Track L Stott
Download as PPT, PDF8 likes2,208 views
The document presents two fictional business cases put forth by a public sector body for either opening or restricting access to its data. The first argues that opening data increases accountability, helps businesses and the economy, engages citizens, improves efficiency at little cost, and facilitates collaboration. The second instead prioritizes limiting transparency, asserting producers know best, charging fees, and making money the primary goal rather than public benefit. It is revealed in the end that these cases are fictional and no real agency would use such arguments against openness.
![[Citizens should
shut up and be
grateful they get
anything]
7](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tracklstott-20120316-rotterdam-businesscase-0-1-120326043429-phpapp01/85/Track-L-Stott-7-320.jpg)
Track L Stott
- 1. A Public Sector Body’s Business Case for Opening Data Andrew Stott UK Transparency Board formerly Director, data.gov.uk @dirdigeng EPSIPlatform, Rotterdam andrew.stott@dirdigeng.com 16 March 2012
- 2. Framework Business Case for Opening Data Increases accountability to our taxpayers/voters Helps businesses innovate, so the economy grows and makes the country/city richer Engages citizens in improving public services Improves our own efficiency Costs little or nothing We’ll work better with other public agencies 2
- 3. It’s a no brainer 3
- 4. A Public Sector Body’s Business Case for NOT Opening Data Andrew Stott UK Transparency Board formerly Director, data.gov.uk @dirdigeng EPSIPlatform, Rotterdam andrew.stott@dirdigeng.com 16 March 2012
- 5. The less we say the more people will trust us 5
- 6. In public services, producers know what’s best for consumers 6
- 7. [Citizens should shut up and be grateful they get anything] 7
- 8. It’s not our job to help business and civil society innovate and grow 8
- 9. We have the money, skills and time to make all the websites and mobile apps citizens would ever need 9
- 10. Indeed our website has won prizes*! 10
- 11. Indeed our website has won prizes*! *in a competition with other government websites 11
- 12. We won’t share our data with other public agencies unless they beg us for it privately 12
- 13. We won’t share our data with other public agencies unless they beg us for it privately After all, we don’t need their data 13
- 14. So we have to release something? And it benefits business? So let’s charge for it 14
- 15. A Public Sector Body’s Business Case for Charging for Data Andrew Stott UK Transparency Board formerly Director, data.gov.uk @dirdigeng EPSIPlatform, Rotterdam andrew.stott@dirdigeng.com 16 March 2012
- 16. Making money is our agency’s prime mission. 16
- 17. Making money is our agency’s prime mission. The good of the country/city and its people comes second. 17
- 18. (That’s why we joined the civil service rather than becoming bankers) 18
- 19. Intellectual Property Management is a higher priority to us than curing patients, teaching kids, catching criminals, keeping the streets clean 19
- 20. Much of the money we collect will be lost in the costs of collecting it 20
- 21. Much of the money we collect will be lost in the costs of collecting it But at least we’ll be providing jobs to lawyers and accountants 21
- 22. If only a few people buy our data, we might lose money overall 22
- 23. If only a few people buy our data, we might lose money overall But we can always sack some front line staff to pay for the lawyers 23
- 24. Eventually the Ministry of Finance will spot our “extra income”, and subtract it from our central grant 24
- 25. Eventually the Ministry of Finance will spot our “extra income”, and subtract it from our central grant We’ll be no better off, but we will have more lawyers 25
- 26. We’re happy to charge other public agencies for our data. 26
- 27. We’re happy to charge other public agencies for our data. They would not dare to charge us for their data 27
- 28. There’s no evidence that Open Data leads to economic growth 28
- 29. the fact that all the economic studies are against us just shows that they are all wrong 29
- 30. and economists are all mad anyway 30
- 31. and economists are all mad anyway especially Rufus Pollock 31
- 32. Anyway, the benefit would go to our country/city 32
- 33. Anyway, the benefit would go to our country/city Our business is not about helping them. 33
- 34. Anyway, the benefit would go to our country/city Our business is not about helping them. Our business is about helping ourselves 34
- 35. Finally 35
- 36. These business cases are fictional 36
- 37. These business cases are fictional No real public agency would ever use them 37
- 38. 38