Opendata en castilla-la mancha (españa)

Los últimos treinta años han sido, muy posiblemente, los mejores de la historia de España. Esta es una opinión compartida por más del 70% de la opinión pública de nuestro país. Este tiempo se ha caracterizado por un feliz suceso: la libertad política y económica disfrutada durante el mismo ha sido, posiblemente, la mayor de toda nuestra historia.

Sin embargo, parece que esta época de bondades económicas y sociales ha llegado repentinamente a su fin. En el ámbito económico estamos instalados en una crisis de proporciones tales que no terminamos de ver ni su alcance ni su profundidad. En el ámbito político, la libertad comienza a padecer serias limitaciones e incluso retrocesos como consecuencia de la creciente invasión del poder político en la esfera individual, observándose además un desapego creciente entre la ciudadanía y las instituciones públicas.

Muchas personas han perdido las esperanzas de que haya cambios constructivos, a pesar de que tenemos las herramientas que nos brindan los medios sociales para difundir las ideas, superar el aislamiento y movilizar a millones en favor de la reforma y la renovación. Como acertadamente comentaba Daniel Innerarity en un artículo reciente “en una Sociedad del Conocimiento los Estados ya no tienen enfrente a una masa informe de inexpertos, sino a una inteligencia distribuida, una ciudadanía más exigente y una humanidad observadora, de la que forma parte un gran número de organismos internacionales que no solamente les evalúan, sino que disponen frecuentemente de más y mejor saber experto que los Estados.”

¿Cómo reconducir esta situación? La respuesta es muy complicada, tiene muchas aristas, y no hay una respuesta única. Empecemos, pues, por cambiar las cosas, una por una: nuestra mentalidad, nuestra forma de hacer las cosas, nuestra forma de ver la economía, nuestra forma de entender esta realidad que nos reta. Creo que aquí está el quid de la cuestión, en el poder transformador de la tecnología. La tecnología aplicada a los sectores tradicionales de la economía productiva, la tecnología aplicada a la educación, a la sanidad, y también la tecnología aplicada al gobierno, a las instituciones públicas, y a la forma en que ciudadanos y empresas nos relacionamos con todos ellos. Esta es, para mí, la respuesta y el punto de inflexión.

Vivimos en la Era de la Información, donde los datos ocupan un lugar prominente. Vivimos conectados. Generamos y almacenamos más datos que nunca antes en la Historia, y se estima que este crecimiento continuará su ritmo imparable de forma exponencial. Según el informe de la Fundación Telefónica acerca del estado de la Sociedad de la Información en España en 2011, el 67,1% de los españoles son internautas; el 71,4% acceden a diario a la Red, e Internet ya supone el 2,2% del PIB en España con un 75% de impacto en los sectores tradicionales de la economía. La adopción de las tecnologías (sociales, móviles, cloud) nos están permitiendo irrumpir allí donde antes no nos era posible.

Los gobiernos y las administraciones públicas no escapan a esta realidad. Empezando desde la e-administración, el 92% de los procedimientos para los ciudadanos con la Administración General del Estado ya se pueden tramitar de forma electrónica, el 82% para las empresas, ahorrando más de 3000 millones de euros al año. ¿Qué más pueden hacer las Administraciones Públicas puedan seguir siendo una fuente de ahorros y de generación de riqueza, y además, que acorte distancias entre ciudadanos e instituciones?

De nuevo, la respuesta no es única, pero una de las maneras debe ser liberando y publicando los datos que se hallan en poder de las instituciones públicas utilizando formatos digitales, estandarizados y abiertos, de manera que sigan una estructura clara que permita su comprensión y que fomente su reutilización para cualquier uso tanto para empresas como ciudadanos.

Esto es el OpenData o Datos Abiertos, el combustible de esta Nueva Era de la Información que tiene el poder de dar a la sociedad un nuevo motor económico y una nueva y activa forma de relación con los gobiernos. Esto es lo que venimos denominando como Open Government, el Gobierno Abierto que permite como nunca hasta ahora que podamos participar en la gestión de los asuntos públicos y, de una parte, tener un mayor conocimiento, información y control sobre las actuaciones de los políticos y gestores públicos y de otra, intervenir, colaborar y participar en dicha gestión, recuperando así la proximidad entre la gestión pública y los ciudadanos.

Con este ánimo y esta visión creamos en 2011 el portal de datos abiertos del Gobierno de Castilla-La Mancha, http://opendata.jccm.es Nuestro objetivo era potenciar la innovación, la creatividad y la generación de servicios de valor añadido. Dábamos así el primer paso en el camino para acercar a cada ciudadano y a cada empresa de Castilla-La Mancha los datos públicos que configuran nuestra región. Nos abríamos a la opinión de nuestros conciudadanos, para que nos ayudaran a mejorar, para centrar nuestros esfuerzos, para que nos dijeran qué datos necesitaban o qué servicios o aplicaciones les eran de interés.

Este fue el primer paso de un largo camino a recorrer. Los ciudadanos deberían reclamar estos cambios y los gobiernos deberían ser permeables a esta demanda y cambiar legislaciones y forma de trabajo que se antojan anacrónicas. Esta revolución de los datos, la conectividad y la tecnología puede llevarnos a una sociedad con una forma de relación mucho más transparente y participativa, que al mismo tiempo favorezca el surgimiento de nuevas empresas que transformen la economía y que hagan aflorar nuevas industrias, y que haga reverdecer la confianza en las instituciones públicas. ¿Imposible? ¿Utopía? No. Sólo hay que ir paso a paso.

Agustina,

Excelente

Agustina,

Excelente artículo!

Personalmente me encanta leer artículos en los que se contextualiza la apertura de datos (OpenData) con los problemas y necesidades de la ciudadanía.

Dicho de otra manera, la idea no es abrir los datos por que sí, la idea es abrirlos para fortalecer la relación entre Administración y administrados (ciudadanía) [transparencia], y para facilitar y fomentar el tejido económico, especialmente - aunque no exclusivamente - las empresas de matiz tecnológico (TIC), entre otros motivos.

Como comentas, hay mucho por hacer, pero por algo hay que empezar, me parece un buen inicio la apertura de datos.

Hay un proverbio hindú que dice que “La más larga caminata comienza con un paso.”, pues eso! :slight_smile:

Por otro lado, también es justo y necesario recordar lo mucho que ha avanzado España en los últimos 30 - 35 años, es difícil encontrar otro país que haya avanzado tanto en tan poco tiempo.

Conviene recordarlo porque parece que con la crisis económica algunos han perdido la perspectiva.

Celebro que estés por aquí.

Saludos,

MarcG

Muchas gracias por tus palabras, Marc :slight_smile:

Estoy muy de acuerdo con lo que apuntas de orientar el Opendata hacia las necesidades de la ciudadanía. Como tú escribías en un artículo aquí en Edgeriders, " las ideas no sirven de nada si no son útiles para la sociedadY no serán útiles si no mejoran la calidad de vida de los ciudadanos, que en el fondo es de lo que se trata." Chapeau por eso.

Hemos tenido 30 años de bonanza, pero ahora tenemos que despertar. Creo que aún seguimos instalados en el “esperar y ver”, en la inacción,  y hay que empujar para empezar a cambiar modelos de negocio. Y no sólo las empresas, esto atañe a la sociedad entera. Estamos asistiendo a un boom en cuanto a la adquisición y disponibilidad de tecnología y de conectividad, lo cual debería darnos a los ciudadanos un nuevo horizonte digital frente a empresas, instituciones, medios de comunicación…, y a éstos abrirles nuevas posibilidades ante nosotros. El oGov y opendata pueden contribuir en gran manera a avanzar en este sentido.

La crisis actual debería ser el entorno perfecto para que, a falta de recursos económicos, acudiéramos a esta otra materia prima de los datos para estimular el crecimiento y la apertura de nuevas vías. Pero, ay, la apertura de datos implica para algunos la pérdida de control sobre las organizaciones. Se vive mejor en la opacidad. Creo que este es el principal obstáculo a sortear.

Un abrazo! :slight_smile:

-agus.

Status quo is so comfortable

They live better in opacity. I think this is the main obstacle to overcome.’

It all comes to this, doesn’t it? Risk aversion. Fear of change.

Change of mentality. And here we go again! My brain starts to smoke.

Change of mentality

Lyne,

For my experience, “Change of mentality” is the hardest action to do in a Government.

Other issues are “only” a budget question.

“Change of mentality” isn’t a budget question, it’s a patience question, it’s a perseverance question.

it’s a very long way, in fact, it’s an unfinished way… but, I think this is the reason because I love it :slight_smile:

MarcG

The dark side of humanity

Marc, I keep thinking about this discussion (stuck in my mind).  You often speak of Integridad. My interest lies in the dichotomy of the dark and the bright. I see this as having common points with Integridad.

I really like this quote from George Bernard Shaw: “Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”

I seek to know what are the thoughts of leaders.

Photo: Marie-France Hirigoyen

These past years, as a personal interest, I documented myself about manipulators. I looked at the work of psychiatrists. Dr Marie-France Hirigoyen, a French psychiatrist specialized in bullying in the work place and harassment, describes the behavior of manipulators with great magnificient details. In what was initially a personal research, I realized that several of these behaviors can be observed among decision makers. While some may accept to change, Hirigoyen underlines that for a category of individuals in particular, there is nothing to do, nothing to expect.

HIRIGOYEN: "A person completely devoid of empathy, devoid of respect for others, that he/she considers as useful objects for their needs of power and authority. He/she needs to crush to exist. His/her victims remain fragile and malleable because of their thirst for love and recognition.

They can not stand to be wrong, do not have open and constructive discussions, they openly flout their victims, they do not hesitate to denigrate. They do it subtly, by allusions,  just as destructive, but invisible to the unsuspecting eye.

They are insensitive, without affect. In this way, they do not suffer. If they were aware of their suffering, there could be a start of something for them.

These are individuals facing megalomania as a reference. They set themselves as a standard of good and evil, a standard of truth. They are often credited with a sanctimonious air of superiority and remoteness. Even if they say nothing, others feel at fault. They point to their impeccable moral values ​​that gives a good image of themselves. They denounce human malevolence. They have a total lack of interest and empathy for others, but they want others to be interested in them. They criticize everyone, allow no questioning and no complaint. They point faults in others, as a way to avoid seeing their own faults.
They are often described as bright and attractive people. Once the fish is caught, they just keep hanging to it as they are needed. Others does not exist, others are not seen, others are not heard, others are only useful.

Their critical function is exacerbated, therefore they spend their time criticizing everything and everyone. In this way, they remain in the omnipotence. If the others are not competent, therefore they fell necessarily better than them.

The most important thing is to understand that the manipulator does not change, EVER.

You can never get from him/her any recognition, remorse, regrets, apologies. The only thing you can do is protect yourself."

And Hirigoyen concludes with this: It does not call into question the notion of humanity, it challenges our ideals. ONE IS FORCED TO ACCEPT THE DARK SIDE OF HUMANITY.

There is a bright side to Humanity. By contributing to the creation of a model of a ‘luminous man’, I am hoping that diversification in leadership models will eventually have those locked in the dark side be eliminated from political circles and governments. I do not want any dark side leaders in an open government environment. Please go away, dark side leaders! Step out!

In my twenties, I had a picture of Yoda above my bed. Star Wars had a really deep effect on me!

Too much “change”

Lyne, Marc…

We need to change. Everyone. Specially in these days. But everyone is absolutely terrified of changing. We take for granted that we change for good. And unfortunately we change for worse too.

Regardings governments or public institutions, there’s no fear: there’s panic of changing a thing. Woodrow Wilson said: “If you want to make enemies, try to change something”.

Perhaps we shouldn’t ask them to change. We should lead and ease the way, go along with them trying to walk in their shoes and hoping they’ll try to see through our eyes. Hoping for the magic to happen :slight_smile:

Quoting Marc again: “it’s a patience question, it’s a perseverance question […]  This is the reason because I love it :)”

Best regards!

Lead the way.  They may not follow immediately, but if your resolution is strong, your path is true, they will follow you.

Change is everywhere, at every second. No need to fear!

These things take time, I agree with you.

Wait for the magic to happen? Hummm… I am not a supporter of such a strategy.

There are ways to change the thoughts. It is possible to change the thoughts of an individual being.

What is the worst thing that can happen to us? Die. And we are all going to die anyway… There should be no fear in our minds. Fear destroys everything. It is the worst of all.

Any project involves changes. In fact, there are changes occuring at all the time in our lives. Nothing is immuable. An estimated 6 trillion reactions are taking place in our bodies in each cell, every second. If this stream of transformation ever stopped, our cells would fall into disorder. In order to stay alive, our body must live on the wings of change. This is how our body works, and how we survive. Why are we then afraid of change?

The new world that is being born, contains as much strife and uncertainty as the old world. Therefore, there is no reason to fear. The basic difference, in the way to deal with these global changes happening around us comes down to embracing an emerging global community or holding tight to something on the verge of becoming obsolete. To deal successfully with turbulent change, people have to envision a new life for themselves. There must be a real sincere willingness on their part to embrace change. They must take this decision. It must come from them. Otherwise, they will remain in denial. Make a conscious commitment helps to remove part of the fear. (I believe, however, that some individuals cannot make this decision because they are disconnected. This is their way to avoid suffering. As much as possible, these individuals should be removed. Yeah, they should be fired.)

Despite the instinct to contract and defend, the real need of the human being is to expand and create. A flower points to the light of the sun. It does not grow in the other direction, under the earth. The same goes for people. The individual being is far ahead of society as a whole. Every society is essentially a conservative institution. It forms a framework for personal freedom, but it should not dictate how this freedom should be used.

It is possible to transform tensions, often experienced in teams and organisations as negative, into positive initiatives. A tension is the difference between what is and what should be, it can be the cause of a solution, an improvement, an innovation. There are new methods that facilitate a way to work together, by focusing on the goals of a team project and integrating the management of tensions as an opportunities to move forward together. Based on a policy of small steps, these methods allow for dynamic creative decision-making with a faster rate of implementation. These methods of facilitation enable the recognition of the expertise of each person within a group or organisation, and create a commitment that can push teams to move faster.

In these processes lie enormous possibilities, but they are defeated if individuals cling instead to fixed attitudes. I think that these things can be explained to all employees of a government, starting with people from above. I see it as a solution to ease change within an organisation.

Small steps

Lyne,

You’re right, the best way is a policy of small steps.

Small steps that do small wins.

Small wins that do small mind changes.

So, we need to do a strategy of dissemination in order to convince to directives the need to do it.

First: Dissemination.

Second: First step…

Regards.

Utopia-like nightmare, a shallow society

To tackle the present crisis, I believe that it will take much more than a dissimination strategy. A deeper and broader response would be necessary, re-integrating elements related to the… sacred, into the economy and leadership models. It must start with a commitment from the top.

French epistemiologist Jean-Pierre Dupuy founded the Center of cognitive sciences and epistemology of the Ecole Polytechnique (AERC) in 1982. He is also a founding member of the Collegium International ethique, a political and scientific association whose mission is to “make intelligent and appropriate responses that are expected by the people of the world to face new challenges of our time.”

In his recent book, La marque du sacré (The Mark of the Sacred), published in 2010, Jean-Pierre Dupuy explains the lost relationship between the sacred and economics: “The influence of economics on modern society is consistent with the removal of the sacred. The withdrawal itself is a concomitant explosion of competition between men, and destructive passions that goes with it, as it never has happened in history. The paradox […] is the following: economic theory and political thought that it inspires here deny that there is any threat to the stability of societies and the welfare of their members. Economists once used the expression in the form of oxymoron, the “perfect competition”, to establish the denial. This approach meant that people did not actually need to meet or exchange anything else than goods, even less love for each other, to form an effective and peaceful society. This utopia-like nightmare is perhaps the price paid by society, which now lacks the protections assured by the values related to the sacred. The economy occupies a shallow place instead.

This means that we need to encourage different values. They need to be highlighted by the institution, so that they eventually become the main trendy values in the culture of this institution. It doesn’t mean that we have to start talking about God! Not at all! But stuff like listening, observing, emotional bonding with citizens and collaborators, showing that you empathize, trying to understand others, empowering others, be of service together, share wisdom together, trust, etc. These are different behaviors and values that could be encouraged, which are indeed in tune with what is considered as being from the realm of the sacred.

An environment with a diversity of values requires an intentional implementation from top leadership within the institution, for the culture to truly be one of inclusion and acceptance of new values. By moving away from monolithic to plural-values institutions, a diversity in values becomes beneficial to both the institution and its members (employees, and citizens). Diversity can bring substantial potential benefits such as better decision making and improved problem solving, greater creativity and innovation.

Mandatory ethics training

Very nice mission report! I enjoyed the statistics and quotes.

I noticed that you put, in this order:

  1. change the mentality (of government officials);

  2. change the way the government does things.

Maybe I’m wrong, but there are rarely resources planned for the “education” or training of government employees and members of parliament, as part of government initiatives related to open government and open data. Perhaps it would not be a bad thing to create an ‘open government training’.

There exists ethics classes, here in Quebec, for municipal elected officials. These are mandatory, according to the Loi sur l’éthique et la déontologie en matière municipale. 8100 Quebec municipal officials, including mayors, will be “trained” in ethics this year. The provincial government created this special training because municipalities struggle against allegations of corruption since the outbreak of scandals in the area of construction and the granting of contracts. (ref)

Euh… it’s more or less the same thing - same problems - at the provincial level…

Don’t ask me why such classes are just for municipal government, and not for the provincial and federal level. It seems to me that there would be a great need out there as well. I would really like to attend these classes, out of curiosity, to see what they teach there, what they talk about, find out about the examples they provide. But beyond content, I would pay attention, I would especially watch the reactions of the members of government.

Why not have something like the mandatory training for ethics, but instead of ethics, for open government? And why not also have open government training to inform citizens of how they can use open data portals and various platforms and other services?

Many speak about the need of a change of mentality. Here in Quebec, the Gautrin group mentioned it in July 2011. Am I the only one? I must admit that I get extremely confused when I hear this. My brain starts to run at lightning speed, without achieving any reasonable results. I try to imagine it in my head. I make an endless list of scenarios, but it is impossible to get a clear picture in my mind. What do they mean??? How will they go about doing that???

It is not enough, in my opinion, to create open data and open government experimental projects - in a little corner of a government - without involving the entire machine, all employees of the government, and all citizens, in a serious learning process. They need major coaching!

Because governments make laws on mandatory ethics training… I dream of the day when I will be able to read a law on mandatory open government training.

Fantastic!

John

Founder and

Fantastic!

JohnFounder and CEOGovernment in the Lab

Thanks John! :slight_smile:

Bien hecho!

Agustina, me encanta esta historia! He visto el sitio: todavia no hay muchos datasets (un monton de newsfeeds en RSS), sin embargo es un buen principio. Incluso hay datasets en RDF, y las estrellitas de Tim-Berners-Lee! Nosostros las utilizamos tambien en Spaghetti Open Data (mi propia historia de datos abiertos esta aqui, en inglés).

Una pregunta. Escribes “nosostros”. Trabajas para el gobierno regional de C-LM? Seria interesado a aconoscer mas de la discusion al interior y al exterior del gobierno que  resultò en esta operacion. Quien liderò la iniciativa? Cual coaliciòn habìa? Cuales opositores?

Perdona mi espanol, lo aprendì en la calle y no sobre libros… y se vee. :slight_smile:

Hola Alberto!

Gracias por tu

Hola Alberto!

Gracias por tu comentario y enhorabuena en Spaguetti Open Data! No la conocía y me ha encantado leer tu artículo, gracias! Enhorabuena también por tu español, muchísimo mejor que mi italiano o mi inglés, te lo puedo asegurar :slight_smile:

He trabajado para el gobierno de Castilla-La Mancha los dos últimos años como directora general para la Sociedad de la Información y las Telecomunicaciones. Ahora ha cambiado el gobierno, así que ya no formo parte del equipo. Sin embargo, todo el magnífico equipo de personas con el que trabajé sí que continúa, así que si estás interesado puedo ponerte en contacto con ellos.

Para mí fue un gran honor poder arrancar esta experiencia en Castilla-La Mancha. Los principales problemas con los que nos encontramos fueron las propias reticencias internas. Pero este rechazo venía dado principalmente por el desconocimiento. Les contamos a nuestros jefes y compañeros qué era opendata, qué eran los datos abiertos, cómo estos datos podían ser de utilidad para ciudadanos y empresas en CLM, y cómo gracias a ello la administración regional podía ir acercándose hacia ese modelo de oGov. Cuando empezaron a ver todo lo bueno que este proyecto podía suponer, ya contamos con su apoyo.

Un saludo! Ánimo en tu labor!!

Peleando con fantasmas

Bien entendido. Tu experiencia es coerente con mi propia (aun yo no sea dirigente de gobierno, sino hombre de sociedad civil). Hay bastante gente en las administraciones que le tengon un miedo irracionàl a los datos abiertos. En verdad, no conozco ni siquiera una sola historia de horror  con datos liberados y luego utilizados como armas contra la propia administraciòn que los liberò. Esos tipos se pelean con fantasmas.

Mientras que hay episodios de datos no abiertos que alguien periodista encontrò y publicò sobre el web, y despues los ciudadanos sì los utilizaranon contra la administraciòn que no los liberò. Por exemplo, los gastos de los integrantes del Parlamento del Reino Unido publicados por el Telegraph y despues el Guardian en forma (mas o menos) abierta en el escàndalo de los parliamentary expenses. Le decisiòn de no liberar estos datos fue un boomerang total: creò un clima horrible, con los ciudadanos sospechando de todo.

Boomerang

Very good metaphor, Alberto, the boomerang, to describe what happens when officials refuse to release information. Or refuse to do what citizens would like. It back fires straight at them. This happens very often. We would not be in the middle of a democratic crisis, if these situations were not common.

In such situations, officials lose a lot of credibility. The disastrous deterioration of the confidence of the people becomes often so considerable that it difficult to think about how to pick up the pieces from there. Citizens listen almost breathless to the things they dare to declare, shaking their heads in disappointment.

Do these officials see the damage they cause to themselves and to public institutions? To an entire system?

The ‘horrible atmosphere’ you mention, it’s pretty widespread.

Why is that?

I wonder if some of these decision makers are able to be aware of the consequences of their behaviour. Some personalities are simply unable to listen. This has been proven my many scientific researches. Their minds are locked, and nothing from the outside can get into their world. It would be a mistake to expect any form of ‘open discussions’ with such individuals, because it is against their deepest nature.

My humble opinion: it would not be sufficient to recommend to listen more. A percentage of officials will not be able to comply.

There should be something more, mechanisms to reduce the production of boomerangs. Many studies address these mechanisms, and their findings could be applied to recommandations of policy-making.