Voor iedereen die zich bezig houdt met digitale transformatie bij de overheid is Maike Klip’s weblog over service design de moeite van het volgen waard. Toegevoegd aan de feedreader. Met dank aan Alper voor de tip.

Read Klipklaar

Hi, ik ben Maike Klip en dit is mijn researchblog. Ik onderzoek hoe de digitale overheid een begripvolle verbinding kan hebben met mensen in Nederland. Als je nieuw bent op mijn blog en midden in mijn zoektocht valt, begin dan hier en ik praat je bij.

Ethics is the expression of values in actual behaviour. So when you want to do data ethics it is about practical issues, and reconsidering entrenched routines. In the past few weeks I successfully challenged some routine steps in a clients’ organisation, resulting in better and more ethical use of data. The provision of subsidies to individuals is arranged by specific regulations. The regulations describe the conditions and limitations for getting a subsidy, and specify a set of requirements when you apply for a subsidy grant. Such subsidy regulations, once agreed have legal status.

With the client we’re experimenting in making it vastly less of an effort for both requester and the client to process a request. As only then does it make sense to provide smaller sized subsidies to individual citizens. Currently there is a rather high lower limit for subsidies. Otherwise the costs of processing a request would be higher than the sum involved, and the administrative demands for the requester would be too big in comparison to the benefits received. Such a situation typically leads to low uptake of the available funding, and ineffective spending, which both make the intended impact lower (in this case reducing energy usage and CO2 emissions).

In a regular situation the drafting of regulation and then the later creation of an application form would be fully separate steps, and the form would probably blindly do what the regulations implies or demands and also introduce some overshoot out of caution.

Our approach was different. I took the regulation and lifted out all criteria that would require some sort of test, or demands that need a piece of information or data. Next, for each of those criteria and demands I marked what data would satisfy them, the different ways that data could be collected, and what role it played in the process. The final step is listing the fields needed in the form and/or those suggested by the form designers, and determining how filling those fields can be made easier for an applicant, (E.g. having pick up lists)

A representation of the steps taken / overview drawn

What this drawing of connections allows is to ask questions about the need and desirability of collecting a specific piece of data. It also allows to see what it means to change a field in a form, for how well the form complies with the regulation, or which fields and what data flows need to change when you change the regulation.

Allowing these questions to be asked, led to the realisation that several hard demands for information in the draft regulation actually play no role in determining eligibility for the subsidy involved (it was simply a holdover from another regulation that was used as template, and something that the drafters thought was ’nice to have’). As we were involved early, we could still influence the draft regulation and those original unneeded hard demands were removed just before the regulation came up for an approval vote. Now that we are designing the form it also allows us to ask whether a field is really needed, where the organisation is being overcautious about an unlikely scenario of abuse, or where it does not match an actual requirement in the regulation.

Questioning the need for specific data, showing how it would complicate the clients’ work because collecting it comes with added responsibilities, and being able to ask those questions before regulation was set in stone, allowed us to end up with a more responsible approach that simultaneously reduced the administrative hoops for both applicant and client to jump through. The more ethical approach now is also the more efficient and effective one. But only because we were there at the start. Had we asked those questions after the regulation was set, it would have increased the costs of doing the ethically better thing.

The tangible steps taken are small, but with real impact, even if that impact would likely only become manifest if we hadn’t taken those steps. Things that have less friction get noticed less. Baby steps for data ethics, therefore, but I call it a win.

It’s rather cool to see Neil adopting parts of my information strategies. Looking forward to reading more about how it plays out for him. There were several interested during last weekend’s IndieWebCamp too. Having more perspectives on this approach may help to formulate a more generic description of this process.

Liked a post by Neil MatherNeil Mather

Started with a really simple version of Ton’s infostrat and liking it already….The best part is avoiding anything that has an endless stream of fairly random (but tantalisingly, possibly interesting) stuff….. I’m feeling more intentional, less flighty of attention.

As part of the Techfestival last week, the Copenhagen 150, which this time included me, came together to write a pledge for individual technologists and makers to commit their professional lives to. A bit like a Hippocratic oath, but for creators of all tech. Following up on the Copenhagen Letter, which was a signal, a letter of intent, and the Copenhagen Catalog which provide ‘white patterns’ for tech makers, this years Tech Pledge makes it even more personal.

I pledge

  • to take responsibility for what I create.
  • to only help create things I would want my loved ones to use.
  • to pause to consider all consequences of my work, intended as well as unintended.
  • to invite and act on criticism, even when it is painful.
  • to ask for help when I am uncertain if my work serves my community.
  • to always put humans before business, and to stand up against pressure to do otherwise, even at my own risk.
  • to never tolerate design for addiction, deception or control.
  • to help others understand and discuss the power and challenges of technology.
  • to participate in the democratic process of regulating technology, even though it is difficult.
  • to fight for democracy and human rights, and to improve the institutions that protect them.
  • to work towards a more equal, inclusive and sustainable future for us all, following the United Nations global goals.
  • to always take care of what I start, and to fix what we break.

I signed the pledge. I hope you will do to. If you have questions about what this means in practical ways, I’m happy to help you translate it to your practice. A first step likely is figuring out which questions to ask of yourself at the start of something new. In the coming days I plan to blog more from my notes on Techfestival and those postings will say more about various aspects of this. You are also still welcome to sign the Copenhagen Letter, as well as individual elements of the Copenhagen Catalog.

I like this notion by Gretchen Rubin of defining an ‘adventure’ for the summer. I try to do one ‘extracurricular’ activity per quarter (e.g. 12 hacks in Q1, or how we used to do a month in another European city each year), but framing it as a seasonal adventure has a more human ring to it. Makes it an epic tale of which you are both the narrator and protagonist.

A season is 13 weeks, and that is a useful time span to plan something for. It is small enough to keep an overview and keep track, and long enough to do something meaningful even with little bits of time. I’ve been doing my own planning in 13 week periods for 6 years now, and name those 13 weeks periods by season (although they actually coincide with quarters).

With Summer almost behind us, what will be my adventure of the Fall?

Liked Reflections on My “Summer of Proust.” (Gretchen Rubin)

Every spring, on the Happier with Gretchen Rubin podcast, my sister Elizabeth and I talk about our yearly resolution to "Design your summer." This resolution was originally inspired by this passage from Robertson Davies: Every man makes his own summer. The season has no character of its own, unless one is a farmer with a professional concern for the weather. Circumstances have not allowed me to make a good summer for myself this year…My summer has been overcast by my own heaviness of spirit. I have not had any adventures, and adventures are what make a summer.