A New Roadmap for Next-Generation Policy-Making Francesco Mureddu & David Osimo Tech4i2 Ltd, UK 43B Mill Road, Leicester, UK
[email protected] [email protected]
Gianluca Misuraca
Stefano Armenia
European Commission, JRC IPTS Sapienza University of Rome CATTID, P.le Aldo Moro, 5 - 00185 Rome, Italy C/ Inca Garcilaso, 3 - Seville, Spain
[email protected] [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Categories and Subject Descriptors
In the last thirty years the role of the government has moved consistently away from services provision to regulation. Society and economy has become more interconnected, unstable and unpredictable than ever, and citizens are keener to engage in complex policy making. Within this context, traditional tools for policy making, based upon the perfectly rational representative agent maximizing its own utility in a general equilibrium framework, have been demonstrated to be unable to predict and cope with some of today’s most pressing challenges, such as the financial crisis and climate change. Despite the explosion of data availability, the possibility to analyse them through crowdsourcing and large scale collaboration, the advance in modelling and simulation tools for assessing non-linear impact of policy options, the full potential offered by the new instruments for policy making has yet to be achieved. Therefore policy makers have not yet at their disposal a set of instruments able to cope with the needs stemming from their decision making activities.
I.6.0 Simulation and Modeling - general
In order to meet those needs the project CROSSOVER “Bridging Communities for Next Generation Policy-Making” is elaborating a demand/driven “International Research Roadmap on ICT tools for Governance and Policy Modelling”, which links the needs and the activities of policy-making with current and future research challenges.
Acknowledgment and disclaimer The research activity leading to this paper has been funded by the European Commission under the activity ICT-7-5.6 – “ICT Solutions for governance and policy modeling” within the Coordination and Support Action (FP7-ICT-2011-7, No. 288828) CROSSOVER project “Bridging Communities for Next Generation Policy-Making”. The views expressed in this paper are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. ICEGOV2012, October 22–25, 2012, New York, USA Copyright 2011 ACM 978-1-4503-0746-8…$10.00.
General Terms Management, Measurement, Performance, Economics
Keywords Governance Analysis and Evaluation, Policy Making 2.0, Modelling and Simulation, System Dynamics, ICT Tools, Stakeholders’ Engagement
1. INTRODUCTION The role of the government in the last century has not decreased as the common wisdom would suggest. In fact it has increased until the end of the ‘70s, and remained stable for the following 30 years. However, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system together with its associated Keynesian policies marked the switch from a service provision role of the government towards a regulatory one, often in novel areas such as environment, telecommunications and technology (OECD 2005). As we will see, as governments are much more involved in “steering” than in “rowing”, today more than ever the role of the policy maker has become difficult due to new challenges. Nowadays, society and economy are more interconnected, unstable and unpredictable than they have ever been. As pointed out by Taleb (2007), we live in the age of “Extremistan”, a world of “tipping points” (Schelling 1969), “cascades” and “power laws” (Barabasi 2003), where extreme events are “the new normal” (Hinssen 2010). The policy issues of our age can be addressed only through the collaboration of all the components of the society, including the private sector and individual citizens (Goldsmith and Eggers 2004). In fact only changes in the daily behaviour of citizens can help to tackle challenges such as climate change, consumable resources and sustainability of the health system. As clarified by the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, "the success of the Big Society will depend on the daily decisions of millions of people"1. In addition citizens are more than ever willing to engage in complex policy decision making according to the emergence of the "Gov 2.0 paradigm" offering new opportunities to enter into data production, analysis and decision-making. On the other hand this participation is often fruitless as it is limited to conversations on social networks, blogs and twitter and a real impact has been achieved only in specific, highly advertised cases that led to a 1
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12443396
massive mobilisation. Moreover the participation seems to be limited to individuals highly interested and motivated in policy issues. Finally, seldom the human nature is able to take into account the long-term impact of our choices, as short-term impacts are more predictable and visible (Misuraca, 2012). However, in an interconnected, unstable and unpredictable world the long-term impact of the policy choices might have unintended consequences. In this view, traditional policy-making tools are flawed as they assume an abstract and unrealistic human being: perfectly rational (utility maximizing), consistent (not heterogeneous), atomised (not connected through networks), wise (thinking long-term) and politically committed. In fact most of the current policy modelling and simulation practices are rooted on traditional mathematical models, linear econometric tools or dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models, based upon the perfectly rational representative agent maximizing its own utility in a general equilibrium framework. As shown by Moss (2010), all these tools may not be consistent when applied in the public policy context. At any rate, today we see the possibility of an ICT-enabled policy-making model taking full account of the complexity of human nature. There is a number of social modelling and simulation tools already available, buy they are built for ad-hoc purposes and suffer a lack of scalability. In fact there is a tendency to reinvent and develop “own” models and simulation tools so that adoption of a policy modelling approach still demands a lot of resources preventing returns to scale to be fully enjoyed (CROSSROAD, 2010, 2012). Nevertheless there are several main trends impacting the current and future policy making: the explosion of data availability given by the open government data movement and the data provided by sensors and citizens, the growth of research dedicated to analyzing those data through crowdsourcing and large scale collaboration, the improvement of modeling and simulation tools assessing the possible non-linear impact of policy options. These trends clarify the need for the next generation of policy making models. To this end, the CROSSOVER “Bridging Communities for NextGeneration Policy-Making”, which is a Coordination and Support Action (FP7-ICT-2011-7, No. 288828) financed by the European Commission under the objective ICT-7-5.6 – “ICT Solutions for governance and policy modeling” aims to:
Bring together and reinforce the links between the different global communities of researchers and experts by animating knowledge exchange across communities of practice.
Reach out and raise the awareness of non-experts and potential users, with special regard to high-level policymakers.
Establish the scientific and political basis for long-lasting interest and commitment to next generation policy-making, by focusing on a demand-driven approach, involving policymakers and defining a collaborative stakeholders’ sustainability plan.
More in particular the CROSSOVER project is elaborating a new International Research Roadmap on ICT Tools for Governance and Policy Modelling, which aims to provide a clear outline of
what technologies are available now for policy-makers to improve their work, and what could become available tomorrow. The roadmap has a demand-driven approach: rather than focusing on the technology, it starts from the needs and the activities of policy-making and then links to the current and future research challenges. The project builds on the CROSSROAD2 model3 and roadmap4 with the aim to reach a stronger focus on policy modelling. More precisely CROSSOVER focuses on two Grand Challenges (GC), already part of the CROSSROAD roadmap, which are more in line with the current workprogramme priorities: GC1 - Policy Modelling and GC2 – Data-powered Collaborative Governance. Each Grand Challenge embeds a number of research challenges in governance and policy modelling. The aim of this paper is therefore to present the new research roadmap on ICT Tools for Governance and Policy Modelling aimed at providing an outline of what technologies are and will be available to meet the needs of policy-makers. The structure of the paper continues as follows. Section 2 identifies the methodology applied for this research. Section 3 describes the research roadmap. Finally section 4 offers some conclusions and future research directions.
2. METHODOLOGY The roadmap is being developed by the means of desk-based review (e.g. literature review and meta analysis), discussion and interviews with experts, and crowdsourcing5. More in particular we define a technology roadmapping exercise, which is a strategic planning approach to identify the actions and funding decisions needed to boost technological development and innovation. The term “roadmap” refers to the main purpose of this approach, i.e. to chart an overall direction for technology development or usage. (De Laat, 2004). On the one hand the roadmap constitutes a shared vision, able to inspire collaborative and interdisciplinary research, and between academia, business, civil society and government. On the other hand it is a useful tool, able to provide support and orientation to policy-modelling also after the end of the project. The potential of roadmapping is significant in the domain of ICT for governance and policy modelling as it can constitute an important input in the selection of future research priorities by highlighting the emerging themes and key technological applications (ICT tools) likely to impact on policy in the coming years. Furthermore roadmapping is one of the “recommended best practices” for the selection of priorities in R&D programmes since it does not only identify the bottlenecks that need to be addressed within a realistic time frame, but it can also lead to a high degree of consensus if potential beneficiaries are involved in the agendasetting process (Misuraca et al. 2011). 2
CROSSROAD - A Participative Roadmap for ICT research on Electronic Governance and Policy Modelling www.crossroad-eu.net 3 For a presentation of the CROSSROAD model of ICT for governance and policy modelling please refer to Osimo et al. (2010) 4 For the CROSSROAD white paper and research roadmap please refer to: http://crossroad.epu.ntua.gr/files/2010/02/CROSSROADState_of_the_Art_Analysis-White_Paperv1.00.pdf 5 The roadmap in commentable format has been published in the project website and has been disseminated through the http://www.crossoverproject.eu/UserSurvey.aspx
3. THE RESEARCH ROADMAP As mentioned above, the new International Research Roadmap on ICT Tools for Governance and Policy Modelling builds on the previous CROSSROADS roadmap. However the new exercise represents an improvement in many respects. First, the roadmap is built following a demand-driven approach: rather than focusing exclusively on technology, the present roadmap starts from the needs and the activities of policy-making and then links to the research challenges. In fact on the one hand each research challenge has a direct correspondence to a benefit stemming from policy making 2.0 tools (i.e. what need does the methodology and ICT tool address), such as: - Detect and understand problems before they become unsolvable - Generate high involvement of citizens in policy-making - Identify “good ideas” and innovative solutions - Reduce uncertainty on the possible impacts of policies - Encourage behavioural change and uptake - Detect non-compliance and mis-spending - Understand the impact of policies On the other hand each research challenge is explicitly linked to a traditional activity of policy-making, based on the conventional policy-making cycle: Agenda setting: basic analysis on the nature and size of problems at stakes are addressed, including the causal relationships between the different factors Policy design: development of the possible solutions, the analysis of the potential impact of these solutions, the development and revision of a policy proposal Adoption: this is the most delicate and sensitive area, where accountability and representativeness are needed. It is also the area most covered by existing research on e-democracy Implementation: often considered the most challenging phase, as it needs to translate the policy objectives in concrete activities, that have to deal with the complexity of the real world . It includes ensuring a broader understanding, the change of behaviour and the active collaboration of all stakeholders. Monitoring and evaluation: make use of implementation data to assess whether the policy is being implemented as planned, and is achieving the expected objectives. Second, in CROSSOVER, more emphasis is put on cases and applications: each research challenged is enriched with inspiring cases bearing a global perspective. Furthermore the new roadmap bears a stronger focus on ICT for Governance and PolicyModelling, by dropping more peripheral grand challenges of Government Service Utility and Scientific Base for ICT-enabled Governance6. Finally, the project is elaborating a “living” roadmap, accompanied by an online repository of tools, people and applications. Let us now describe the two Grand Challenges composing the roadmap. The GC1 - Policy Modelling concerns the development of tools and methodologies able to design an efficient and effective decision making process, capable of detecting emergencies, anticipate future events and evaluate the impact of different 6
On this see CROSSROAD, 2012.
policy choices. Furthermore GC1 fosters the engagement of the stakeholders in models building and in the evaluation and simulation of policy making. The GC2 – Data Powered Collaborative Governance is related to the fact that the current citizen participation scene is characterised by an engagement of highly committed people only, and by an involvement that rarely stimulates genuine action. However there are several complementary research areas in ICT for governance and policy modelling that have the opportunity to address the need for collaboration and behavioural change throughout different technological layers: enhanced data availability through public linked data and participatory sensing, analytical capability through opinion mining and visual analytics, and action-oriented tools such as simulation and serious gaming. These trends mutually reinforce each other to offer a new opportunity for future ICT for governance and policy modelling. For each Grand Challenge the roadmap describes a number of research challenges highlighting their definition, the potential opportunities for governance, the state of the art of market and research, the existing challenges/gaps, the recommended research themes and most importantly the inspiring application cases. GC1 encompasses the following research endeavors: Systems of Atomized Models Collaborative modelling Easy access to information and knowledge creation Model validation Interactive simulation Output analysis and knowledge synthesis On the other hand GC2 encompasses the following research challenges: Big Data Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis Visual Analytics Serious Gaming for Behavioural Change Open Government Data Collaborative Governance Participatory Sensing Identity Management
4. CONCLUSIONS: CLOSING THE LOOP OF POLICY-MAKING The last 30 years witnessed a change in the government role, from services provider to mere regulator. At the same time the role of the policy makers became increasingly difficult. This because, as Taleb (2008) points out, we live in the age of "Extremistan", a world in which society and economy are more than ever interconnected, unstable and unpredictable. This extreme instability takes place not only in negative forms such as the financial crisis and the global warming but also in positive development, such as the continuous emergence of new players and business models on the market. Unfortunately the current tools available for policy design, implementation and evaluation are not suitable for capturing this complex and interconnected nature. The cause of this may be found in the fact that current tools are rooted on traditional mathematical models (rational expectations), linear econometric tools or dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models.
Alternative tools, based on complexity science and enabled by the explosion of data availability, are yet to be widely adopted. To support policy makers in meeting the challenges of implementing more appropriate tools for policy-making, the CROSSOVER project is elaborating an updated version of the “International Research Roadmap on ICT tools for Governance and Policy Modelling”, initially designed as part of the CROSSROAD's project in 2010. As for the partial results of our exercise, on the one hand we designed the research challenges in relation to specific needs of the policy makers. For instance: systems of atomized models and model validation are related to early detection and understanding of problems; collaborative modelling and visual analytics are related to generating high involvement of citizens; immersive simulation is related to reducing the uncertainty on the possible impacts of policies; opinion mining is related to the need of identify “good ideas” and innovative solutions; and finally open data is related to the need of detecting non-compliance and misspending, as well as to understanding the impact of policies. On the other hand we were able to connect the research challenges to specific phases of the policy cycle: - Agenda setting: in this phase take place the identification and analysis of problem. Within this scope, visualization and opinion mining can help to identify the problems at an early stage, while advanced modelling techniques are used to disentangle the casual relationships behind the problem as well as to understand the causal roots that need to be addressed by policy - Policy design: on one side immersive simulations support decision-makers by taking into account unexpected impacts and relationships, in order to facilitate the choice of the most effective option. On the other side collaborative governance enables then to develop further and fine-tune the most effective option, for example through commentable documents - Policy implementation: social network analysis, crowdsourcing and serious gaming ensure awareness, buy-in and collaboration from the widest range of stakeholders - Monitoring and evaluation: Open data and sentiment analysis, alongside advanced visualization techniques, allow stakeholders and decision makers to better monitor execution and can be used to evaluate the impact of the policy As for future research, the roadmap is being published and disseminated in commentable format in order to seek input and validation from stakeholders (on the importance of the proposed research challenges), researchers (on the actual research carried out on the proposed challenges), and finally policy makers (on the actual adoption of the proposed tools). Furthermore it is ongoing an online survey of ICT needs and challenges of policy makers which will inform the last version of the roadmap.
REFERENCES Bowman, B., Debray, S. K., and Peterson, L. L. Reasoning about naming systems. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 15, 5 (Nov. 1993), 795-825. Alexopoulos, C., and Kim, S. (2002). Output Data Analysis for Simulations. Proceedings of the 2002 Winter Simulation Conference. San Diego (CA), 8-11 December 2002. Alexopoulos, C., and Seila, A. (1998). Output Data Analysis. In J. Banks, Handbook of Simulation: Principles, Methodology, Advances, Applications and Practice. New York: John Wiley.
Barabasi, A. L., 2003. Linked: How Everything is Connected to Everything Else and What it Means for Business and Everyday Life, Plume Books. CROSSROAD (2010), White Paper on State of the Art in ICT for Governance and Policy Modelling, Lampathaki, F., Koussouris, S., Charalabidis, Y., Askounis, D., Mouzakitis, S., Passas, S., Tsavdaris, H., Osimo, D., De Luca, A., Armenia, S., Bicking, M., Wimmer, M., Misuraca, G.. CROSSROAD, (2012) Paving the Way for Future Research in ICT for Governance and Policy Modelling, Charalabidis, Lampathaki, Askounis (Eds), Bookstars Publishing, available at: http://crossroad.epu.ntua.gr/files/2010/02/CROSSROAD_Book-vfallinon.pdf De Laat, B., 2004. Conditions for effectiveness in Roadmapping: a crosssectional analysis of 80 different exercises. EU-US Scientific Seminar on New Technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods Goldsman, D. (2010). Simulation Output Analysis. Speech at School of ISyE. Georgia Tech, Atlanta (GE), 26 May 2010. Goldsman, D., and Nelson, B. (1998). Comparing systems via simulation. In J. Banks, Handbook of Simulation: Principles, Methodology, Advances, Application and Practice. New York: John Wiley. Goldsman, D., and Tokol, G. (2000). Output analysis procedures for computer simulations. Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference. Orlando (FL). Goldsmith, S. and Eggers, W.D., 2004. Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector, Brookings Institution. Available at: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Governing‐Network‐Shape‐Public‐Sector/dp/08 15731299. Hinssen, P. (2010). The New Normal. MachMedia NV Kelton, W. (1997). Statistical Analysis of Simulation Input. Proceedings of the 1997 Winter Simulation Conference. Atlanta (GA) Law, A. (2006). Simulation Modelling and Analysis. New York: McGrawHill. Lessig, L. (2009). Against transparency. The New Republic. Retrieved from http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency Misuraca, G., (2012). eGovernance 2.0: implications of social computing on public services, in Public Services, Governance and Web2.0 Technologies: Future Trends in Social Media, a Book edited by Ed Downey and Matthew Jones, January 2012 - http://www.igiglobal.com/book/public-service-governance-web-technologies/56009 Misuraca, G., Broster, D. and Centeno, C. (2011). Digital Europe 2030: Designing scenarios for ICT in future governance and policy making, in Government Information Quarterly, Special Issue 10/2011, Elsevier Publishing Moss, S., (2010). Policy Modelling, Open Collaboration and The Future of eGovernance. Crossroad Call for Papers Nakayama, M. (2002). Simulation Output Analysis. Proceedings of the 2002 Winter Simulation Conference. San Diego (CA) OECD. (2005). Modernising government: the way forward. Paris, France, OECD. Osimo, D. et al., 2010. The CROSSROAD Roadmap on ICT for Governance and Policy Modeling. Sargent, R. (2009). Verification and Validation of Simulation Models. Proceedings of the 2009 Winter Simulation Conference. Austin (TX), 1316 December 2009. Schelling, T.C., (1969). Models of segregation. The American Economic Review, 59(2), pp. 488-493. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1823701. Schlesinger, M. (1979). Terminology for model credibility. Simulation, 32(3), 103-104. Taleb, N. (2008). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Penguin.
