Showing posts with label opengov. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opengov. Show all posts

Thursday, July 1, 2010

We OPML'd the DoD

I'm just giddy about this. We OPML'd the DoD. Specifically, we published OPML for Joint Capability Areas. It turned out to be so easy, too. I wish I could easily convey the significance of this achievement.


JCA's are an exhaustive military taxonomy declaring hundreds of defined military capabilities. They are predominantly referenced in decision making for acquisitions and planning. All over the military there are organizations who are required to map every aspect of their existences to JCAs or else be denied resources. Consequently, nearly every “decision support” and “business intelligence” tool under the sun (there are hundreds, if not thousands of them; costing tens, if not hundreds, of millions) has a requirement for mapping JCAs. Just this week (in fact, after we decided to do this) one of our teams received a requirement to add JCA mappings in a database. The first question that came to my mind was, "how are they going to get that data into the system?"

You see, JCAs are published in
formats that are only readable by people, and not in formats that can be used by tools. As a result, people repeatedly spend unnecessary time manually keying in JCAs just so they can be available for menu items, pick lists, and other input forms in their software applications. This is inefficient, error prone, and easily solved by publishing JCAs in Outline Processor Markup Language

So that's what we did.

Now system integrators can consume a URL-addressable, well-formed, hierarchical, text document as input to their application development. No more need to manually key stuff. No more typos. Point any developer worth his/her salt as this URL and they will be off to the races.

It's too bad the owner of JCAs doesn't publish more portable content, but maybe now they will.

Credit where it is due:
Our (2nd) wonderful co-op student from Rochester Institute of Technology, Ben Kaiser wrote the code. Longtime Bridgeborner, Rob Shell shared some SME-ness and was Johnny-on-the-Spot with this (mostly well-formed) HTML version of the JCAs. Thanks also to Sunlight Labs for feedback on choosing the right technology to get the job done. Raymond Yee provided an excellent model for us to follow (in response to this project idea from Clay Johnson).

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Transparency and Visualization of City Data

Last year my city was considering closing one or two schools (HamptonRoads.com, WAVY.com). One of the justifications cited was decline in student enrollment. Though I can no longer find it anywhere online, one of the enrollment artifacts put forth was this image of a column chart from a (presumably) Excel spreadsheet.


From Flow

To look at this picture (of data) one would assume there was a HUGE drop in enrollment, something in the vicinity of 50-60%.

But a closer look at the values reveals quite a different quantitative result. In fact, the actual decline from the peak in 1994-95 to the valley in 2008-09 appears to be 5,600 students. Keep in mind, I'm doing my best to derive the actual number based on the Y-axis scale on the picture. The data weren't provided. To make matters more difficult, the column chart is shown in 3D. This undermines the utility of the visualization by making it hard to determine an actual value on the chart.

The actual difference is 6,824 students, from the high in 1994-95 to the projected low in 2012-13.

6,824 students is 18.1% of the peak (6,824/37,707). While significant, 18.1% is a far cry from what appears to be a 50-60% decline.

Fortunately, when I requested the data they were provided to me.

This is valuable for two reasons. First and foremost, I get the data, not an interpretation of the
data. Second, and more the point of this post, I can show what this chart should look like and what else the data have to say.

Notice the slope of the decline and the differences between yearly observations. Neither are so exaggerated as the first image.

The differences in view are the aspect ratio of the graph and the value of the Y-axis origin. In the first chart the aspect ratio of the picture is nearly square, or 1:1. The starting value of the Y-axis is 28000 (an arbitrary value not found anywhere in the data). In the second chart the Y-axis begins at zero (0) and the aspect ratio is closer to 3:1 (which is probably too wide).

So then, which image and which set of chart variables is correct?

The answer depends on the basis for the query...or what you are trying to say. Actually the answer has nothing to do with "what you are trying to say" since you/we shouldn't be trying to say anything except to represent quantitative values in visual form. The right thing is to understand the nature of the analysis and the decision trying to be made.

In this case, we can assume with confidence that the Y-axis has no business starting at any value other than zero. In this case what is being claimed, via what is shown, is a long term (since 1990) decline, not a year-to-year fluctuation. Over the 14 year span the decline is obviously not in the range of 50-60%, therefore the chart should no imply so. Otherwise, if year-to-year deltas are of interest it probably does not make sense to show a 14 year span.

By the way, the data for recent yearly decline are -216, -200, +30, -17 between the years 2006-2010. 200 students city wide is hardly justification for closing a school. (Our school has over 600 students.)

In the end, my city chose not to close a school. I think that was a wise choice. But I have to wonder what was going on in the minds of the decision makers. What analyses were they using? Did they, too, realize the truth in these numbers or was it some other (political) factor. Did we just get lucky?

When cities make claims based on data they should publish the data. When cities, or anyone, shows you a picture of data you should question the picture and demand politely request a reference to the data. At minimum, know what you are seeing.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Transparency and the Digital Divide

As I start this post I'm on the Orange line of the Metro heading home from Transparency Camp 2010. I timed my arrival almost exactly with that of the train using an iPhone app. Now I'm typing on a super-powerful laptop with a huge display. Many Metro stations have 3G access and even though I don't tether my phone to my computer to use 3G on my laptop, I'm sure it can be done. I have nearly all of the comforts of the digital age at my disposal nearly all of the time.

I often use these tools to stay in touch with what is happening in and around my community, my local and state governments, and the federal government. I use access to Web sites, data, and social networks to stay informed and engaged. These tools offer me many choices of how much info I want to consume and how much I feel like engaging.

But what can people who don't have these resources do to be informed and participate? What choices do they have for receiving information and offering feedback? So much of Gov 2.0 and open government relates to the Web that we must be careful not to exclude those who lack digital resources.

This topic came up in multiple sessions at Transparency Camp and we generated some good ideas (we think) on how to address this issue responsibly. One idea in particular that resonated was placing LED message boards around town to broadcast key indicators, initiatives, and citizen feedback.

The basic idea is to place LED signs at heavily trafficked locations. These signs would display information about the city in which people are most interested. Some of this content would be generated the city and some of the content would be generated by citizens. Information, especially that generated by citizens, would vary somewhat by neighborhood.

On the participation side of the conversation the minimum barrier to entry would be a mobile phone. Anyone who can send a text message can contribute. Of course, there would be other ways to contribute. On the information side of the equation would be these message boards.

This would be a way for people to simultaneously tell their city what they want and to see what the city is getting by way of feedback.

There is plenty of reason to think this can be effective, too.

But before I go on, I need to add some context. This all came up during a session I facilitated called "Local Government Transparency." In the beginning of the session I gave several examples of transparency happening at the local level. One example was Localocracy. Hart Rossman quickly pointed out that, while I'm able to easily cite these examples, most people hardly know what I'm even talking about. The point being: we need to make this relevant to the vast majority of people who aren't aware of what's going on in this space.

Keying on that, Bryan Sivak, CTO of Washington, D.C., shared with us his concerns about the "digital divide" in his city. In the poorest wards in D.C., broadband Internet access is about 30%. The point being: we can make all the cool open data and participation websites we want, but we won't be serving key constituencies in his city if those people can't access these online resources.

After some back and forth a gentlemen, whose name regrettably escapes me at the moment made a reference that reminded me very much of "The Blackboard Blogger of Monrovia," Alfred Sirleaf. Alfred is not just dealing with a digital divide. He has customers who are not literate. Still, he manages to provide useful information about what matters around them.

At lesser extremes we see other examples of this idea already working. Metro transit signs are one great example.


What else do people want to know about their city that can be easily provided on on a billboard in the public square?

It's worth noting that we don't necessarily need government to provide (and maintain) the billboard. Alfred Sirleaf makes a living doing what he does. People who visit his blackboard buy goods from him. We probably need government to issue permits for signs in public spaces. Then again, What if food vendors in D.C. hung LEDs on their carts?

We do need from government data that is open and accessible so that it can be easily used by anyone at low or no cost. Given this and a touch of inspiration from Alfred Sirleaf, maybe we can succeed at engaging citizens in their own government in ways that are widely accessible.

Post Script:
Gwynne Kostin pointed out the next day, that the digital divide is as much cultural as it is economical. There are plenty of people who aren't resource constrained who are nonetheless struggling with relevance of transparency and open government in their lives.

Thank you to Erik Hersman for the image of Alfred Sirleaf

Saturday, January 30, 2010

My Initial Takeaways from City Camp

I posted this in a comment thread in GovLoop; copying here so it can be read without requiring a login:

My biggest takeaways:

It's essential to get a good mix of perspective. We had civil servants, vendors, journalists, non-profits, and citizens. It would not have been as successful if it was gov-to-gov, vendor-to-vendor, or even gov-to-vendor.

It's essential that the conversation not revolve entirely around tech and data. In 2010 we can assume that technology and data are involved. We're just scratching the surface on process. And the processes involved are not just about methods and means for collecting-publishing-visualizing data. Providing greater opportunities to get citizens' voices heard and to increase their engagement in civic duty is important.

There is a new and important role for journalism: tell the stories behind the tech and the data. However, journalists may not have the education and knowledge to do this well. Interpreting stats is hard. I am excited to see Global Integrity stepping up to start a "help desk" specifically to work this problem. I think there is a new "extreme programming" model that papers could adopt; or perhaps to put it in terms papers already understand: pair your journalists up with data-viz-stats people like you pair them up with photographers.

People want what City Camp provided. We are going to learn from it, refine it, and keep it going.

Don't wait for me or Jen to keep City Camp going. Anyone can do this anywhere at anytime. Copy what works. Adapt for your local perspective. Just do it.