Open Data – Rwanda

In July, 2010, I was invited to be the Advisor in the reference group for the ‘Open Data Study’ – commissioned, by the Transparency & Accountability Initiative, c/o Open Society Foundation, UK.

Under the initiative, apart from a report on Open Data Study, two sets of ‘country case studies’ were produced: One was conducted by the World Wide Web Foundation (for Chile, Ghana (and Turkey)) – Chile report, Ghana report and another was conducted by the Centre for Internet and Society (for India) - India report.

As the member of the reference group – I had the great opportunity to get exposed to the latest happenings in the ‘Open Data’ field then. However, at that time I was not able to find any instances of involvements of any National Statistics Offices in this domain, – though considered critical government organs concerning ‘data’ about the country.

With time, things must change.

With http://devinforwanda.gov.rw/ and http://imisrwanda.gov.rw/ in existence, (with access to data in open and machine readable formats) – I’m exploring now, the role that, the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR) may play in this endeavor – under the broader responsibility of the coordinator of the National Statistical System (NSS) in Rwanda.

 

Knownet

Knownet: Login Page

Recently we launched the new version of the Knowledge Management portal in NISR named ‘Knownet’. It has evolved from – almost one year – old version of the portal and builds upon the feedback and suggestions from the staff.

One of the major shifts has been the adoption of the “Web 2.0” technologies in the new portal. Blogging, micro blogging, social tagging, social bookmarking, shared calendars, content sharing, etc. have been made integral part of the portal.

It is a major shift because, earlier, the only way the information was expected to flow was from top to bottom or in some cases one to one (think e-mails). Now, it is designed in such a way that the flow of information shall happen in all directions (and also more often).

To ensure that, colleagues see value in it and use it, will be the next BIG step.

Knownet: homepage layout

 

Something interesting is happening with ‘data’!

Not long ago, I had shared an announcement with my colleagues in the National Statistics Office (NSO) that I’m currently working with, “Data.WorldBank.org Launched Today on Drupal”. In that announcement, more than the ‘Data’ part, I was excited for the ‘Drupal’ part, as I had recently developed the entire Intranet stack in the NSO with Drupal, and I was hoping to garner some critical support for it, by showcasing its strength with data/statistics. But, little did I know that I was soon going to shift my attention from the ‘Drupal’ part to the ‘Data’ part.

Some days later, I saw an update about an event in my Google Reader, “UK-wide teen hackathon, Aug 2-6: Young Rewired State”, and it said “During the first week of August, Young Rewired State will again show what groups of talented young coders can do with Government data. Young developers will spend the week at centres held at businesses and organisations across the UK, working with established tech teams, mentors and visiting experts making apps, websites, games and visualisations…”

This is revolutionary! People can use government data which is openly available and create tools, applications, and mash-ups based on it, as gapminder.org puts it, “unveiling the beauty of statistics for a fact based world view”.

Then, someone directed me to two wonderful sites: http://data.gov.uk/ and http://www.data.gov/ and today, I read an article on huffingtonpost.com, “Gov 2.0 Growing Globally and Fast”.

This and all that, led me to think, something interesting is happening on the data front!

Coming from ICT4D field, it was my constant endeavor to establish the connection between the ethoses of ICT4D with statistics – an area which I recently got associated with closely. And here it is – the Interplay amongst information, connectedness and devices – in full swing!

 

eGovernment Interoperability

While working on developing the Lanka Interoperability Framework (LIFe) – an eGovernment Interoperability Framework (eGIF) for Sri Lanka – the opportunity to teach at the oldest University in Sri Lanka was God sent! Though, it was for a very short period, yet it forced me to put the learning that I gained during the process, in one place.

57 slides; Yes, it took all of it, but it was pretty comprehensive (I believe!).  The presentation below starts with an attempt to understand eGovernment Interoperability as a concept aka ‘What, Why, How, and Who’ of eGovernment Interoperability, then (from slide # 24 onwards) synthesis of eGovernment Interoperability Frameworks (eGIFs) and finally the comparison of eGIFs from select countries (slide 36 # onwards).

 

Understanding Interoperability through Mobile Phones

Mobile phones demonstrate the concept of interoperability very easily, especially – the lack of it – on the handset side. From services perspective, the presence of interoperability is quite evident. Calls or SMS services can be accessed from almost all phones irrespective of the service provider. However, talk about using the same mobile phone charger to charge phones of different make/model – the interoperability is starkly absent in this case!

However, just go to the other end of the phone changer – where it connects to the electrical socket. Here the problem of interoperability has been tackled by using ‘adapters’. An adapter allows plugging the charger into another type of outlet with the same electrical voltage – Interoperability accomplished!

I taught a class of 70+ students in a Post Graduate Programme in University Of Colombo, Sri Lanka (Aug, 2008) the basics of eGovernment Interoperability Framework (eGIF) and I used the slides below to start the discussions on the subject in the class.

 

Putting Knowledge Management into Practice!

Knowledge Management is no more a fad. Many organizations now have a better understanding of it and the benefits that can be derived. However, I have noticed that, it is still perceived to be a complex practice to implement. There is a quest to figure out what to do and how to do it, and fast.

Here I offer, not a general answer or one suitable for any particular organization, but rather my own endeavor and observations from one of my assignments, where I aggressively experimented with and adapted the Knowledge Management processes as I worked on the specifics of my tasks.

In an assignment with Information and Communication Technology Agency (ICTA) of Sri Lanka, where my stint was short yet significant because of the strategic nature of the work, it was imperative for me to ensure that the ‘body of the work’ is shared while in progress, accessible to stakeholders at all times and development on it continued even after the ‘short’ stint.

Hence from the beginning, I decided to put up my work on the organization’s LAN (which was also accessible from outside with appropriate authentication) using Drupal – an Open Source Content Management System.

Drupal provided an easy and quicker way to setup the interface and allowed sharing of relevant documents in a convenient manner.

I named the interface ‘Assignment Dashboard: Technology Architecture and Standards’ based on the actual content of the work. It contained the Terms of Reference (ToR), work plan, progress reports, references/resources and the outputs.

Assignment Dashboard: Technology Architecture and Standards

I understand that having it there was just a small part of the process, but seeing it being used was the real treat!

 

Government Interoperability Framework (GIF) and National Enterprise Architecture (NEA)

While working with the Interoperability Frameworks for e-government services at country level, one theoretical issue that I’m faced with is, the debate on methodology for attaining interoperability in e-government context. For some, it is the National Enterprise Architecture (NEA) and for others it is the Government Interoperability Framework (GIF).

However, while going through both NEAs and GIFs of various countries, an emerging trend is witnessed, that the distinctions are getting blurred gradually – at least the way these are documented. Though, I need to get it validated – independently.

All the GIFs contain ‘standards’, so does the EAs, the difference though, is the way in which these standards are categorized and clustered.

Take the case of GIFs first. Australia (2005), Brazil (2006), Denmark (2005), Malaysia (2006), New Zealand (2006) and the UK (2005) (- let’s call them the first lot-) categorizes the standards according to ‘technical layers’ but Germany (2006) and the EU (2004) ( – the second lot) uses ‘services or life events’ to categorize the standards .

The ‘layered’ model – used by the first lot – clustered the standards in typical technical categories (or layers) such as interconnection, data integration, information access and presentation, metadata and security. Clearly the focus here is only on the ‘technical’ dimension of interoperability. In comparison – the second lot – grouped the standards in such a way, that the focus spreads beyond just the ‘technical’ dimension of interoperability to the ‘organization/process’ and the ‘data/semantic’ dimensions of interoperability as well. The standards – in the second lot – are categorized according to the services or life events such as income taxes, job search, social security contribution, personal documents, car registration, permits, certificates, enrollment, announcement of relocation and health-related services etc.

Interestingly however, it is also observed that many countries – many from the first lot – have reviewed and few others are still reviewing their original GIFs and are planning to address the unattended dimensions (‘organization’ and ‘data’) of interoperability in their future versions of GIFs. The possible reason for taking the route of addressing the technical interoperability first, by the majority of the countries, could have been the ease in standardizing the technical matters(?).

Take the case of the latest version of New Zealand’s e-GIF (2008). It clusters the standards in layers such as network, data integration, business services, access and presentation, web services, security and best practices. The ‘web services’ is comparatively (w.r.t 2006) a latest addition and attempts to address the missing links of ‘organization’ and ‘data’ dimensions of interoperability.

The point is, in cases of older GIFs, if the standards were not categorized by the life events, then categorization of standards was limited to technical layers only, neglecting the two (organization and data) of only three (organization, data and technical) aspects of interoperability. However with addition of new categories such as ‘web-services’ (still under ‘technical’ dimension though) this missing link is being attempted to be bridged.

There is another trend though. Many countries instead of revising their existing GIFs, are working through their respective National Enterprise Architecture (NEA) to address the ‘organization’ and ‘data’ dimensions of interoperability. This confluence is now reflected in the latest versions of the GIFs and the NEAs. The distinctions are getting blurred.

Consider the case of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s – Enterprise Information Technology Architecture (2008). This can be treated at par with any National Enterprise Architecture (NEA) in a limited context. The Enterprise Technical Reference Model (ETRM) which provides an architectural framework to identify the standards, specifications and technologies that support the commonwealth’s computing environment, uses access and delivery, information, application, integration, management and security to categorize the standards – a very similar classification system as seen in the latest version of New Zealand’s e-GIF.

Do you see a converging trend here?

 

ICT for Development Campaign

In one of the social networking sites I saw a banner flashed by one gentleman on his home page – wittily enough – campaigning for a popular Indian cricket commentator (Harsha Bhogle) for the post of India’s President during India’s last presidential elections – “Bhogle for President”. Not that I have any less regard for Harsha, but it immediately struck a chord in me about a similar sounding campaign – ‘ICT for Development’ or ‘ICT4D’ and the debacle the ‘field’ itself is currently going through.

There is a growing feeling among development practitioners and organizations that ICT4D was more hype than hope (!) and was a misplaced development focus. We are clearly witnessing a gradual trend of fading institutional support for ICT4D. Today there are fewer institutions supporting the field or supporting it with same consistency we saw in the past.

As the editorial of ITID Volume-3 puts it, ‘As we move from cheerleading enthusiasm of the ICT4D roaring 1990s to the reactionary pessimism of the early 2000s – when nothing seemed to work – to the synthetic smart-experimentation stage of today…’, we need to ask, what went wrong?

 

Standards and Interoperability

In the context of various information management systems running in governments, the expectations to have ‘single version of truth’ is not something new. For better planning, organizing, controlling and leading, having access to timely and correct (non-conflicting) data/information is very pertinent. However, in many cases, few information systems, if any, running in government organizations, share information among themselves, even though many have similar functionalities and overlapping data sets.

The good news though is: the ‘need’ to share is gradually being realized in the connected world and ‘interoperability’ is being mooted as the solution.

Interoperability allows disparate systems to ‘talk’ to each other. Needless to say, the complexities in getting them to ‘talk’ can be further reduced by having these systems developed based on certain agreed standards. After all, it is easier to connect similar things.

There is a clear link between ‘standards’ and ‘interoperability’ – with increasing standardization, the ease to interoperate increases. However caution is warranted here, [in the beginning - in order to achieve interoperability through commanding standards] as, standardization is not only difficult to achieve and enforce but also would stifle the freedom of design.

In contrast, ‘interoperability’ as a concept, allows that bit of disparateness in systems to exist but still provides room for systems to ‘talk’ to each other.

It appears interoperability can be achieved either by developing information systems based on certain standards or without standards. However, efforts needed to make systems exchange data would be different in both the cases.

 

Looking through the framework: Orissa telecenters

Although the growth in the telecenter ‘numbers’ came as bits and pieces from different projects, the evolution of their ‘role’ was organic in nature. It grew out of the needs of the communities and eventually leveled the differences in their origin.

By mid 2003, there were 73 telecenters in 12 districts of Orissa covering an area of about 44,716 square kilometers which contains large rural population. These telecenters are located in some of the perennially disaster affected/prone and poorest districts of Orissa. These are the areas that have traditionally lacked access to adequate information and lagged behind in terms of development.

Analyzing the telecenters in Orissa through the framework, it is apparent that the telecenters have evolved with respect to  Information and Services portfolio, Organizational Setup and Information Infrastructure systematically and survived the change in focus. Also, on the sustainability front, telecenters with regular access and usage have shown to be stronger on the revenue earnings enabling them to run day-to-day operations based on user charges.

Following are the highlights under specific parameters of the framework :

Information and Services portfolio:

In spite of original focus on specific areas, telecenters were quick to learn and therefore survived the transition with added information and services deliveries.  Partnerships with service providers played an important role in consolidating the portfolio.

Mainly offline content in local language in form of CDs (called knowledge hub) with scanned information from various government departments and other agencies helped establish telecenters as a reliable information source in the communities.

Subsequently, partnership with the Indira Gandhi National Open University enabled telecenters to administer certified computer literacy classes, similarly with Orissa Primary Education Programme Authority the telecenters offered IT aided education (using animated multimedia CDs done by Azim Premji Foundation) to the students of designated primary schools in nearby areas and with ‘Mission Shakti’, Department of Women and Child Development, Government of Orissa, it ran a programme to educate women members of Self Help Groups on basic computing on a payment basis.

All these have added to the relevancy factor and as a result, on the sustainability side of the telecenters.

Organizational Setup:

At the lowest level, each telecenter is managed (day-to-day functions) by a community IT volunteer – paid through the user charges – collected and managed by a management committee, constituted by a host organization in consultation with local government authorities and IT facilitator.

The community IT volunteer who is in charge of day-to-day activities in the telecenter is selected by the management committee and is preferably a basic IT educated unemployed youth of the same village.
 
Each IT facilitator is in charge of a number of telecenters. IT facilitator is also the member of the District IT Society and acts as a bridge between the District Collector (head of district level administration) and the rural community.

The District IT Society is an umbrella organization setup through this programme in programme districts, which tries to integrate all the IT related activities of the district including telecenters.

Role of UNDP-Orissa Hub in brokering the partnerships with various service providers is also a highlight. The Standard Operation Procedures (SOP) prepared by UNDP-Orissa Hub provided the guidance for day-to-day functioning of the telecenters. Its facilitation helped streamline the record keeping and reporting of the telecenters.

Information Infrastructure:

The selection of location for these setups was driven by the objectives of the original projects, and it did have an effect on the overall effectiveness of the telecenters. In few cases the locations were changed later to tap onto the available infrastructure of new location in order to enhance the deliverables of the telecenters.

Availability of telephone connection, internet access and power supply did have an effect on many services in the telecenters, specially the one which tried to lodge complaint to the district collectors through a website www.aamagaon.com. But more than anything else, it was not a hit because of lack of automation at government’s end, because once the complaints reached the collectors office, it is subjected to the same old route of the paper documents (in form of printouts) and delays.

The premises for the telecenters were provided by the host organizations and this has contributed in strong ownership by the communities.

In summary, as pioneering effort in setting and running of telecenters in Orissa, the initiative has extended the benefits of ICTs to the poorest of the poor and gained a lot in terms of learning. Analyzing the project from the perspective of the framework of Information and Services portfolio, Organizational Setup and Information Infrastructure, it offers guidance to the new initiatives planned on top of this.