Web 2.0 as a KM Tool

seaurchininterpreterInternet και Εφαρμογές Web

7 Δεκ 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 8 μήνες)

178 εμφανίσεις

Robert Jentoft
-
Valenzuela, Daniel Nordstrom & Travis Shirk

3/11/2009

Web 2.0 as a KM Tool

how it can be leveraged for E
-
Government

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

Web 2.0

DoubleClick

Google AdSense

Ofoto

Flickr

Akamai

BitTorrent

mp3.com

Napster

Britannica Online

Wikipedia

personal websites

blogging

evite

upcoming.org and EVDB

domain name
speculation

search engine
optimization

page views

cost per click

screen scraping

web services

publishing

participation

content management
systems

wikis

directories (taxonomy)

tagging ("folksonomy")

stickiness

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

National

Government

State Government

Local Government
(County, City, Municipality)

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


Created the channel to connect with citizens

http://www.youtube.com/user/MayorH
ickenlooper

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 30
th
, 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 30
th
, 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 11
th
, 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 24
th
, 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 30
th
, 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 15
th
, 2008
Retrieved March 3
rd
, 2009 from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/w
-
david
-
stephenson/let
-
my
-
data
-
go
-
how
-
activi_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 3
rd,

2009 from EBSCO Host Academic Search Complete

11.
Hinchcliffe, D. (2007).
The state of Enterprise 2.0.

ZDNet.

October 22
nd
, 2007.
Retrieved
March 8
th

2009 from http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=143