Toward Openness - O'Reilly at Civil Society 2.0

Building on the Civil Society 2.0 Initiative first introduced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the recent Tech@State Civil Society 2.0 event brought together members of the diplomatic, business, and technology communities to discuss the role of technology in ensuring that civil society organizations operate more effectively.  Among the many speakers, Web entrepreneur and “Gov 2.0” advocate Tim O’Reilly stood out in his discussion of innovation, drawing from the lessons of the Web in outlining a possible way ahead for technology in the context of civil society.

“Innovation didn’t come through traditional channels, it was people having fun”

O’Reilly’s talk emphasized that the Web developed as much from social behaviors as it did from explicit technological innovation.  Addressing an audience of government personnel, academics, and Web entrepreneurs, he noted that innovation is an unplanned result of certain conditions, namely those that create an ecosystem conducive to generativity.  In the case of technology, establishing such conditions means developing simple systems that operate within a standard set of rules and that can be easily interconnected to form something more complex, rather than vast, comprehensive systems seeking to “do it all”.  This connection and expansion will happen in unexpected ways.  He cited the case of Apache server development as an example of this, noting that the development of a simple, open framework fostered numerous innovative extensions and applications, leading to it becoming a mainstay of the web.  With an emphasis on protocols, rules, and interoperability rather than specific programs and applications, a much richer and productive ecosystem can emerge as a capability is evolved by users in new and unexpected ways.  

In addition to building blocks, common rules and protocols, these technological ecosystems emphasize the idea of data openness.  In fact, some may be more centered on data than on anything else.   Data openness, specifically on the part of the government, has led to some considerable successes and innovations in the past.  Citing the examples of the Global Positioning System or GPS (originally designed for the military, but opened to the public) and more recently, in the public transportation sector, the general transit feed specification, he suggests that sometimes the best approach is to open up data and see how it might be enhanced by existing capabilities, rather than setting out to build a new tool outright.  In these two cases, providing a single capability or data set resulted in numerous interesting and useful outcomes developed by a community.

I certainly agree with  the idea of setting the stage for innovation through the pursuit of openness and standards rather than explicit software solutions.  In fact that very topic has been addressed in a previous entry.  This topic ties closely to Yochai Benkler’s “social production” model described in his Wealth of Networks text as well.

However, there remain certain challenges in applying these models within the Civil Society 2.0 context.  One of the key points in his description of ecosystems is the notion that sometimes things will fail.  This is an important point to emphasize, but probably also the difficult to advocate, given the current framework in which programs are developed and renewed.  Within the government sphere, failure is often regarded as a death knell rather than a setback, leading to risk aversion.  As such, cultivating a natural market scenario may prove challenging, especially among partners with limited resources to invest.  

Taking this into account, one possible solution is a Civil Society 2.0 approach would hinge more on leveraging open data  to seed the development of new capabilities and useful technologies.  As was demonstrated in the above example of the general transit feed specification, it is possible for an organization (government or otherwise) to benefit from community efforts, even if all they have to offer is data.  In this sense, advocates of Civil Society 2.0 might consider following O’Reilly’s advice and emphasize data openness as a potential means of building the capacity of grassroots civil society organizations.

While not without it’s share of questions raised, I feel that O’Reilly’s talk served an important purpose, especially with in the context of the Civil Society 2.0 dialogue and for managers of programs and initiatives that aim to build capacities of partner countries.  Namely, reminding the audience just what has made The Web successful - the models of production and innovation afforded by an open approach. In keeping his talk more process centric than technology centric, he reaffirms the history of The Web while avoiding the common trap of elevating technology to the forefront of discussion.

More on Civil Society 2.0 - Diagram and White Paper
Tim O’Reilly’s presentation and a selection of videos from Tech@State can be found at their Ustream Video page