Andrea Di Maio, vice-president bij Gartner, schreef (reeds een tijdje geleden, maar nu pas opgemerkt, dank zij Geert Mareels) een zeer kritisch commentaar over het Citadel Statement: I honestly hope that the quality of this statement is not representative of the maturity and understanding that European local governments have about open government.
Het is volgens hem te vaag (mwa, misschien wel), te wild (ivm common definitions bvb, maar daar dienen dergelijke verklaringen toch voor: om de lat hoog te leggen?) en haalt ouwe koeien uit de gracht (maar ook daar dienen dergelijke verklaringen toch voor: om op dezelfde nagels te blijven kloppen?).
De vijf voorbeelden van open data-verwezenlijkingen, waarover het statement spreekt, zouden Di Mao in de nabije toekomst ongelijk moeten geven. Werk aan de winkel...
Ik probeerde op de site van Di Maio (niet di Mao...) een reactie te plaatsen maar dat lukt niet. Bij deze een ingekorte versie:
BeantwoordenVerwijderenWe were pleased with the interest you showed for the Citadel Statement, and appreciate your insightful and trenchant feedback which will certainly help us to continue to keep the pressure on EU and national decision makers to support local eGovernment. The Statement is very much intended to be an iterative, bottom up call to action. If its first iteration generates such extensive criticism from an expert such as yourself then it is clear it is beginning to have its intended impact. Still, from your comments, it is also clear that moving forward we will need to be more clear , less toothless and bite harder.
Of course the Citadel is hardly a “perfect” document. It was written voluntarily and in a very short period. Nevertheless, we are pleased that it did exactly what it intended to do : start a process in which the high ambitions of the Malmö Declaration are translated in concrete projects. 124 people from 18 different Member States participated in drafting the text, and the result was sponsored by a large number of organizations and enterprises, including the international organizations of local communities themselves, like LOLA, GCD , EPMA and Smart Cities.
So be assured that we do indeed recognize the “key role that government employees should play for real and sustainable engagement to succeed”. This text has been written by government employees.
And soon after the conference in Ghent where the Citadel Statement was launched we got very positive comments from top level people in the European commission calling it “an excellent piece of work” and asking to “work with those supporting the Citadel Statement in order to re-use the knowledge and experience available via the various organizations of local and regional administrations”. So there will be an afterlife for the statement.
The first topic in the Statement comes from the idea that egovernment requires to much effort from smaller communities and therefore it’s best that we all work on common infrastructure and shared services. Services set up by Europe, National Governments or a group of villages, there’s no need for a general rule. The idea behind the Citadel statement was indeed that EU and Member States should talk less about the importance of egovernment in the local communities and do more to support it. Hence, the first recommendation that EU and national decision makers better support smaller communities by encouraging a common infrastructure and shared services. .
Malmö pays a great deal of attention to Open Data, but in reality we hear nothing from the top but “good reasons” not to open data. Privacy, security, confidentiality, etc. Hence the recommendation to overcome this ‘do nothing’ approach by challenging leaders to identify a concrete shortlist of data to be opened all over Europe. A small step – yes. But one that is intentionally designed to generate meaningful movement, particularly at the local level where so many eGovernment advances (such as the Open Data movement) get completely over-looked.
While the topic of Citizen Participation was identified as a priority by many in the local communities, like Open Data, it is an area where we see that little really moves. Genuinely involving citizens in service design and deliver does need political courage because government is still firmly rooted in an entrenched tradition wherein elected politicians and their administrations assume they know what’s best for citizens.
Since the conference in Ghent there are closer links between the organizations involved in egovernment for local communities. And we’re sure that’s a force that does need intensive care, but that goes for every egovernment project we’ve ever dealt with.
Bedankt Geert voor de reactie. De demaoisering van het bericht werd intussen doorgevoerd;)
BeantwoordenVerwijderen