New and richer flows of data from
organizations in the public space could enrich democracy and might improve
effectiveness and efficiency. More public knowledge (one definition of
"transparency") could stimulate debate about services and money,
increase vigilance and arm scrutineers. But more and better data will not in
and of itself bring more accountability or improve services. We must not reduce
volume of information with better decision making. Data must become information:
it must be grasped and absorbed. Information has then to be applied.
Accountability and public satisfaction could move together in a virtuous
circle, provided the public understands the data proffered; provided those
releasing the data themselves understand it and its potential; provided its
quality and accuracy are guaranteed.
Open Data prompts questions about public
capacity. The government's response to proposed changes in the school
curriculum allowing many more young people aged over 16 to continue studying mathematics
and stats shows the government itself accepts the public need to be better
equipped. Open Data abuts the contention that those leaving education have to
be better prepared to deal with data and numbers, for their own sake as
employees as well as in their lives as citizens and family builders (dealing
with energy tariffs, insurance, pensions and broadband offers). Open Data links
with moves to improve the quantitative skills of university
graduates.
As important as the volume of data are
presentation and "visualization", the discipline of making data more
intelligible. In the jargon this means paying attention to metadata and data
polishing. It puts emphasis on intermediaries to help the public make sense of
data. Statisticians and academics are fond of the term "metadata".
This directs attention to the explanatory material that ought to accompany data
release. Another missing term is narrative. What the public want is data to
tell a story about the performance of schools, crime in their
area and so on. Open Data needs to look at who writes and who puts out these
stories. Another key term is visualization – covering the many ways in which
data, especially quantitative data, can be projected, for example exploiting
the graphical resources of the web.
Data release should anticipate the sense
the public will make of what is presented and how they might use data. Each
department and agency should subject itself to a "data challenge": is
the information intelligible? Translating data into information that is fit for
public consumption requires good analysis and interpretation, which is lacking
in many councils. The question does not capture the dynamism and spirit of
opportunity and innovation that ought to accompany data release. Departments
and agencies should relish the chance to share their work (knowledge) with the
public and make explicit efforts to present it in ways the public can grasp.
The value for money of data release has to be denominated in terms of
accomplishing the organization's wider public purpose and be accommodated in
its notional or actual budget for accountability.
The public tend not to distinguish
whether a service provider is public, non-profit or private, though they need
to know how it is paid for and how it accounts. A rule of thumb for the
application of Open Data is the ratio of public support to turnover (including
implicit public support): any positive figure would tip the organization into
the category where Open Data applies. We want a culture in which elected
representatives and service deliverers feel open data accomplishes their
purposes. Open data should not become a stick with public organizations are
beaten, by emphasizing the way data might be used to punish or find defects;
instead, it should be celebrated as the basis for "co-producing"
services and engaging the public.
We need incentives and awards
celebrating data release and data sharing. Instead of a (static) culture of
rights, public organizations should make a dynamic commitment to data
collection, handling and release. We could draw on past efforts to identify and
praise organizations doing well to account for themselves in the broadest
sense, including data sharing.
The definition of the key terms, whilst
providing a wide scope for interpretation, should also include definitions of
that which is not subject to the Open Data approach so as to make it clear from
the on-set what datasets (if any) are considered out of scope for public sector
organizations. In relation to non-government bodies providing public services,
information about aspects unrelated to the delivery of their public service
function are not in scope, does that imply that ALL public sector data is in
scope? We assume certain public sector data will be considered out of scope and
a clear definition of what can be expected should be provided.
In our opinion, existing legislation
would still have a role to play with regard to the publication of data. Tests
with regard to the publication of salary and personal information should also
continue to be applicable in certain situations where the publication of data
may compromise personal or business
relationships. The costs incurred by private sector organizations in responding
to management information requests from public authorities, or requests
directed at public sector organizations is not considered by the individuals
making these requests.
If it is Government's aim to establish a
common data set against which all public bodies would have to provide a base
data set. Consideration should be given to establishment of a baseline data set
against which data is provided for free. Any information requests outside of
the defined datasets could be chargeable with a proportion of the fees payable
supporting the potential Public Data in support of their activities and costs.
Whilst Government should ensure that the
requirement to provide data does not create unnecessary burdens on public
bodies, particularly those organizations working with small budgets. There is a
view that any organization that is in receipt of public funds should have a
responsibility to account for how those funds are spent. This would include all
organizations and any other bodies in receipt of public funds. The issue would
be where to draw the line, i.e. in the event of private suppliers to public
bodies who engage sub-contractor organizations to deliver work, should the
subcontractor also be subject to such measures.
The opportunities for public bodies to
hide behind claims of excessive time to produce must be minimized and support
through a regulatory framework that compels publication in all but the most
exceptional circumstances (i.e. to protect national security, personnel
information etc). If appropriate legislative and regulative measures could be
established by the responsible body to establish industry wide reporting
criteria (i.e. for education,
health, defence etc). Government should also consider a "published by
default" scheme that could be written into service provider contracts to
those organizations supporting public bodies, so long as the organization
remains independent and is not seen to be at the sole service of government.
Any other option would require the establishment of a new body and the
associated costs of doing so should be taken in to consideration in the current
economic climate.
Data should only be relevant to the
service being provided, anything that does not directly influence an
entitlement to a service or funding should not be collated. Open data should
not be cross-referenceable between data sets from different organizations. Any
information that would support an ability to cross-reference information
against another data set provided by another public body must be carefully
considered. Whilst the ability to cross-reference data is vital between
departments, the ability to make such comparisons using Open Data must be removed
to ensure privacy.
The potential to create additional
burdens on public bodies as a result of implementing Open Data needs to be
considered carefully. The exercise should encompass those bodies where the
potential for creating unnecessary burdens is greatest, and consideration
should be given to this both informally and formally. Whilst the need for
transparency and visibility of how public funds are spent is important, it
should not be delivered so as to create a substantial increase within public bodies
or add to the costs they incur to ensure compliance. The only way to ensure it
does not is to benchmark the existing burden on these organizations prior to
the introduction of any supporting requirements under the Open Data initiative.
This could be achieved through taking a phased view to establishing reasonable
boundaries and limits in cost to produce. In summary, it would not be possible
to measure the impact of introducing Open Data unless there is a clear
understanding of what investment is being made in complying with existing
requests.
There are a large number of contracts
already in existence with considerable time left on them. Whilst introducing
new Open Data standards with regard to new contracts would be relatively
straightforward (once the legal and regulatory hurdles have been cleared), the
legacy contracts should be amended to reflect any new requirements in support
of Open Data. The requirements could be transitioned into existing contracts
through change control. Where a supplier refuses to adapt an existing contract,
Government should seriously consider whether or not the response is acceptable,
and where this is not the case, the potential to re-tender a particular
contract in the public interest should be considered.
Rather than undergo a costly exercise in
defining a new set of high and common data standards, government should
consider identifying current areas of best practice through the benchmarking of
public bodies and existing data structures. We should seek to agree definitions
of data terminology so that all organizations subject to the requirements of
Open Data have a consistent understanding of common definitions for data fields
and the content within them. Misinterpretation of information will be reduced
and the ability to compare and integrate cross departmental data analysis will
be increased. Consideration would also need to be given to the adoption of
common reference standards.
Government provides many different
public services, whilst some standards for data collation can be made
consistent to allow for greater comparison of perceptions of individual
services, consideration also needs to be given to specific departmentally related
data in order to identify local issues and areas of weak performance across
individual departments and other public bodies. There is a need for balance so
as to include the benefits of service providers and public interest in the
public services they receive. The public (and other interested parties) require
the localized information to make decision on services and in order to support
delivery of the big society.
However, public service providers and government itself has separate needs for
consistent data in order to make informed decisions and direct comparisons
across public service providers, markets and costs. Many organizations develop
manage and analyze their own user experience initiatives, there is significant
cost in the localization of these initiatives and government has an opportunity
to centralize the definition of information around user experience whilst also
reducing the local development costs associated with this.
The accreditation of information
intermediaries will only work effectively if the organization responsible for
the delivery of that accreditation (1) has enforcement powers to deal with
ineffective or poor performance from accredited suppliers, (2) has some
influence over the maximum costs that accredited organizations charge for
access to information and (3) Maintains an ability to adequately meet the needs
of information providers (public sector and related service providers) and also
the needs of the proposed information intermediaries. To support this objective would require an
organization with independence and impartiality so as to ensure that public
bodies and public service providers are treated mutually and identically. To
support this objective a set of detailed and coherent definitions and
guidelines would need to be produced to clearly communicate to organizations
what is considered to be private information and what would be considered as
confidential with regard to protecting national security.
In order to ensure consistency in
application, it is essential that an independent body or reviewer be appointed
to oversee the application of privacy and confidential data so as to ensure
that public sector organizations are not using the ability to withhold data
under those categorizations unduly. This role could potentially be fulfilled,
but consideration should also be given to using an existing organization to
oversee delivery. Departments and public service suppliers should be aligned to
a common set of objectives and requirements related to the provision of Open
Data, and these should be applied and monitored independently and with a
consistent application of requirements, and where required penalties to support
compliance.
Whilst Board-level accountability
already exists in support of a number of initiative and requirements such as health
and safety, it must be recognized that it is not necessarily these individuals
dealing with the day to day requirements that supports the development and
application of supporting policies within organizations. The nature and scope of
information that will be required to be covered with regard to Open Data is
likely to require considerable support within public bodies and other
organizations service providers. Unless we provide considerable detail in
relation to specific requirements, consistency of data sets, consistency of
interpretation, file formats etc., organizations will interpret requirements
differently, delegate responsibility and create multiple layers of input and
ownership. Board level responsibility would make sense, but it must also be recognized
that the need to comply with and provide Open Data will in itself lead to
increased costs in order to provide the information. Government needs to
carefully consider the impact with regard to man-days, overhead costs and
additional burden on the public purse that will be created as a result.
Without a sanctions framework it is hard
to see how the Open Data agenda would operate. There are many initiatives that
have been tried and failed as a result of ineffective or limited enforcement.
Public sector consumption is huge, the organizations that will be required to
comply with the Open Data
requirements a large, complex and varied in the consumption of products and
services. The scope of Open Data is equally large, would require information
analyst support and given pressures to deliver business as usual, it is hard to
see how public bodies would maintain a focus on the delivery of Open Data if
there was not some form of sanctions framework in place. However, any such
framework would need to be consistently applied and enforced.
If a single organization would be
responsible for overseeing data definition, collation, publication and
licensing, why would there be any need for dedicated sector transparency
boards? Surely, this is only creating another layer to deliberate and interpret
any public data definitions. Government should not provide the opportunity for
individual sectors to deliberate the confidentiality or provision of data, as
long as they have the correct legislative, sanctions and frameworks in place
support to ensure public bodies comply with and are bound by the requirements
of Open Data why would you need another layer to deliberate sector
transparency. The only exceptions should be those stated that relate to private
personal information and that withheld in the interests of National Security.
There is a need to establish a clear and
well defined framework of data sets and date inventories that are applied
consistently across public bodies and public service providers. Comparisons and
meaningful analysis of data can only be achieved through the application of
common definitions and measurements. The objectives behind the consultation on
Open Data will only succeed if there is (1) an overarching body or organization
with responsibility for delivery (2) A clear and well defined framework of data
sets (3) a body responsible for monitoring and amending data requirements going
forward and (4) establishment of a Open Data "data warehouse" to
support the collation, storage and access of information in support of making
it readily accessible. Failure to support the initiative appropriately will
result in data discrepancies, non-compliance, inappropriate understanding of
definitions and deterioration of confidence in the data from users and
consumers.
The main issue with this is establishing
the baseline. What data should be made "Open" across different Public
bodies and departments? For all organizations in the public sector there is a
vast amount of data that is gathered and required to support the effective
delivery of those organizations. There are also a number of data items that are
required to support existing voluntary or statutory reporting requirements.
Herein lies the problem, not all of these data sets are in the public interest,
some are personal and confidential, and some are internal data sets used
locally. Under the auspices of Open Data, data which relates to the efficient
and effective performance of public services should be given priority as should
that which serves the public interest. The main issue here is the body or
organization responsible for the setting of priorities for data sets for
inclusion in a data inventory. The task is large and complex, a thorough
understanding of how public sector organizations and suppliers are structured,
their ability to store access and deliver data sets across the public services
being delivered and the ability to compel public bodies and service providers
to supply data in an appropriate and timely fashion all need addressing. Only
an overarching organization
would be able to do so effectively and even that is assuming it has the correct
expertise, understanding and operational remit to do so.
Any organization operated through the
use of public funds should fall under the requirements to capture, store and
publish open data except where this involves the publication of personal data
or data that is sensitive with regard to national security. As soon as this
definition starts being diluted, the impetus and effectiveness of the Open Data
requirements will be called into question. The definition of personal data and
particularly that withheld under the auspices of national security must be
clearly defined from the on-set.
The collation of data for the sake of it
should be managed carefully. Individual organizations should be encouraged to
collect the data that is essential to the delivery of their specific service.
This will ensure that only pertinent data is harvested. The ability to cross
reference data based on a common identifier must be minimized except for in
relation to those services where such data is meaningful. The purpose and use
of individual data sets within public bodies needs to be questioned. An
overarching body could be the delivery agent with a remit for considering which
is required and that which is unnecessary and provide appropriate guidance and
if necessary, sanctions to ensure compliance.
Providers should not be allowed to
"polish" data. Where appropriate, commenting on data or listing
assumptions etc., should be encouraged so that the reliability and accuracy of
data sets can be treated subjectively by the end user. Holding data due to
concerns over accuracy or quality should only be permitted in cases where the
data is so unreliable it would inappropriately affect comparison with other
data sets from within the sector to which it relates. In such cases a body
should retain the authority to work with that particular public body or
supplier to raise data standards so that data can be published. It would be
important though to ensure that such a body was given the appropriate authority
to intervene and compel the organization to change.
Part of the existing problem is the
plethora of public sector organizations, their respective websites and the
inability to find data on them easily. Once defined, the only way to store the
data and make it accessible easily will be through a centralized portal or
repository. Any other solution would simply increase costs and cause confusion
to data consumers. Accepting the vision behind the exercises relating to
Transparency, Localism, and Open Data, government must ensure that the combined
impact is visibility, accountability and engendering of trust from the public
that government, public bodies and public service providers are spending public
fund effectively. Therefore, data sets should be published at national, local
and sector levels where public interest and the desire for data is highest.
Government should not publish data for
the sake of it. Broadening the net of what is captured and reported will only
create additional burdens on already tight budgets. The effort required to
support several existing data sets in the public domain is considerable and the
quality and inability to effectively cross reference or collate different
groupings of such data already presents a considerable challenge to all
concerned. Publishing relevant data sets effectively will encourage confidence
and improve information access and usefulness. Get the existing stuff correct
and more refined first, then consider the gaps that still exist and how best
information can be delivered that enhances both the public's desire for
information and also provides a useful measure of an organizations
effectiveness when compared to others within the sector, region or nationally.
That role is for the American
Government itself to become a savvy user of the data being collated
and generated. What data helps drive government policy on a public bodies
effectiveness? How does government measure and rate its own performance? What
data and in what format would provide the public and public bodies with
effective information on which to compare services or performance? If the
government itself does not make use of the information that will be generated
in order to deliver service improvements and delivery, what is the point of
having the data? This should not just be an exercise of "publish
everything and let others interpret it" government itself has a
responsibility to monitor, act on and improve data collation and development in
order to provide the public with confidence on its performance, otherwise the
exercise will be fruitless and simply another example of costly bureaucracy
without delivering improvements and benefits. The principles outlined as a part
of the Open Data consultation could provide benefit to the Government and the
bodies seeking to use Government information. However, the generation of a
clear, coherent and consistently applied scope for the data sets that are
intended to be published present a considerable challenge.
Whilst common and consistent data will
support removal of barriers to entry for Small Enterprises, publication of all
data for the sake of it, in whatever format it is collated will increase the
risks of unreliable analysis and will create a burden for Government with
regard to cost and administration. To deliver this, it is essential that
sufficient consultation is included with information providers, industry and
other user bodies. Having a coherent regulatory framework will assist Government
and users.
The government should consider mounting
- in collaboration with the research councils – a campaign to counter the
scaremongering that goes on about data use by public bodies, especially those
concerned with the advancement of knowledge. The public should be encouraged to
view two-way sharing data as beneficial (economically and cognitively). Data
sharing can save money and lead to better policies. The apparatus of control
should be filleted and prevented from blocking for example the re-use of data
collected by public organizations and data sharing between public bodies.
Open data can lead to improved
organizational performance and stronger relations between the public, as
citizens and service consumers, and providing bodies. Therefore any additional
costs associated with data release and data sharing should be regarded as investment.
The key link is between more openness and more accuracy. The government should
find out how the public are using the data already released (for example on
local authority spending) and consider establishing a center of excellence
(which might be based at an existing public body) on "usability".
The best information intermediaries are
public bodies themselves. They should anticipate how data is going to be
received and used and tailor presentation accordingly. The value of
invigilators of the quality of public data has already been proven. Because
independence is going to be a valued attribute of any organization subjecting
official releases to scrutiny or criticism, it will best be situated at arm's
length from the government. The government might consider endowing a non-profit
organization to do this work. Open Data should be part and parcel of
performance and monitored accordingly. Government's role includes identifying
and extolling good practice, which includes data and information handling in
the round – i.e. the ways in which information is collected from the public as
well as how it is passed out. Such government bodies have made commendable
efforts to open up operations and finance
to public view, and already release large quantities of data.
Data culture should be a board item,
with responsibility diffused among non-executive and executive directors.
Non-executives in particular should constantly be putting themselves in the
place of the public and assessing the intelligibility of data flows. Open Data
should be characteristic of good public management. Its value lies in
interaction between public organization and public and "rights" could
ossify what will be a dynamic and evolving relationship. Data inventories are
probably best put together at a scale bigger than that of the individual
organization, since public organizations a) share common data sets and b)
collect similar or the same data from the public. The simple test is: is the
data necessary for achieving the organization's stated public purpose?
America needs a data strategy. One of
the missing ingredients of the Open Data initiative has been that – preparing a
comprehensive analysis of what the states (and its various dependencies,
including private firms) need to know. Again, this is a dynamic conception. The
states need to anticipate knowledge needs for future years and conduct studies
and data interrogations with the population of the future in mind. The contours
of the state and public services change and with them the "cognitive"
bases of government. It follows that some data sets will be anachronistic and
should be subject to periodical review.
Would any self-respecting board calmly
say we don't mind if performance data is dubious? Data labelling is important.
Polishing data costs money and takes time. "Quick and dirty" data may
do, on occasion. But it needs to be identified as more or less reliable. It
would not be hard to put together a "grid" attesting to the quality
of data, formed from the professional opinions of statisticians, and by the
views of those involved in assembling and processing data for government (chief
scientific advisers, networks of analysts).
The public are entitled to see an
assessment of the reliability and accuracy of data presented to them. They
deserve, too, some account of the significance of data. Low quality data can be
significant just as high-quality material can be of trivial importance. This
returns to the question discussed above: those who release data should be duty
bound to comment on its worth – metadata matters as much as data.
The question of departmental vs central
portal is less pressing than putting together a data strategy. A starting point
is assessing government's knowledge needs. The strategy would also embrace
release procedures and archiving. Storage protocols, access and search engines
would be part of this. Much data is held and is subject to release by
government to local authorities and arm's length bodies. Their release plans
might be autonomous, but they could be required to observe templates written as
part of a national data strategy and organizations should be allowed to prioritize
datasets according to their business plans.
The government needs a "clever center"
for Open Data, staffed in part by people who understand the specifics of
departments and their data economies and government away from the center. A
precondition for innovating in Open Data is, to repeat, minimum levels of
public understanding, both of the data people share [to] government and [from]
government.
Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of
Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior
Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and
special reports.
Source: https://ebookschoice.com/an-enhanced-right-to-open-data/
