Information & Ethics Committee on March 2nd, 2011

[Melanie Ann Pustay]

There's an element of data being difficult to find, but it's more surprising that agencies have a tremendous amount of data that they just never thought to proactively put on their websites.

A lot of the gains that we've seen in implementing our open government plan have to do with making available data that used to be available only when someone specifically asked for it, or that was available piece by piece to one individual at a time. It's now available to everyone in bulk. Agencies are reporting that this has tremendously cut back on the number of requests for data that they receive.

The other beauty of having the data available in one spot like on data.gov is that we're seeing people combining data from different agencies and creating new and interesting things. It used to be that the data was held separately at each agency. By putting it all up together in a place where it's matchable, it can all be intertwined, and that's a new element of transparency that we just didn't have before.

[Pamela Wright]

Instead of people coming to our websites and finding the data, we're taking the data out to where the people are online. Social media that may seem a little lightweight take that data out there to where people are living. So you're on places like Flickr. You're out there in Twitter and it's actually bringing information to people who would never look for it, and that's an exciting next step in this process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Are you through, Mr. Calandra?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I wouldn't mind hearing the answer to the question that he had.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

I understand Professor Noveck is back with us.

Professor Noveck.

[Dr. Beth Simone Noveck]

I didn't hear the question. I just rejoined you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I think you were in the middle of an answer when we lost you.

Perhaps I'll turn it over to Mr. Siksay and he'll refresh your memory.

[Dr. Beth Simone Noveck]

Well, if you refresh my memory then I will be helpful in what you'd like to hear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Dr. Noveck, you were explaining the value for the work that was being done. I think you were using an example from the patent office and your interviewing of the folks there who were involved in this. Then we lost you. You were just getting to the good part and then we lost you.

[Dr. Beth Simone Noveck]

I know, I'm sorry. And then my brain cells were all distracted trying to figure out how to use the video-conferencing equipment.

So one of the key denouements.... You see, I build up a lot of suspense this way. The answer was that a lot of people are participating because they feel they will be recognized in the marketplace and be able to potentially get hired. They'll get a job as a result of showing what they know about a particular patent. So if there's a patent on battery storage or hard drives or whatever it may be and they can demonstrate that they have some know-how in that space, particularly a lot of students and younger people who are participating, they may get hired by the person whose application they were reviewing. Or they'll become known within that community of practice as being somebody knowledgeable.

So there are potentially real economic motivators to participating. As the archivist alluded to when Dave, Bob, and Andy did their work of developing the prototype for the Federal Register in response to the prize, I think what you see that's happened is they have become extremely popular and famous now as Dave, Bob, and Andy who have built the Federal Register. You're seeing more people like that.

There's a fellow from somewhere in New Jersey who posted something to a government forum, and that's how Health and Human Services found him and tapped him to build the new healthcare.gov site. He was an innovator, a sole entrepreneur, the type of person who never does business with the federal government.

The company that built challenge.gov for the federal government won the RFP to do that. It was a company of maybe two people when they won the RFP, and now they have a dozen people who work for them. The RFP that the government put out was a no-cost contract. The federal government didn't pay them to build challenge.gov. They wanted to do it because now they are known as the go-to people for knowing something about challenges and how to build these sites and they're getting hired by other people.

On the point you asked me earlier--is this a transitional phase, and will that always be the case over time--I think you're right, we'll see that this sort of ecosystem of open government data and innovations and jobs that are created by this will have a sort of good run, but I think we're just at the beginning of it. I can't yet see the end of it in sight, but I'm sure you're right, that over time the balance between what people are willing to do and what they want to get paid to do will change, which is why I think it's really important to keep reminding ourselves that this is ultimately about democracy and not just about business. It's about doing well by doing good, to keep getting people out there to clean up their local park or participate on patents or whatever it may be. We're ultimately doing it for a sense of belonging, and I think that is a sustainable motivation. But I think there's a lot of economic value to be extracted that we're just at the beginning of.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Siksay.

I understand you have one question, Madame Freeman.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

My question is for Ms. Noveck. In your blog of February 28, you were wondering about the economic impact of government transparency and you mentioned that you were going to talk about this to our committee today.

You have briefly touched on it, but I would really like you to expand on the economic aspect. We know very well that government transparency also leads to a healthy democratic life, public participation and data...

But, if you had to convince the government about the economic aspect, what would you say?

[Dr. Beth Simone Noveck]

Let me come back to something I mentioned earlier, which is to say first and foremost that I think we have a lot of work to do to marshal those arguments in a succinct and comprehensive way. And that's where I'm very excited about the work that the folks at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are doing to make the case much more systematically in collaboration with the academic community, to put numbers on how much value is being generated by the work they're doing to create transparency. That has not been done yet across the board, which is why what you're hearing from us are stories and anecdotes of how this is unfolding.

This work is all extraordinarily new. But I think the stories that I would tell would be not only about the tales from government but also about work that's happened and the surprising developments that we've seen in the technology community, that one never would have expected the kinds of collaborations you see that are generating real business value through the development of things like the Linux operating system and other open-source tools that are, through collaboration, engendering real economic value, the development, again, of open collaboration and peer production and open innovation in businesses.

There are countless case studies now that are beginning to come out of places like Harvard Business School that are identifying the real value and wealth that's being generated by companies that are collaborating with their customers to develop better products or improve their customer service. So there is good data in the private sector, and we're beginning to gather it in the public sector, but really just at the beginning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm going to cut you off, Madame Freeman. It is close to 5:30.

First of all, I'm going to thank all of you for testifying before the committee today. Your evidence was extremely helpful. You're probably a couple of years ahead of this country in the whole open government initiative, and you brought personal experiences and a lot of wisdom to the discussion. That has been very helpful to the committee.

I'm going to ask if you have any brief closing remarks you want to leave with the committee, after which I will adjourn the meeting.

Perhaps we'll start with Mr. Ferriero.

[David Ferriero]

I would close by answering the question that Carole Freeman asked earlier about international activities. I want to remind you all that there is a group of international archivists who meet regularly. We met in Oslo last November, and I was on a panel with your archivist, and the archivists of Russia, Japan, China, and the United Kingdom, talking about open government activities. This is a conversation that's going on at various levels of governments around the world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Pustay.

[Melanie Ann Pustay]

I would say don't be discouraged. You can begin in small ways or large ways, but the point is there are dramatic results just by trying to be more open and sending the message that it's possible to be more open. Once you get started down the path it has a cascading effect, and I think you'll find you're happy with the outcome.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Finally, Professor Noveck, do you have any concluding comments?

[Dr. Beth Simone Noveck]

Thank you again for having me.

As a part answer to the last question, I think the real intersection between the cost savings agenda and the democratization agenda is the opportunity to create new processes for collaboration, by government working with the public, that will allow us to identify strategies for doing more with less: solving problems more effectively through collaboration at lower cost, but also through greater democratization and collaboration.

I want to echo what Melanie said. You can do it. We're only two years into this in the U.S., and we have made tremendous progress. Two years in government time is really nothing. You're going to do it faster than we did it and better than we did it, and we welcome opportunities for collaboration and partnership in that conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I hope you're right with regard to that last comment.

Again, I want to thank you very much. Your testimony has been extremely helpful.

It is 5:30, and I will now adjourn the meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.