Support Us

You are browsing the archive for OKCon.

OGDCamp + OKCon = Open Knowledge Festival 2012 in Helsinki, Finland!

February 7, 2012 in Events, OGDCamp, OKCon, OKF Finland, OKFest

The following post is by Kat Braybrooke, London-based Community Coordinator of the Open Knowledge Foundation (Regional Chapters and Groups) and a core organiser of OKFest.

OGDcamp 2011

On September 17-22 this year, global communities will be descending on the shores of Helsinki for a week-long celebration called the Open Knowledge Festival – and you’re the first to be invited!

For this festival – the first of its kind in the world – we are bringing Open Government Data Camp (OGDCamp) and Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) to the same place to provide new opportunities for collaboration. We’ll start the week by supporting practitioners working in the fields of open government and municipal data, and end it by exploring the diversity of open knowledge initiatives from a global perspective. The organising team, a talented gathering of Finns and leaders from around the world, are already hard at work planning a busy week of seminars, workshops, lectures, hackathons, keynotes, coding jams and interactive media sessions that will bring together participants from a wide variety of backgrounds in new ways.

Another important element of OKFest is its Nordic location. The host city of Helsinki is in the midst of an urban Finnish renaissance built on inclusive communities. It is home to one of our first incubating Local Chapters, and as the next World Design Capital for 2012, the city will also be hosting an inspiring cohort of open data practitioners who combine design, art, academia and technology to support innovation in new and interesting ways. Helsinki locals organised the city’s first Open Knowledge Meetup this October and have just opened the first FABlab in Finland at the Aalto University Media Factory. We look forward to highlighting even more Finnish projects in the field of open knowledge, and hope to see the participation of many representatives of Nordic nations.

Most importantly of all, we want your ideas to be highlighted at OKFest. We are currently looking for proposals regarding sessions, satellite events, research streams, hackathons, lecture topics and other forms of collaboration. Have a great project or idea that you want to share with the global community? This is the place to do it. Join our public discussion list and say hello here and start finding collaborators on Twitter using the hashtag #okfest.

We hope to see you in Helsinki, Finland this September for a week of new friends, open knowledge and global inspiration with a Nordic twist!

Photo from OGDCamp 2011 thanks to Volker Agüeras Gäng on Flickr.

Keynoting at the OGD Camp … Chris Taggart!

October 19, 2011 in Events, OKCon, Open Government Data, WG Open Government Data

Less than 24 hours to go! The space is amazing, the scene is set, and we can’t wait till it’s filled with all your faces tomorrow morning! We’re pleased to announce our final keynote for the camp will be Chris Taggart of OpenCorporates.

About Chris

Chris Taggart is the CEO and co-founder of OpenCorporates: The Open Database Of the Corporate World, which has worked with the open data community to build a database of over 25 million companies, all open data. Originally a journalist and later magazine publisher, he now works full time in the field of open data, and is on the UK government’s Local Public Data Panel, and Mayor of London’s Digital Advisory Board.

Regarding his keynote, Taggart writes,

“I’ll be speaking about cross-border open government data — what it is, why it’s important, what are the problems, and how do we organize it?”

Keynoting at the OGD Camp 2011 … Andrew Rasiej!

October 12, 2011 in Events, OKCon, Open Government Data, WG Open Government Data

Speaking at the world’s biggest open government data event, the Open Government Data Camp 2011, we’re delighted to announce Andrew Rasiej! Get your tickets to hear him, and to join in with the whole range of presentations, workshops and hack sessions in Warsaw, here.

The New Era of We-Government

E-government has always been known as government agencies using technology people use every day to deliver the services we expect them to deliver. But now as governments make more public data available and citizens are beginning to collect data themselves, a new era is emerging called We-Government where citizens are building tools, applications, and platforms, that are useful to people in their civic lives. This new hybrid partnership between government and citizens has the potential to redefine civic engagement and re-envigorate democracy through civic participation that goes beyond voting while creating more efficiency, transparency, and accountability of government.

About Andrew

Andrew Rasiej is a serial social entrepreneur and founder of the Personal Democracy Forum, an annual conference and website about the intersection of technology, politics, government and advocacy. He is also the co-founder of techPresident.com, an award winning blog that covers how the White House, the federal government, and Congress are using the web, and how technology is empowering new levels of citizen engagement throughout the United States. He is also the founder of MOUSE.org, a not for profit focused on 21st century public education; co-founder of Mideastwire.com, which translates Arabic and Farsi news and opinion pieces into English; and serves as Senior Technology Advisor to the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington DC-based organisation focused on using technology to help make government more transparent and accountable. He is also serves as Chairman of the NY Tech Meetup, a 20,000 member organization of technologists, venture funders, marketers, etc. representing the start up, technology, and innovation industry in New York City. He also coined such terms as: We-Government, Voter-Generated Content, and Videracy, to help describe the expanding digitally connected world we all now live in.

OKCon 2011: Introduction and a Look to the Future

June 30, 2011 in OKCon, Open Data, Talks

This is a blog post by Rufus Pollock, co-Founder and Director of the Open Knowledge Foundation.

OKCon, the annual Open Knowledge Conference kicked off today and it’s been great so far. For those not here in Berlin with us you can follow main track talks via video streaming: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/open-knowlegde

Below are my slides from my introductory talk which gives an overview of the Foundation and its activities and then looked to what the challenges are for the open data community going forward.

Looking to the Future

The last several decades the world has seen an explosion of digital technologies which have the potential to transform the way knowledge is disseminated.

This world is rapidly evolving and one of its more striking possibilities is the creation of an open data ecosystem in which information is freely used, extended and built on.

The resulting open data ‘commons’ is valuable in and of itself, but also, and perhaps even more importantly, because the social and commercial benefits it generates — whether in helping us to understand climate change; speeding the development of life-saving drugs; or improving govenance and public services.

In developing this open data ecosystem there are three key things are needed: material, tools and people. This is a key point: open information without tools and communities to utilise it is not enough, after all, openness isn’t an end itself – open material has no value if it isn’t used.

We need therefore to have widely available the capabilities for utilising open material, for processing, analysing and sharing it, especially on a large scale. Relevant tools need to be freely and openly available and the related infrastructure — after all tools need somewhere to run, and data needs somewhere to be stored — should be capable of effective deployment by distributed communities.

Over the last few years we’ve started to see increasing amounts of open material made available, with release of open data really starting to take off in the last couple of years.

But the (open) tools and the communities to use them are still very limited — we’re just starting to see the first self-identified “data wranglers / data hackers / data scientists” (note how the terms have not settled yet!).

Key architectural elements of the ecosystem, such as how we create and share data in an open componentized way, are only just beginning to be worked through.

We are therefore at a key moment where we transition from just ‘getting the data’ (and building the app) to a real data ecosystem in which data is transformed, shared and reintegrated and we replace a ‘data pipeline’ with ‘data cycles’.

FTA: Teaching Free Technologies

June 28, 2011 in External, OKCon

The following guest post is by David Jacovkis and Wouter Tebbens from the Free Knowledge Institute. David and Wouter will be joining us at OKCon 2011 for their workshop on Building a master Curriculum on Free Technologies, and presentation on the Free Technology Academy and Shared QA for producing Free Educational Materials.

The Free Technology Academy (FTA) is moving towards completing its second year of activity, the third since the project was started by the Free Knowledge Institute (FKI). The FTA is a joint initiative of the FKI and several European universities that received the support of the EC’s Lifelong Learning Programme during 2009 and 2010. Its main purpose is to provide distance education about Free Software, Open Standards and other Free Technologies, using only Free Software and Free Educational Resources.

An economic crisis such as the one that is affecting most markets usually means bad news for startups. However, it can also be seen as an opportunity for new sustainability models. In this sense, the FTA can at the same time be seen as an experiment where several of these models are being put into practice: the basic operating costs of the virtual campus and its official study programme are covered mainly by the learners’ tuition fees. Additional sources of income and contributions by peers make it possible to develop other activities such as the updating of learning materials, the development of new ones, the building of a full master’s degree programme based on a common curriculum, further development of the virtual campus and others. These additional sources include public funding and resources contributed by partner universities and other organisations.

Open development methodologies are put in practice at various levels in the FTA. For example for the production of the course books and the development of the virtual campus. To take this one step further, the FTA has recently set up a new node in the world of social networks: a “community portal”, where partners and peers can come together and discuss about the topics of Free Technology in a wide sense and at the same time work together to produce or improve the many aspects that make up the Free Technology Academy.

At the OKCon there will be various occasions to find out more about and engage in the academy. In concrete on Thursday 30 June ay 19.00, there will be a presentation about Shared QA of Free Educational Materials at the FTA. And consecutively a workshop at 19:30 about Building a Common Master Curriculum on Free Technologies.

Interested participants are requested to inform their participation by sending an email to [contact] [ftacademy] [org] and/or join the working group in the FTA Community Portal.

For more details about the workshop please see the FTA Campus Wiki. We look forward to meeting you!

What next for data journalism?

June 24, 2011 in Data Journalism, Events, OKCon, Open Data, Open Government Data, WG EU Open Data, WG Open Government Data, Working Groups

The following post is from Jonathan Gray, Community Coordinator at the Open Knowledge Foundation.

We’re really exciting about our session on the future of data journalism at OKCon 2011 in Berlin. The session takes place on 30th June. From the blurb:

In the past 2 years we have seen an explosion in the availability of freely reusable, machine readable data from public bodies and increasingly easy to use tools and services to analyse, represent and deliver this data. How is this data having an impact on journalism? How can journalists use data to create better reportage? What are the limits of public data sources? A panel of leading journalists and researchers present their work and tell us what they think is next for data journalism.


The session will include presentations and discussions from the following people, moderated by Christophe Dowe from the Zeit Online:

If you’re interested in open data and data driven journalism, you can sign up to the joint EJC/OKF data-driven-journalism mailing list.

Sand dunes, civil society and legal structures in the cloud

June 24, 2011 in External, Featured Project, Ideas and musings, OKCon

The following guest post is by Charles Armstrong, social scientist, entrepreneur, and Founder of the One Click Orgs project, which the OKF supports. Charles will be joining us at OKCon2011 for his talk, One Click Orgs: simple democratic organisation

Along the shoreline of the North Atlantic marram grass plays a vital role in the coastal ecosystem. Its tough root networks enable it to stabilise shifting sand dunes and create conditions where a broader ecology can start to develop. It is tempting to see the role that clubs, associations and cooperatives play in society in a similar light. They forge durable networks of trust and shared interest which bind people together and help to stabilise the ever-shifting ferment of society, laying the ground for other kinds of collaboration to flourish.

Marram Grass

Photo: Kieran Campbell. CC-BY-SA.

Civil society organisations possess two qualities which are particularly useful from this perspective. First, they are formally constituted. A loose informal collaboration is likely to have a markedly different impact from the same set of people collaborating as a constituted organisation. The process of creating an organisation propagates a fixed consciousness of shared identity and purpose which subtly alters the perspective of members and the outside world. A constitution provides a set of rules and processes which structure the collaboration and increase the members’ ability to achieve their objectives. Forming an organisation gives birth to an enduring entity which may outlive every one of its original members.

Second, civil society organisations are democratic. The vast majority are structured to be governed collectively by their members. In some cases decisions are voted on directly by all a group’s members. In other cases members elect officers or a representative committee to make day to day decisions. But either way a member who feels strongly about some aspect of what the organisation is doing has ways to control the choices that are made. The importance of these small-scale democracies is inestimable. Civil society organisations provide a setting where people can increase their literacy in democratic participation, focused on issues and decisions which directly concern them. There is no better nursery for active and effective involvement in the larger democracies of cities and nations.

A thriving ecosystem of civil society organisations has been recognised as an essential part of a healthy society since at least the eighteenth century. But it is arguably more important now than in any previous period. Throughout the rich world states are scaling back social services at the same time as local resources such as schools, shops, post offices and pubs are disappearing. In many cases the best hope of filling the gaps is for citizen groups to come together and form local organisations to take over provision of vital services. In the UK this approach is openly advocated by the government’s Big Society initiative. But the challenges facing communities trying to form effective organisations and draw in people to sustain them are formidable.

At the same time the poor world is being swept by a quite different wave of change. A growing number of authoritarian regimes are waking up to find citizen groups organising themselves to press demands for democratic reform. Many of these societies have little or no civil society infrastructure. Turning the anger and idealism of citizen uprisings into sustainable democratic fabric requires an ecosystem of civil society organisations to spring up and take root a hundred times faster than happened in Western Europe or the USA.

These circumstances throw a spotlight on the factors which inhibit the formation of civil society organisations or participation in them. Under this spotlight two barriers stand out in particular. The complexity of forming an organisation, and the effort required to sustain active involvement.

On the first point, anyone contemplating setting up a new organisation is faced with a bewildering variety of different legal structures, for each of which a multitude of different constitutions is available. Founders typically go through a crash course to educate themselves on the arcana of corporate law, contract law and charity law. The result is fewer organisations being formed and too many organisations being created with an off-the-shelf structure which fits their needs poorly.

On the second point, once an organisation is formed anyone who wants to be an active participant in shaping its direction must be prepared to attend meetings, study agendas and minutes, get their head around voting procedures and know how to table resolutions in the proper fashion. Not surprisingly this discourages an awful lot of people from getting involved, even if they strongly support a group’s objectives.

In the past little attention has been paid to these two barriers because, well, that’s just how it was. However, just at the moment a dramatic increase in new organisation formation and participation is needed most urgently, an innovation has appeared which makes it possible. The internet has already triggered revolutions in countless complex processes such as airline reservations, organising auctions and filing tax returns. Now organisational structures are being reinvented to take advantage of the internet’s capacity for instantaneous communication, automation and complex many-to-many interaction. Say hallo to the virtual organisation.

From a legal perspective virtual organisations are no different from traditional ones. They maintain all the outside characteristics of established structures such as cooperatives, corporations or partnerships. But whilst the exterior form remains the same most of what lies under the skin is re-engineered. In a virtual organisation the constitution is welded onto an electronic system which automates all the logic governing membership, board appointments, voting and constitutional amendments. One result of this automation is that processes which previously required meetings or written resolutions can now happen online with the system taking care of all the bureaucratic tedium.

The experience of participating in a virtual organisation resembles many familiar web activities. Founding an organisation is like creating an email group. Proposing a resolution is similar to posting on a forum. Voting is like responding to an online poll. Proposing an amendment to the constitution is no more complex then changing the moderation settings on a blog (triggering an automatic vote to authorise it).

Different jurisdictions vary enormously in their openness to virtual organisations. Currently two of the most favourable are the State of Vermont, which in 2008 reformed its corporation law with this specific objective, and the UK, whose 2006 Companies Act achieved the same end largely by accident. It is perhaps no coincidence that the two initiatives which have pioneered the development of virtual organisations are the Digital LLC project at Harvard University’s Berkman Centre, led by Oliver Goodenough – who happens to be Professor at Vermont Law School; and One Click Orgs, an open source project based in London (which I helped set up).

Whilst the Harvard project is working to virtualise profit-making corporations One Click Orgs has focused on the opportunities for civil society. In March 2011 the project launched a website (oneclickorgs.com) where community groups can create an unincorporated association and the tools to run it, completely free of charge. If you’re interested you can go there, right now, and set up your own association. It’s a 100% Open Service so you’re also free to reuse and adapt the code and constitutions.

The One Click Orgs platform generates a constitution which most banks will accept to open a shared account, a simple voting system for group decisions, a record of resolutions the group has passed and an official list of members who have been voted in. One Click Orgs is also working with London Hackspace to create a virtualised platform for Companies Limited by Guarantee, the UK equivalent of a non-profit corporation. Finally it has just started scouting for funders to support development of a platform for Industrial and Provident Societies, recently rebranded as Community Benefit Societies. These are the ideal structures for community groups to take on the running of local facilities and services such as post offices, shops and village halls.

From an open knowledge perspective virtual organisations are significant because they represent a radical increase in transparency around an organisation’s constitution and governance processes. Few members of traditional community associations or non-profits ever actually read their group’s constitution or think about how it could be improved. With a virtual organisation everything is visible and malleable, helping members participate effectively and increasing the chance the organisation will be able to evolve over time and continue to advance its objectives.

Virtual organisations have all kinds of other interesting implications. The time is not far away when email groups and World of Warcraft guilds will be able to incorporate themselves, sell shares and enter into contracts with each other. Approaches to investment are also liable to change dramatically as a fusion of virtual organisations and crowdfunding offers the capacity to tie investment to direct participation in decisions, potentially scaling to millions of shareholders. Eventually the governance of nation states is bound to be affected by these new possibilities, which I have explored a little in my writings on Emergent Democracy. But these speculations belong in a different article.

In the meantime I would urge anyone working to increase civil society capacity to start looking for ways to enable virtual organisations in the part of the world where they’re active. There is still a lot of work to do to update legal frameworks in more conservative jurisdictions (California is notably backward). But if that leads to a doubling or tripling of the rate at which new organisations are created, and a similar increase in levels of citizen participation, the effort will seem trivial in comparison to the benefits for society.

It is as if, just at the moment one’s village is about to be swamped by sand dunes, a new variety of marram grass is discovered which grows twenty times faster than the old stock. It’s time to get planting.

From Extra Terrestials to Open Knowledge: Open Science and Open Social Science at OKCon

June 23, 2011 in Events, OKCon, Open Science, WG Economics

The following a joint post by Francois Grey and Rufus Pollock who are co-organizing the Open Science and Open Social Science workshop at OKCon.

Remember that screensaver called SETI@home that was all the rage a decade ago? Over a million people downloaded it, so they could take part in a search for radio signals from extraterrestrials.

Well, there’s still no news from ET, but SETI@home spawned a whole host of science projects based on the idea of distributing computing tasks. And more recently, the trend has evolved towards projects that distribute tasks for human analysis – like classifying images of galaxies, in the project GalaxyZoo.

What has this got to do with Open Knowledge? That’s exactly what we’re going to find out at OKCon this year, with a first ever panel on Open Science and Social Science, looking at how volunteer computing and volunteer thinking could benefit the social sciences and economics.

Speakers will discuss projects that simulate the economic impact of malaria in Africa, track how dollar bills travel around the world, or try to digitize massive amounts of archival economics data with volunteer help.

The panel is at 11:00 on 30 June, and there’s a special Q&A session at 12:00 in a parallel workshop room.

For those who don’t just want to hear about citizen science, but want to get involved in developing new volunteer-based projects, there’s a one-day workshop on 29 June, from 10am to 6pm.

Researchers, software developers, web designers and keen citizen scientists will get together for a day of thinking, talking and hacking. The goal is to produce some plans, demos and even prototypes of new volunteer projects.

At the workshop you’ll meet and get to work with some of the leading exponents of citizen cyberscience, researchers behind projects like MalariaControl.net, LHC@Home, Epicollect and QuakeCatcher,

Avatar of admin

by admin

Open Data – Louder Voices?

June 20, 2011 in External, OKCon

The following guest post is by Michael Gurstein from the Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training in Vancouver. Micheal will be joining us at OKCon 2011 for his talk Open Data – Louder Voices?

This post follows on from earlier posts on Michael’s blog here, here, and here.

There is a great deal of celebration these days about the shift in many governmental jurisdictions towards Open Data, and there is much to celebrate in this.

However, there is also the need for some caution in how this is being approached and particularly there is the need for considerable attention to be given to making sure that the use/user perspective is not lost in the rush to design pretty apps for mobile platforms to satisfy the cravings of the information empowered for even more data and for the personal empowerment that goes along with this.

Recognizing that at least for now most Open Data initiatives are based on accessing and using this data via the Internet, here are a few notes suggesting caution:

Access

According to Internet World Statistics, only 30% of the people in the world have Internet access (10% in Africa).

Hardware

Some 20% of the world’s population owns a computer

So how many people in the world are able to directly access “open data”?

Software

500,000,000 use Microsoft Office

Can we take this as a surrogate for the number of those who are able to actively manage “open data”?

Content

While the world adult literacy rate at 83%, ranges from 63% in Africa to 99% in Europe, it is estimated that “nearly a quarter of 16 to 65-year-olds in the world’s richest countries are functionally illiterate”.

This suggests a global level of “functional literacy” (defined by the OECD as the ability to complete real-life tasks, such as reading and understand brochures, train timetables, road maps, and simple instructions for household appliances) as being below 50%.

Understanding

The average readability level of American state and federal websites is at the 11th grade, and yet half of Americans read at the eighth grade level or lower, according to this report.

An important question we therefore need to ask ourselves is what would be the proportion of those in various jurisdictions able to read/comprehend various “open data” sites/initiatives?

Use

As Tobias Escher observed in his analysis of users and usage of the WriteToThem online citizen democracy tool:

The overall demographics of these users extend the traditional biases in political participation: compared to the profile of British Internet users, WriteToThem users are twice as likely to have a higher degree and are twice as often on a higher income (more than £37,500 per year). Apart from this, WriteToThem attracts more male users and those 45 years and older, while Internet users younger than 35 are less likely to use the site. In particular, teenagers (<18 years) stay largely out of reach – they account for only one in a hundred users. … In part the reported biases mirror traditional patterns of engagement in this particular form of political participation as comparative data show that people who have contacted a politician via any means are similarly biased towards men or high-income groups. At the same time WriteToThem extends some of these already present biases, for example the overrepresentation of people with higher education and those in the 55-64 age bracket. [However] Low-income groups including the unemployed are well represented, a sign of success in reaching out to the poorer citizens and not just a side effect of a young people or student involvement.

This suggests that even for the most basic “open government” site there is a direct relationship between use and education.

Governance

No, we are not party political, and this project is neither left nor right wing. It is about building useful digital tools for anyone who wants to use them. And unlike most think tanks that say they’re non-partisan, we really are – none of that ‘It’s not official, but everybody knows they’re really close to party X’ nonsense here.

From the My Society website.

WriteToThem.com is a website that allows everyone to find out who their elected representatives are and to send them messages. These goals are to establish a dialogue between constituent and representative as well as to let representatives focus on genuine emails (and not on sorting out spam) by preventing mass emailing of copy-and-paste letters.

From Tobias Escher’s report on WriteToThem.

TheyWorkForYou is a website, launched in 2004, that provides detailed information on members of parliament (including their voting behaviour and expenses) as well as parliamentary proceedings such as debates … to allow fact checking (e.g. give access to source evidence) and make MPs feel accountable; to reward truthful MPs, to allow fair judgement of MPs on basis of what they do.

From Tobias Escher’s report on TheyWorkForYou.

To take the TheyWorkForYou.com and WriteToThem.com sites as broadly representative of (at least) an important genre of “open data/open government” initiatives, the implicit model of political behaviour that is represented here is one of an individual interacting directly with the individual representative. There is no mention of parties (whose function of course is to integrate and frame the actions of individual representatives) nor is there an opportunity for individuals to aggregate their responses to individual representatives (meet up) and thus through aggregation amplify their voices.

In the absence of this aggregation the capacity of the individual to act in any other manner than as either an individual complainer or supplicant would appear to be very small.

Equally, in the absence of linking individual actions by representatives into parties and their overall policy responsibilities there is an implicit assumption that individual representatives are in fact “accountable” for their political actions and capable of independent political action in their respective spheres.

Finally the given demographics of the users of these sites should be noted i.e. they are those who would otherwise already be influential—older, richer, more likely to be male, better educated.

So what does this all tell us?

1. The vast vast majority of people in the world and even in the most Developed Countries are unable for a variety of reasons to benefit from “open data—open government”.

  1. Attention must be paid to ensuring Internet access, computer access, literacy, readablility of websites etc. that would make “open data—open government” more accessible/usable to the general population

  2. The absence of such attention as a component of “open data—open government” means that additional opportunities for accessing and using government information is for the most part simply a means to further enable/empower those already well provided by society with the means to influence government—the educated, the well off, older persons, males. Making the already louder voices even louder.

Given the clear advantage that those with the already louder voices have in making use of facilities like TheyWorkForYou.com and WriteToThem.com, what will the net effect be of these kinds of initiatives? Certainly the opening up of information on the actions of representatives and facilitating means for communicating with representatives should extend the opportunities for democratic engagement. However, whether they do this by making democratic participation more inclusive or simply by reinforcing existing patterns of influence rooted in long-standing structures of privilege and position seems still to be an open question.

How relevant will these opportunities be in responding to the needs of the excluded and the marginalized? And overall what measures are in place to ensure that those who have otherwise been excluded are not further excluded in fact, finding their exclusion reinforced in this new data environment? How will open data and open government respond to the needs of and open up opportunities for the urban and rural poor, indigenous people in both developed and particularly in developing countries; the landless and the migrants?   Recognizing that there is a risk, is sufficient attention being given to developing and implementing measures that might ensure a balance—to facilitating the effective use of the data and networking resources that are being made available through training, design, facilitation, and where necessary direct intervention? Recognizing that in many cases it will be precisely those with the most to gain from access to open data who will have the least capability in gaining access and obtaining the means to make effective use of this data. What responsibility do those who are making the data available have in ensuring the broad and most inclusive base for not only access but the opportunity for effective use of these significant new resources—for ensuring a balance between the louder and the weaker voices.

See the OKCon programme here

You can register for OKCon here

Open design communities, entrepreneurial coalitions, and the partner state

June 16, 2011 in OKCon

This guest post is from Michel Bauwens, founder of the Foundation for Peer to Peer Alternatives. Michel will be joining us at OKCon 2011 for his talk No Open Society without Open Knowledge, no Open Knowledge without Open Infrastructures.

To understand the reality or illusion behind projects claiming to practice co-creation or co-design, one must look at the polarities of power and control that determine the context in which the co-creative processes take place, with on the one hand the communities of external collaborators, and on the other side, the corporate entities. But before tackling this issue in particular, it may be useful to see the emerging new paradigm of production that is arising out of the new participative processes.

The new Lego World virtual environment is a sharing environment

The new institutional reality could be described as follows:

THE FIRST LAYER: COLLABORATIVE PLATFORMS

At the core are the enabling collaborative socio-technological platforms, that allow knowledge workers, software developers and open design communities to collaborate on joint projects, outside of the direct control of corporate entities.

Interesting questions already arise here: who is the driving force behind the creation & development of such platforms? They can be initiated by developing communities, managed and maintained by a new type of non-profit institution (like the FLOSS Foundations), or they can be corporate platforms that have been opened up to external participants

THE SECOND LAYER: OPEN DESIGN COMMONS

Around the corporate platform is the open design community and the knowledge/software/design commons ruled by a set of licenses which determine the particular nature of the property.

Interesting questions here are: Is it a true commons license like the GPL, a sharing license like the Creative Commons where the stress is on the individual sovereignity in determining the level of sharing that is allowed; or is it a corporate license, giving very limited rights, or even with outright digital sharecropping, i.e. the expropriation of the totality of the creative output reserved for usage by the organizing corporation?

THE THIRD LAYER: ENTERPRENEURIAL COALITIONS

Around the commons are the entrepreneurial coalitions that benefit and sustain the design commons, create added value on top of it, and sell this as products or services to the market.

Important questions raised here are: how is the coalition itself organized? Do all parties have equal say, as in the Linux Foundation, or does one big party dominate, like with the Eclipse Foundation and IBM. How does the business ecology relate to the community. Is is nothing but a corporate commons?

THE FOURTH LAYER: FUNDING ECOLOGIES

In addition, there is a funding infrastructure.

What is the process governing the stream of returns from the monetized market sphere, to the commons, its community, and the infrastructure of cooperation? Do businesses support the community directly, through the foundations? Is the government or a set of public authorities involved. Are there crowdfunding mechanisms?

THE FIFTH LAYER: THE PARTNER STATE AS ORCHESTRATOR?

Finally, there is the role of public authorities and governments in orchestrating the public-private-common triad in order to benefit from the local effects of the new networked coopetition between entrepreneurial coalitions and their linked communities.

In the not so far future, wealth building or sustaining capacity will be determined to a large degree by the capacity of cities, regions and states to insert themselves within the global coopetition between different enterpreneurial coalitions (think drupal vs. joomla, but on a much larger scale).

OVERVIEW OF THE MAIN MODELS

When we look at this set interlocking triad (community – foundation – business) or quaternary structure (if public authorities are involved), we can now distinguish at least 3 main models

  • In commons centered peer production, like Linux, the community is at the core, and a real commons operate, with the community strong enough to sustain its own infrastructure, and cooperating with market players

  • In a sharing environment, where individuals share their creative endeavour, it is the corporate third party platform which monetizes the attention space, and may control the platform to a significant degree; the community does not control its own platform, but is not without power of influence, since quick and massive mobilizations are always possible.

  • In a crowdsourced environment, participant producers are even more isolated from each other, and the corporation integrates them in the value chain which they control. Since individuals are here competing for market value themselves, solidarity is more difficult to obtain, given corporate platform owners more influence

A good illustration of the various possibilities is Lego. Lego still operates as a classical producer of toys, selling to consumer; in Lego Factory, it has its crowdsourced environment, where co-designers can take a cut of the kits they succeed in selling; the new Lego World virtual environment is a sharing environment; finally, Lugnet is true commons-oriented peer production, happening outside the control of the company altogether.

Here are ten different co-creation modalities, depending on the polarity of control between peer producers and the corporate entities:

The first five are written from the point of view of corporate entities, wanting to engage with productive communities:

  1. Consumers: you make, they consume. The classic model.

  2. Self-service: you make, they go get it themselves. This is where consumers start becoming prosumers, but the parameters of the cooperation are totally set by the producing corporation. It’s really not much more than a strategy of externalization of costs. Think of ATM’s and gas stations. We could call it simple externalization.

  3. Do-it-yourself: you design, they make it themselves. One step further, pioneered by the likes of Ikea, where the consumers, re-assembles the product himself. Complex externalization of business processes.

  4. Company-based Crowdsourcing. The company organizes a value chain which lets the wider public produce the value, but under the control of the company.

  5. Co-design: you set the parameters, but you design it together For examples, see here

In the next set, the control moves towards the communities:

  1. Co-creativity: you both create cooperatively. In this stage, the corporation does not even set the parameters, the prosumer is an equal partner in the development of new products. Perhaps the industrial model of the adventure sports material makers would fit here. For examples, see here

  2. Sharing communities create the value, Web 2.0 proprietary platforms, attempt to monetize participation.

  3. Peer production proper: communities create the value, using a Commons, with assistance from corporations who attempt to create derivative streams of value. Linux is the paradigmatic example.

  4. Peer production with cooperative production: peer producers create their own vehicles for monetization. The OS Alliance is an example of this

  5. Peer production communities or sharing communities place themselves explicitely outside of the monetary economy.

You can register for OKCon 2011 here

Please create an account to get started.

Sign up to the Open Knowledge Newsletter

Get Updates