Comments on: Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0 (draft) http://gov2.net.au Design by Ben Crothers of Catch Media Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:51:50 +1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Adriel Hampton http://gov2.net.au/about/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-5996 Adriel Hampton Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:51:12 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?page_id=1437#comment-5996 Bravo! Bravo!

]]>
By: Hugh Barnes http://gov2.net.au/about/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-5950 Hugh Barnes Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:58:57 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?page_id=1437#comment-5950 (It's still before 5pm Wednesday where I am :) Well done! It's hard for me to imagine a much better report coming out. As I read through it, I made lots of notes along the lines of "but you didn't mention …" and then, as I continued reading, this list dwindled. I have a problem with the very short period allowed for feedback on such a large, dense piece of work, so forgive me if some of the "did not mentions" I mention were in fact subsequently mentioned and I missed them. Also, I've had to read and write very quickly because I had a Friday feedback deadline in my head until I checked last night. About me, for 4.5 of the last 5 years I was in the employ of a State government (see, I'm still scared to talk about it completely openly), where my responsibility was principally resource discovery. I viewed exposing information in a harvestable way to be a major part of that. For most of that time, I never really got anywhere convincing most colleagues and superiors how important the issues you've covered are for an open democracy. Raw data! It was more about the pretty websites and showing our departments in an inscrutable light. I am now safely released from this frustration, having moved on, exasperated. I saw this e-government movement starting to blossom in other parts of the world about as I left this year. I usually bemoan the snail's pace at which change happens in government, but your initiative, against that background of years of frustration, has taken me completely off guard. Because of timing, I was unable to make a submission to your initial issues paper and have struggled to keep up since. For that I say "congratulations" (and the breadth of coverage is impressive), but personally it's been disappointing that it's all passed me by. Oh well, I'm going to try to make up for it in part here by incorporating some comments about the Taskforce I would ideally have made much much sooner. I know that's very indulgent. I think you can do better than succumb to the buzzwordism of "2.0". I'm just disappointed, and I think, though it's accepted that your outputs will date quickly, they now run the risk of sounding extra naff. I would have preferred it if the Taskforce had included more open applications in its suite of social networking tools. For example, the identi.ca microblogging service is based on an open source platform, and different instances can be created at will and federated. Of course, Twitter has the mass of users, I'm just saying you shouldn't be excluding tools which demonstrate openness. You should keep terminology neutral where possible, so more "microblogging" and less "tweeting". LinkedIn is not something that should be held up as an open community. The taskforce, as far as I know, never suggested or experimented with IRC, a hugely important way that open source project participants collaborate. It's not new, but it is effective. You shied away from suggesting that bittorrent might work well for large dataset downloads. Now onto the report itself, but I am still going to be quite general before getting specific. I <em>will</em> get there. You are absolutely correct to identify and stress the first of two dark clouds I see over this vision ever becoming a reality. Culture. Oh, how I could go on! I had several examples to illustrate just what you're up against, but perhaps I should resist for several reasons, time and self-preservation being two of them. Openness and frankness just on intranets is difficult enough. It's my opinion that politics is, though it's not intentioned to be, deeply entwined with government organisational culture (spin, self-interest, promotion of like-minded). It may very well be impossible to change culture without some kind of mass high-level transplant incorporating elected representatives. Speaking of which, my second dark cloud is delivered and championed by an elected representative with a very poor reputation in the technical community of Australia. It's the impending/threatened internet filter. It's slightly concerning that it doesn't get mentioned in this report. Others have clearly outlined why "cleanfeed" is incompatible with these reforms. Maybe a smaller third cloud is aversion of government IT departments to endorse open source as a viable option. In fact, the language around acquiring technology solutions is that of "procurement" and "vendors". The report doesn't cover the importance of URL persistence. Agencies must manage the resources they produce at stable (and preferably readable and intuitive) addresses, and persist those, because they are public assets. This doesn't mean keeping necessarily them up forever, but does mean providing meaningful and appropriate HTTP responses at their addresses "forever". It's part of being a good web citizen, but it also encourages deep linking. Particularly across agencies, this is critical for the impression of a seamless government. How many government webpages only link to other departments' pages at the homepage level. How arrogant and unprofessional! "Here, go find it yourself". In line with <a href="http://gov2.net.au/about/draftreport/#box10" rel="nofollow">recommendations around supporting the Semantic Web</a>, we need more fine-grained addressability. This means putting IDs on discrete parts of content, so that they can be addressed at that level. (Notice how I was able to do it for Semantic Web just there.) Now I'll get specific … Appendices <a href="#af" rel="nofollow">F</a> and <a href="#ag" rel="nofollow">G</a> are not in the Table of Contents. <a href="#ch9reca" rel="nofollow">Recommendation 2 – Coordinate with leadership, guidance and support</a>: Together with the proposed OIC, you would have to tell me a lot more precisely exactly how these bodies will be different to every other cross-agency "sweeping reform" towards an agenda that has been created. Most of them linger well past their welcome period. It seems to me some of the old bodies must disappear. I think this is often the problem with these reform proposals, is that they layer another level across without replacing anything. It seems to me that you must be bolder here and suggest what the new Office and cross-agency shared mandates might replace. <a href="#ch9recd" rel="nofollow">Recommendation 5 – Awards</a>: I think this is old era thinking. As the <a href="#ch63" rel="nofollow">report itself discusses elsewhere</a>, there's a reputation-based meritocracy in open source, and you should try to emulate it. In my experience, traditional awards quickly become undermined by lobbying and outside influences. <a href="#ch117" rel="nofollow">11.7: Accessibility and Web 2.0 Tools</a>: I think the Taskforce got bogged down in what is not a particularly new issue, but which possibly only needed re-emphasising. The record from the "Web 1.0" era in government has not been exemplary. There is certainly a cautionary note to make, with richer interfaces employed in information-heavy, aggregating sites. Its treatment is almost exclusively focussed on disabilities, and then overwhelmingly on vision impairment. While a huge part, this is to miss the point and even miss an opportunity. (We used to joke that when Directors-General couldn't listen to a website from their car dashboard web reader, memos would be sent, and online accessibility would become a funded priority.) As an example of broader accessibility, I couldn't perform certain functions or view some content on the Taskforce website because I disable Javascript by default. I did enable it, but it's my prerogative not to. I generally have it disabled because there are some scary things sites can do with Javascript. <a href="#ch115" rel="nofollow">11.5: Gifts of public good – Information Philanthropy</a>: I am extremely pleased to see this suggestion. Along with many others, I spend time, on and off, surveying and mapping for <a href="http://openstreetmap.org" rel="nofollow">OpenStreetMap</a>. Make no mistake, we love doing it, but many of us also do it because we enjoy building up a public asset. Some of us have been looking at creating an official non-profit foundation. Thank you in advance if you can pull this off. <a href="#ch41" rel="nofollow">4.1: What is Web 2.0?</a>: I think the whole section is a little confused. These sorts of capabilities existed before the term was quoined, it's just that there weren't quite as easy and often didn't have the critical mass of users to take off. You haven't mentioned folksonomies or syndicated feeds, which were pivotal in the initial explosion that took this name. I think <a href="http://stackoverflow.com" rel="nofollow">Stack Overflow</a> is a far better example of a problem solving community. Grammar: "producers" should be "producer's" in para #1. Punctuation: in para #5, a comma is needed after "suppliers and customers" <a href="#ch411" rel="nofollow">4.1.1: Web 2.0: the promise</a>: It would be better to say that blogs make it easier to publish, rather than "permit". "Before blogging this almost instant matching of 'talent' with circumstances could not occur.": I don't think that's strictly true, and does a modest disservice to those who have long espoused the democratising potential of the internet. <a href="#ch521" rel="nofollow">5.2.1: PSI initiatives in the UK and info-philanthropy</a>: I think <a href="http://openstreetmap.org" rel="nofollow">OpenStreetMap</a> would be an excellent addition to your examples if you need one ;) <a href="#ch53" rel="nofollow">5.3 United States</a>: The attempted definitions in the first bullet point confuse machine readable formats with machine-readable media. <a href="#ch54" rel="nofollow">5.4 New Zealand</a>: Describing APIs for InfoConnect, "implements" should be "exposes". In fact, the definition should defer to the glossary. I couldn't get the link to the <a href="http://www.blog.e.govt.nz/" rel="nofollow">In Development</a> blog to load. <a href="#ch62" rel="nofollow">6.2 The third sector and democratic engagement</a>: you need to put "really simple syndication" in title case. <a href="#ch94" rel="nofollow">9.4: Public Servants, Public, Private and Professional Practice</a>: In the last bullet of one of the lists, the phrase "cannot undermine the need act professionally, impartially, and courteously" is missing "to" before "act". <a href="#ch103" rel="nofollow">10.3 Cooperation and the relinquishment of control</a>: I assume the bulleted list before Box 13 should be preceded by a full colon (?). <a href="#ch117" rel="nofollow">11.7: Accessibility and Web 2.0 Tools</a>: "Through the use and development of Open Source systems, the government has an opportunity to contribute to improving accessibility in the wider community." needs to be explained, because it doesn't necessarily follow. "AGIMO will provide guidance on options to facilitate maximum access for people with disabilities;" As mentioned briefly, accessibility is much more than this! <a href="#ae" rel="nofollow">Appendix E: Doing Government 2.0 Ourselves</a>: You should mention tie your explanation of Twitter hashtags in with folksonomies. In the <a href="#ac" rel="nofollow">glossary</a>, many of your definitions are wrong or confused, particularly Metadata, RDF, RSS, Social Media, Syndication, XML. I don't have time to elaborate. You might get some useful pointers from http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Glossary. Flickr and delicio.us are slightly better examples of Web 2.0. This has been very rushed feedback. Thank you for the wonderful work and the opportunity to participate and comment. (It’s still before 5pm Wednesday where I am :)

Well done! It’s hard for me to imagine a much better report coming out. As I read through it, I made lots of notes along the lines of “but you didn’t mention …” and then, as I continued reading, this list dwindled. I have a problem with the very short period allowed for feedback on such a large, dense piece of work, so forgive me if some of the “did not mentions” I mention were in fact subsequently mentioned and I missed them. Also, I’ve had to read and write very quickly because I had a Friday feedback deadline in my head until I checked last night.

About me, for 4.5 of the last 5 years I was in the employ of a State government (see, I’m still scared to talk about it completely openly), where my responsibility was principally resource discovery. I viewed exposing information in a harvestable way to be a major part of that. For most of that time, I never really got anywhere convincing most colleagues and superiors how important the issues you’ve covered are for an open democracy. Raw data! It was more about the pretty websites and showing our departments in an inscrutable light. I am now safely released from this frustration, having moved on, exasperated. I saw this e-government movement starting to blossom in other parts of the world about as I left this year.

I usually bemoan the snail’s pace at which change happens in government, but your initiative, against that background of years of frustration, has taken me completely off guard. Because of timing, I was unable to make a submission to your initial issues paper and have struggled to keep up since. For that I say “congratulations” (and the breadth of coverage is impressive), but personally it’s been disappointing that it’s all passed me by. Oh well, I’m going to try to make up for it in part here by incorporating some comments about the Taskforce I would ideally have made much much sooner. I know that’s very indulgent.

I think you can do better than succumb to the buzzwordism of “2.0″. I’m just disappointed, and I think, though it’s accepted that your outputs will date quickly, they now run the risk of sounding extra naff. I would have preferred it if the Taskforce had included more open applications in its suite of social networking tools. For example, the identi.ca microblogging service is based on an open source platform, and different instances can be created at will and federated. Of course, Twitter has the mass of users, I’m just saying you shouldn’t be excluding tools which demonstrate openness. You should keep terminology neutral where possible, so more “microblogging” and less “tweeting”. LinkedIn is not something that should be held up as an open community. The taskforce, as far as I know, never suggested or experimented with IRC, a hugely important way that open source project participants collaborate. It’s not new, but it is effective. You shied away from suggesting that bittorrent might work well for large dataset downloads.

Now onto the report itself, but I am still going to be quite general before getting specific. I will get there.

You are absolutely correct to identify and stress the first of two dark clouds I see over this vision ever becoming a reality. Culture. Oh, how I could go on! I had several examples to illustrate just what you’re up against, but perhaps I should resist for several reasons, time and self-preservation being two of them. Openness and frankness just on intranets is difficult enough. It’s my opinion that politics is, though it’s not intentioned to be, deeply entwined with government organisational culture (spin, self-interest, promotion of like-minded). It may very well be impossible to change culture without some kind of mass high-level transplant incorporating elected representatives.

Speaking of which, my second dark cloud is delivered and championed by an elected representative with a very poor reputation in the technical community of Australia. It’s the impending/threatened internet filter. It’s slightly concerning that it doesn’t get mentioned in this report. Others have clearly outlined why “cleanfeed” is incompatible with these reforms.

Maybe a smaller third cloud is aversion of government IT departments to endorse open source as a viable option. In fact, the language around acquiring technology solutions is that of “procurement” and “vendors”.

The report doesn’t cover the importance of URL persistence. Agencies must manage the resources they produce at stable (and preferably readable and intuitive) addresses, and persist those, because they are public assets. This doesn’t mean keeping necessarily them up forever, but does mean providing meaningful and appropriate HTTP responses at their addresses “forever”. It’s part of being a good web citizen, but it also encourages deep linking. Particularly across agencies, this is critical for the impression of a seamless government. How many government webpages only link to other departments’ pages at the homepage level. How arrogant and unprofessional! “Here, go find it yourself”. In line with recommendations around supporting the Semantic Web, we need more fine-grained addressability. This means putting IDs on discrete parts of content, so that they can be addressed at that level. (Notice how I was able to do it for Semantic Web just there.)

Now I’ll get specific …

Appendices F and G are not in the Table of Contents.

Recommendation 2 – Coordinate with leadership, guidance and support: Together with the proposed OIC, you would have to tell me a lot more precisely exactly how these bodies will be different to every other cross-agency “sweeping reform” towards an agenda that has been created. Most of them linger well past their welcome period. It seems to me some of the old bodies must disappear. I think this is often the problem with these reform proposals, is that they layer another level across without replacing anything. It seems to me that you must be bolder here and suggest what the new Office and cross-agency shared mandates might replace.

Recommendation 5 – Awards: I think this is old era thinking. As the report itself discusses elsewhere, there’s a reputation-based meritocracy in open source, and you should try to emulate it. In my experience, traditional awards quickly become undermined by lobbying and outside influences.

11.7: Accessibility and Web 2.0 Tools: I think the Taskforce got bogged down in what is not a particularly new issue, but which possibly only needed re-emphasising. The record from the “Web 1.0″ era in government has not been exemplary. There is certainly a cautionary note to make, with richer interfaces employed in information-heavy, aggregating sites. Its treatment is almost exclusively focussed on disabilities, and then overwhelmingly on vision impairment. While a huge part, this is to miss the point and even miss an opportunity. (We used to joke that when Directors-General couldn’t listen to a website from their car dashboard web reader, memos would be sent, and online accessibility would become a funded priority.)

As an example of broader accessibility, I couldn’t perform certain functions or view some content on the Taskforce website because I disable Javascript by default. I did enable it, but it’s my prerogative not to. I generally have it disabled because there are some scary things sites can do with Javascript.

11.5: Gifts of public good – Information Philanthropy: I am extremely pleased to see this suggestion. Along with many others, I spend time, on and off, surveying and mapping for OpenStreetMap. Make no mistake, we love doing it, but many of us also do it because we enjoy building up a public asset. Some of us have been looking at creating an official non-profit foundation. Thank you in advance if you can pull this off.

4.1: What is Web 2.0?: I think the whole section is a little confused. These sorts of capabilities existed before the term was quoined, it’s just that there weren’t quite as easy and often didn’t have the critical mass of users to take off. You haven’t mentioned folksonomies or syndicated feeds, which were pivotal in the initial explosion that took this name. I think Stack Overflow is a far better example of a problem solving community.

Grammar: “producers” should be “producer’s” in para #1.

Punctuation: in para #5, a comma is needed after “suppliers and customers”

4.1.1: Web 2.0: the promise: It would be better to say that blogs make it easier to publish, rather than “permit”.

“Before blogging this almost instant matching of ‘talent’ with circumstances could not occur.”: I don’t think that’s strictly true, and does a modest disservice to those who have long espoused the democratising potential of the internet.

5.2.1: PSI initiatives in the UK and info-philanthropy: I think OpenStreetMap would be an excellent addition to your examples if you need one ;)

5.3 United States: The attempted definitions in the first bullet point confuse machine readable formats with machine-readable media.

5.4 New Zealand: Describing APIs for InfoConnect, “implements” should be “exposes”. In fact, the definition should defer to the glossary. I couldn’t get the link to the In Development blog to load.

6.2 The third sector and democratic engagement: you need to put “really simple syndication” in title case.

9.4: Public Servants, Public, Private and Professional Practice: In the last bullet of one of the lists, the phrase “cannot undermine the need act professionally, impartially, and courteously” is missing “to” before “act”.

10.3 Cooperation and the relinquishment of control: I assume the bulleted list before Box 13 should be preceded by a full colon (?).

11.7: Accessibility and Web 2.0 Tools: “Through the use and development of Open Source systems, the government has an opportunity to contribute to improving accessibility in the wider community.” needs to be explained, because it doesn’t necessarily follow.

“AGIMO will provide guidance on options to facilitate maximum access for people with disabilities;” As mentioned briefly, accessibility is much more than this!

Appendix E: Doing Government 2.0 Ourselves: You should mention tie your explanation of Twitter hashtags in with folksonomies.

In the glossary, many of your definitions are wrong or confused, particularly Metadata, RDF, RSS, Social Media, Syndication, XML. I don’t have time to elaborate. You might get some useful pointers from http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Glossary. Flickr and delicio.us are slightly better examples of Web 2.0.

This has been very rushed feedback. Thank you for the wonderful work and the opportunity to participate and comment.

]]>
By: Australien: Erklärung zu Open Government | Open Data Network http://gov2.net.au/about/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-5905 Australien: Erklärung zu Open Government | Open Data Network Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:44:39 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?page_id=1437#comment-5905 [...] mit dem Titel “Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0″ aufmerksam. Hier sind die wesentlichen Empfehlungen des [...] [...] mit dem Titel “Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0″ aufmerksam. Hier sind die wesentlichen Empfehlungen des [...]

]]>
By: Mark Diamond http://gov2.net.au/about/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-5786 Mark Diamond Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:09:46 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?page_id=1437#comment-5786 At last, all the public submissions to the Advisory Group on the <a href="http://www.dpmc.gov.au/reformgovernment" rel="nofollow">Reform of Australian Government Administration</a> appear to be up. It took about two weeks after the closing date but there are now 173 submissions from individuals, organizations and (some) Australian government departments. They make for a fascinating read. Of particular interest is the diversity of topics on which they have focused. One that was a surprise was that from the Australian Parliamentary Service, highlighting the fact that they came within the compass of the review but that they are distinct from the Australian Public Service (APS) which is the organization that most people think of in the context of government administration. At last, all the public submissions to the Advisory Group on the Reform of Australian Government Administration appear to be up. It took about two weeks after the closing date but there are now 173 submissions from individuals, organizations and (some) Australian government departments. They make for a fascinating read. Of particular interest is the diversity of topics on which they have focused. One that was a surprise was that from the Australian Parliamentary Service, highlighting the fact that they came within the compass of the review but that they are distinct from the Australian Public Service (APS) which is the organization that most people think of in the context of government administration.

]]>
By: Find, play, share « Ed Mayo’s Blog http://gov2.net.au/about/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-5611 Find, play, share « Ed Mayo’s Blog Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:41:29 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?page_id=1437#comment-5611 [...] @ 11:45 am Information is fast becoming one of the most powerful tools for social change. A new, draft report from the Australian Taskforce on public sector information (I have been a member of the reference group at distance) scans best practice internationally and [...] [...] @ 11:45 am Information is fast becoming one of the most powerful tools for social change. A new, draft report from the Australian Taskforce on public sector information (I have been a member of the reference group at distance) scans best practice internationally and [...]

]]>
By: MikeM http://gov2.net.au/about/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-5580 MikeM Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:10:36 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?page_id=1437#comment-5580 Ellen, While there are security issues involved in putting all medical records online, that practice is proven to reduce many real risks to health and life inherent in paper-based medical records systems. Reuters <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B70RV20091208" rel="nofollow">reported yesterday</a> on the Geisinger Health System: <blockquote>In his healthcare speech to Congress on September 9, President Barack Obama cited Geisinger as a possible model for national reform. Based in central Pennsylvania, a rural region once dominated by coal mining, the system has recently earned a reputation for high-quality care at a lower-than-average cost. The White House refers to it as an "island of excellence" in the nation's murky healthcare waters. And unlike other highly touted health care providers, such as the Mayo Clinic, Geisinger isn't helped by well-heeled patients flying in from, say, Dubai. In fact, Geisinger serves 2.6 million people in 42 largely rural counties. [...] At Geisinger, all parties -- patients, physicians, nurses, administrators, and the internal insurance plan -- have timely access to each patient's medical history. The system, which has cost about $100 million since it was installed in the mid-1990s, is designed to prevent duplication of procedures and improve the coordination of care. For example, the electronic system allows emergency-room doctors to peruse a patient's history, allowing them to make a better-educated judgment about whether to admit that person. By contrast, paper records are typically not available to ER staff, so they are more likely to err on the side of caution and admit a patient, adding unnecessary costs. At Geisinger, inappropriate hospital admissions have fallen by 40 percent since the system was introduced, Grant said. The electronic system also promises better care and lower costs in future by allowing doctors to be more proactive, Grant said. A rheumatologist, for example, can use the system to identify women who are at risk of osteoporosis, and then initiate preventive treatment. "We think that over time, we will see a significant reduction in the number of people who have hip fractures," Grant said. Part of the system is a facility called My Geisinger, which allows patients to email doctors, access their own medical records and make appointments. It also allows nurses like Erin Hubbert to deal with minor complaints that probably don't need the attention of a doctor or an office visit. At a Geisinger clinic, Hubbert was working at a computer terminal, instructing a patient who had used the system to notify the clinic of a case of diarrhea to drink clear fluids for 24 to 48 hours. "It's up to us to determine whether to recommend a home remedy or refer the patient to a doctor," she said. [...]</blockquote> A substantial proportion of Australians' medical records are already online, in hospitals, pathology labs, radiology clinics, general practitioners and many specialists, but there is nowhere that collects this stuff together as the Geisinger system does. The time has passed to debate whether medical records should be online. They are. The issue now is to tidy up the mess that putting many of them online has created and enable proper access to those who require it. Ellen,

While there are security issues involved in putting all medical records online, that practice is proven to reduce many real risks to health and life inherent in paper-based medical records systems.

Reuters reported yesterday on the Geisinger Health System:

In his healthcare speech to Congress on September 9, President Barack Obama cited Geisinger as a possible model for national reform. Based in central Pennsylvania, a rural region once dominated by coal mining, the system has recently earned a reputation for high-quality care at a lower-than-average cost. The White House refers to it as an “island of excellence” in the nation’s murky healthcare waters.

And unlike other highly touted health care providers, such as the Mayo Clinic, Geisinger isn’t helped by well-heeled patients flying in from, say, Dubai. In fact, Geisinger serves 2.6 million people in 42 largely rural counties. [...]

At Geisinger, all parties — patients, physicians, nurses, administrators, and the internal insurance plan — have timely access to each patient’s medical history. The system, which has cost about $100 million since it was installed in the mid-1990s, is designed to prevent duplication of procedures and improve the coordination of care.

For example, the electronic system allows emergency-room doctors to peruse a patient’s history, allowing them to make a better-educated judgment about whether to admit that person. By contrast, paper records are typically not available to ER staff, so they are more likely to err on the side of caution and admit a patient, adding unnecessary costs.

At Geisinger, inappropriate hospital admissions have fallen by 40 percent since the system was introduced, Grant said.

The electronic system also promises better care and lower costs in future by allowing doctors to be more proactive, Grant said. A rheumatologist, for example, can use the system to identify women who are at risk of osteoporosis, and then initiate preventive treatment.

“We think that over time, we will see a significant reduction in the number of people who have hip fractures,” Grant said.

Part of the system is a facility called My Geisinger, which allows patients to email doctors, access their own medical records and make appointments.

It also allows nurses like Erin Hubbert to deal with minor complaints that probably don’t need the attention of a doctor or an office visit. At a Geisinger clinic, Hubbert was working at a computer terminal, instructing a patient who had used the system to notify the clinic of a case of diarrhea to drink clear fluids for 24 to 48 hours.

“It’s up to us to determine whether to recommend a home remedy or refer the patient to a doctor,” she said. [...]

A substantial proportion of Australians’ medical records are already online, in hospitals, pathology labs, radiology clinics, general practitioners and many specialists, but there is nowhere that collects this stuff together as the Geisinger system does. The time has passed to debate whether medical records should be online. They are.

The issue now is to tidy up the mess that putting many of them online has created and enable proper access to those who require it.

]]>
By: The Government 2.0 Report | BTalk Australia | Aussie Rules | BNET http://gov2.net.au/about/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-5571 The Government 2.0 Report | BTalk Australia | Aussie Rules | BNET Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:39:31 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?page_id=1437#comment-5571 [...] (Episode 390; 18 minutes 47) I spoke to Nicholas Gruen a month ago about his work chairing the Government 2.0 Taskforce. This week they came up with their recommendations to the government, with a draft report “Getting on with Government 2.0“. [...] [...] (Episode 390; 18 minutes 47) I spoke to Nicholas Gruen a month ago about his work chairing the Government 2.0 Taskforce. This week they came up with their recommendations to the government, with a draft report “Getting on with Government 2.0“. [...]

]]>
By: P2P Foundation » Blog Archive » Declaration of Open Government by Australia http://gov2.net.au/about/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-5486 P2P Foundation » Blog Archive » Declaration of Open Government by Australia Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:44:22 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?page_id=1437#comment-5486 [...] The Australian government is emerging as one of the leaders in the sphere of open government. It has now published a draft report of the Government 2.0 Taskforce, entitled “Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0” (hmm, not quite sure about that phraseology). Here’s the central recommendation: [...] [...] The Australian government is emerging as one of the leaders in the sphere of open government. It has now published a draft report of the Government 2.0 Taskforce, entitled “Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0” (hmm, not quite sure about that phraseology). Here’s the central recommendation: [...]

]]>
By: Faruk Avdi http://gov2.net.au/about/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-5485 Faruk Avdi Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:38:04 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?page_id=1437#comment-5485 Have not read the full report as yet but an early comment is as follows. For reasons not entirely clear, governments across Australia appear to have been averse to creating and sustaining in-house capabilities that would ensure adequate technical, user experience design and business management such as is required to pursue innovative and continuous improvement of online services for community customers. One impact of this is that government agencies are prevented from professionalising a range of online service activities - from basic web publishing, through publication of software and development of innovative online information services - through to back-end configuration activities required to support government-service-specific end-user experiences. This absence of professionalisation leads to a want of product lifecycle managament - and committees rather than accountable individuals end up "owning" services (which is no ownership at all). External experts are consulted who deliver reports, and effective decisions are expected from committee members hardly literate in the subject matter domain at hand. Programs are adopted, tenders released, and the committee problem is compounded by putting individuals with little power or relevant expertise in charge of presiding over technology choices and suppliers and related activities recommended in "the report", regardless of whether the recommendations by this point make any sense. As the solutions generated by this "machine" come closer to reality n terms of implementation, politics intervenes when it is clear the results initially desired will not be met. And the whole process starts over! ... On the one hand there appears to be an underlying assumption that the "private sector knows best" and "we in the business of government are not in the business of owning lines of business to support our activities". On the other hand, government has no choice but to own, maintain and be expert in sustaining such lines of business. Building in-house knowledge and expertise in the ownership and prosecution of user experience design, build, delivery, and business management of online services would seem to be critical for delivery of effective and efficient services to the community. Such in-house capability would supplement, not replace, private sector involvement. It would enable government agencies to acquire the expertise necessary to better manage suppliers, and endow them with far greater flexibility and responsiveness when it comes to innovating in fields such as "web 2.0". This capability can only emerge with an accompanying notion of accountable business management of such services and supporting capabilities. This means abandoning Athenian committee democracy in favour of representative-style individual accountability at a multiple of levels lower than "the Minister". Government needs to be able to own lines of business and manage them as such. Plugging in, configuring and developing and yes, innovating web 2.0 applications in a timely, flexible and responsive fashion then becomes much more possible. As does supporting internal government clients, who are themselves delivering to the frontline in terms of services, thus allowing them to prosecute their important tasks (and innovate with online service) far more effectively. Have not read the full report as yet but an early comment is as follows.

For reasons not entirely clear, governments across Australia appear to have been averse to creating and sustaining in-house capabilities that would ensure adequate technical, user experience design and business management such as is required to pursue innovative and continuous improvement of online services for community customers.

One impact of this is that government agencies are prevented from professionalising a range of online service activities – from basic web publishing, through publication of software and development of innovative online information services – through to back-end configuration activities required to support government-service-specific end-user experiences.

This absence of professionalisation leads to a want of product lifecycle managament – and committees rather than accountable individuals end up “owning” services (which is no ownership at all). External experts are consulted who deliver reports, and effective decisions are expected from committee members hardly literate in the subject matter domain at hand. Programs are adopted, tenders released, and the committee problem is compounded by putting individuals with little power or relevant expertise in charge of presiding over technology choices and suppliers and related activities recommended in “the report”, regardless of whether the recommendations by this point make any sense. As the solutions generated by this “machine” come closer to reality n terms of implementation, politics intervenes when it is clear the results initially desired will not be met. And the whole process starts over! …

On the one hand there appears to be an underlying assumption that the “private sector knows best” and “we in the business of government are not in the business of owning lines of business to support our activities”. On the other hand, government has no choice but to own, maintain and be expert in sustaining such lines of business.

Building in-house knowledge and expertise in the ownership and prosecution of user experience design, build, delivery, and business management of online services would seem to be critical for delivery of effective and efficient services to the community.

Such in-house capability would supplement, not replace, private sector involvement. It would enable government agencies to acquire the expertise necessary to better manage suppliers, and endow them with far greater flexibility and responsiveness when it comes to innovating in fields such as “web 2.0″.

This capability can only emerge with an accompanying notion of accountable business management of such services and supporting capabilities. This means abandoning Athenian committee democracy in favour of representative-style individual accountability at a multiple of levels lower than “the Minister”.

Government needs to be able to own lines of business and manage them as such. Plugging in, configuring and developing and yes, innovating web 2.0 applications in a timely, flexible and responsive fashion then becomes much more possible. As does supporting internal government clients, who are themselves delivering to the frontline in terms of services, thus allowing them to prosecute their important tasks (and innovate with online service) far more effectively.

]]>
By: Ellen http://gov2.net.au/about/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-5460 Ellen Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:44:29 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?page_id=1437#comment-5460 All I care about is that any online medical record system should be completely voluntary, and patients should NOT be forced to have online records against their will. Patients should have complete control, not doctors. All I care about is that any online medical record system should be completely voluntary, and patients should NOT be forced to have online records against their will. Patients should have complete control, not doctors.

]]>