should consist of
− Authoring – Wiki, Podcasts, Blog
− Extensions – Voting, Bookmarking, Filtering,
Networking, Networking Analysis
− Search – 24/7 Agent
− Signals – RSS
− Links
− Tags
Web 2.0 Communities and KM
- Solving the Knowledge Sharing Problem [1]
• Knowledge Sharing is scarce due to incentive
issue.
− Temptation exists to free-ride off contributions of others.
− Fear of such free-riders limits contributions.
• In Web 2.0 communities, an abundance of
knowledge sharing exists. Why?
Dr. Allen’s Research
- Web 2.0 as a socio-technical practice [1]
• Web 2.0 knowledge sharing exact opposite of
traditional KM sharing.
− Benefits from free-riding behavior
− Contributions occur based on voluntary nature
• Socio-technical practices are diverse and
cannot be lumped in an “online” construct.
− Altruistic versus self-oriented motivations
Inverted Knowledge Pyramid
Citizens as Knowledge Workers
Web 2.0
Local Government
(County, City, Municipality)
State Government
National
Government
Citizens are more than Customers
- Accenture 2009 Report [5]
• Citizens interact with the government in a myriad
of ways
− Limited View: Service Users and Taxpayers
− High-Impact View: Customers and Stakeholders
• Accenture Study showed that citizens want a
bigger say in how governments act.
• Accenture proposes model composed of four
components for high-performance governments:
−
−
−
−
Better Service starts with Better Understanding
Engage. Listen. Respond.
Harness all available resources.
Be transparent. Be accountable. Ask for and act on feedback.
Better Service starts with Better
Understanding [5]
• Governments must become better informed
about what their citizens want and need.
• Service delivery must be responsive and aligned
with those wants and needs.
Engage. Listen. Respond. [5]
• Governments must actively engage citizens to
better understand their wants and needs.
• Governments must
explore new ways to
reach out and
educate, inform and
encourage
participation.
Harness all available resources. [5,6,9]
• Governments must take a “joined-up” approach
with non-profits, community groups, private
business and citizens.
• Neighborhood Knowledge Los Angeles
(1999 – 2002)
− Collaboration between UCLA and community activists
− Similar approach to data as Coplink – data located in separate databases linked
into one NKLA system. Knowledge Mapping of neighborhood deterioration
indicators (property tax delinquency, code violations).
− Community residents or community based organization can access this data and
utilize the KM mapping functionalities that summarizes data at the neighborhood
level.
− Outreach and Training has been important (Over 200 sessions) - community
residents has been growing in proportion to other user groups
Be transparent. Be accountable. Ask for
and act on feedback. [5,8]
• Allow citizens extensive access to information and
systems. This will enhance both the economic and
social value of the information.
−
Obama’s transparency goal: “… to allow citizens to make use of that data to
comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities.” [8]
• Both Governments and Citizens must be
accountable
−
“Transform the relationship between public services and customer/citizens from
one of dependency to one of shared responsibility”. [5]
• Citizens must be allowed to voice their concerns
and complaints.
−
Accenture study showed that ability to complain about departments or services
has a strong relationship (correlation of 71%) with trust and confidence.
Web 2.0 and Real Government Uses [9]
• D.C.’s City-wide Data Warehouse
• Locations of crimes such as
− Theft, burglary, homicide
• National Government Spending Website
• Budget Projections
• News articles
• State spending websites
Web 2.0 and Real Government Uses [8]
• Denver, Colorado
• Mayor – John Hickenlooper
− Created a Youtube channel
− Features
• Commercials
• Public Service Announcements
• Other Clips
− Channel has 20 videos
− Users can Rate/Comment/Share
http://www.youtube.com/user/MayorH
ickenlooper
• Created the channel to connect with citizens
Web 2.0 and Real Government Uses [8]
• San Carlos Calif.
• Carly – Computer Avatar
− Came to be through budget cuts
− Can give information about
• Services
• Departments
• Locations of where each department is
− Contains a directory of phone numbers
− Citizens can reach a live person at any time to assist
them
Web 2.0 and Real E-Government Uses [5]
• Live Tucson RSS Feed
• Hot Topics
• www.tucsonaz.gov contains
− Directories,BudgetSummary,Links
• New York 311 System
− Service Request
− Picture/Video Submission
Web 2.0 and Local E-Government [8]
• Neighborhood Watch
− Immediate updates on critical issues
• Missing Children
• Theft
• Suspicious Activity
• Local Disaster Programs
− Fast and reliable information
− Easy to access
− All Information in 1 place
Bill Schrier, Chief Technology Officer Seattle
Digital Divide [1]
• Physical Access versus True Access
• Findings in paper “Digital Inequality”
− Focus on “Second-Level” Digital Divide
− Individuals with less income, education and autonomous
Internet access use “capital enhancing” aspects of Web
content less frequently
• What are “Capital Enhancing” Uses?
“… uses of the Web that may enhance one’s life chances”.
−
−
−
−
Seeking Political or Government Information online
Consulting about Health Services online
Consulting about Financial Services online
Seeking job opportunities online
Cost-Benefit Analysis [1,10]
• Lack of IT personnel within government
• Lack of funding for implementation of IT initiatives
• Should other IT initiatives take precedence over Web 2.0
applications?
•
Lack of basic hardware and software platforms (i.e. some Pennsylvania state
agencies still use Windows 98)
Security / Restriction Issues
[10]
• Hackers could use web 2.0 tools to obtain personal data
stored by government agencies
• Many agencies prohibit the access and use of web 2.0
applications (i.e. GoogleEarth, YouTube) at work.
•
Based on “Inequality Study” this is problematic, since Government works won’t
have the Internet Skills to work with such applications.
•
This means significant additional costs for internal training.
References
1.
Allen, J. P. (2008). How Web 2.0 Communities Solve the Knowledge Sharing Problem.
Technology and Society, 2008. ISTAS 2008. IEEE International Symposium on Volume ,
Issue June 2008 Page(s):1 - 3 Retrieved January 30th, 2009 from IEEE Xplore
2.
Courtney, N. (2007). Library 2.0 and Beyond: Innovative Technologies and Tomorrow’s
User. Libraries Unlimited: Westport, Connecticut
3.
de Kool, D., & van Wamelen, J. (2008). Web 2.0: A New Basis for E-Government?.
Information and Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications, 2008.
ICTTA 2008. 3rd International Conference on Volume , Issue , 7-11 April 2008 Page(s):1 7. Retrieved on January 30th, 2009 from IEEE Explore
4.
Hargittai, E. &Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital Inequality – Differences in Young Adult’s Use of
the Internet. Communication Research. Volume 35, Number 5, October 2008.
Retrieved February 11th, 2009 from Ebsco Electronic Journals Service
5.
Leadership in Customer Service: Creating Shared Responsibility for Better Outcomes
(2009). Accenture Institute for Public Service Value.
www.accenture.com/publicservicevalue
6.
Neighborhood Knowledge Los Angeles Website. http://nkla.ucla.edu
References Continued
7.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software. Retrieved February 24th, 2009 from http://www.oreillynet.com
8.
Sander, T. (2008). Government 2.0: Building Communities with Web 2.0 and Social
Networking. Folsom: e.Replublic, Inc. Retrieved January 30th, 2009 from
http://www.digitalcommunities.com
9.
Stephenson, D.W. (2008). Let My Data Go: How Activists Can Transform Government
Through Public Data. The Huffington Post, July 15th, 2008 Retrieved March 3rd, 2009 from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/w-david-stephenson/let-my-data-go-howactivi_b_112870.html
10. Weiss, T. (2008). State, Local Governments Slow to Tackle Web 2.0 – Manpower and
budget constraints often hold back public-sector IT projects. Computer World, June 23,
2008. Retrieved March 3rd, 2009 from EBSCO Host Academic Search Complete
11. Hinchcliffe, D. (2007). The state of Enterprise 2.0. ZDNet. October 22nd, 2007. Retrieved
March 8th 2009 from http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=143