Seeing another UK friend as a sideline in an exchange mention implementing their ‘exit strategy’ from the UK. Relocating business, house put up for sale, looking for a school for their kids in the EU27, etc.
Dutch Provinces publish open data, but it always looks like it is mostly geo-data, and hardly anything else. When talking to provinces I also get the feeling they struggle to think of data that isn’t of a geographic nature. That isn’t very surprising, a lot of the public tasks carried out by provinces have to do with spatial planning, nature and environment, and geographic data is a key tool for them. But now that we are aiding several provinces with extending their data provision, I wanted to find out in more detail.
My colleague Niene took the API of the Dutch national open data portal for a spin, and made a list of all datasets listed as stemming from a province.
I took that list and zoomed in on various aspects.
At first glance there are strong differences between the provinces: some publish a lot, others hardly anything. The Province of Utrecht publishes everything twice to the national data portal, once through the national geo-register, once through their own dataplatform. The graph below has been corrected for it.
What explains those differences? And what is the nature of the published datasets?
Geo-data is dominant
First I made a distinction between data that stems from the national geo-register to which all provinces publish, and data that stems from another source (either regional dataplatforms, or for instance direct publication through the national open data portal). The NGR is theoretically the place where all provinces share geo-data with other government entities, part of which is then marked as publicly available. In practice the numbers suggest Provinces roughly publish to the NGR in the same proportions as the graph above (meaning that of what they publish in the NGR they mark about the same percentage as open data)
- Of the over 3000 datasets that are published by provinces as open data in the national open data portal, only 48 don’t come from the national geo-register. This is about 1.5%.
- Of the 12 provinces, 4 do not publish anything outside the NGR: Noord-Brabant, Zeeland, Flevoland, Overijssel.
Drenthe stands out in terms of numbers of geo-data sets published, over 900. A closer look at their list shows that they publish more historic data, and that they seem to be more complete (more of what they share in the NGR is marked for open data apparantly.) The average is between 200-300, with provinces like Zuid-Holland, Noord-Holland, Gelderland, Utrecht, Groningen, and Fryslan in that range. Overijssel, like Drenthe publishes more, though less than Drenthe at about 500. This seems to be the result of a direct connection to the NGR from their regional geo-portal, and thus publishing by default. Overijssel deliberately does not publish historic data explaining some of the difference with Drenthe. (When something is updated in Overijssel the previous version is automatically removed. This clashes with open data good practice, but is currently hard to fix in their processes.)
If it isn’t geo, it hardly exists
Of the mere 48 data sets outside the NGR, just 22 (46%) are not geo-related. Overall this means that less than 1% of all open data provinces publish is not geo-data.
Of those 22, exactly half are published by Zuid-Holland alone. They for instance publish several photo-archives, a subsidy register, politician’s expenses, and formal decisions.
Fryslan is the only province publishing an inventory of their data holdings, which is 1 of their only 3 non geo-data sets.
Gelderland stands out as the single province that publishes all their geo data through the NGR, hinting at a neatly organised process. Their non-NGR open data is also all non-geo (as it should be). They publish 27% of all open non-geo data by provinces, together with Zuid-Holland account for 77% of it all.
Taking these numbers and comparing them to inventories like the one Fryslan publishes (which we made for them in 2016), and the one for Noord-Holland (which we did in 2013), the dominance of geo-data is not surprising in itself. Roughly 80% of data provinces hold is geo related. Just about a fifth to a quarter of this geo-data (15%-20% of the total) is on average published at the moment, yet it makes up over 99% of all provincial open data published. This lopsidedness means that hardly anything on the inner workings of a province, the effectivity of policy implementation etc. is available as open data.
Where the opportunities are
To improve both on the volume and on the breadth of scope of the data provinces publish, two courses of action stand open.
First, extending the availability of geo-data provinces hold. Most provinces will have a clear process for this, and it should therefore be relatively easy to do. It should therefore be possible for most provinces to get to where Drenthe currently is.
Second, take a much closer look at the in-house data that is not geo-related. About 20% of dataholdings fall in this category, and based on the inventories we did, some 90% of that should be publishable, maybe after some aggregation or other adaptations.
The lack of an inventory is an obstacle here, but existing inventories should at least be able to point the other provinces in the right direction.
Make the provision of provincial open geodata complete, embrace its dominance and automate it with proper data governance. Focus your energy on publishing ‘the rest’ where all the data on the inner workings of the province is. Provinces perpetually complain nobody is aware of what they are doing and their role in Dutch governance. Make it visible, publish your data. Stop making yourself invisible behind a stack of maps only.
I’m usually happy to speak at events. Yet, two weeks notice for an event in South-Africa is too short. So had to say no, not in the least because it coincides with our own event. I did accept a speaking invitation received before the summer, at an event taking place in Serbia in September, for the Association of European Regions.
At Fondation Francois Schneider, Wattwiller, summer 2018
A’Lo Pianos Geoffroy Meyer, Colmar, summer 2018
Seeing Smart Stuff that Matters. (In related news, I went out for a new electric toothbrush today, and upon returning home with I unexpectedly found it has bluetooth connectivity…..)we already contemplated ourselves, I followed his lead this afternoon. Now we have a wifi/camera doorbell that also keeps the original one ringing when pressed, which pops up on our phones and computers. Only glitch during set-up was that this US device isn’t accustomed to the EU wifi channel range at 2.4GHZ (EU has a channel 12 and 13), so I had to briefly switch my router from auto-selecting a channel to one below 11, before updating the doorbell’s firmware to deal with EU standards. As Peter says, we can discuss these devices in more detail during our upcoming event
Me, attaching the door cam while having the camera running
That back-to-the-80s Nintendo console is also the perfect thing to help entertain the younger people joining us at the SSTM18 bbq party, end of this month. (I first played on an Atari VCS, first released in 1977)
This seems a worthwile distinction, that Russell Davies makes in his blog: often it is not people being risk averse, but surprise averse. Although I’d add that in complex (and chaotic) environments surprises are to be expected, and having a practice for detecting and dealing with surprises is needed. I like the reframing though.
In Mulhouse, summer 2018
In Mulhouse, summer 2018
We’re just over 3 weeks away from our 31 August event, the Smart Stuff That Matters unconference (#stm18).
With our summer hiatus nearing its end, I built a (still growing) list of currently registered participants. It’s a very nice mix of different backgrounds, ages, origins and interests. Some have been to our very first birthday unconference 10 years ago, others only recently became part of our personal or professional networks. Some live almost next door, some live half a world away. All have interesting stories to share, so if you haven’t registered yet but would like to come, do let me know, and bring your curiosity.
We’re now at some 30 people attending, from half a dozen countries or so. Likely we’ll end up closer to 50 participants for the unconference. Check out the list, and click some links to get a feeling for who’s coming.