Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
recipients and to focus on bettering integrative outcomes rather than a myriad of
reporting requirements. Greater collaboration both within and among organiza-
tional units is thus called for by the Commission, and a precursor to such col-
laboration is dialogue and information sharing. The Commission thus calls for
the creation of a new working group of government bodies and the Information
and Privacy Commissioner to examine and address barriers to information shar-
ing, identified as an enabler to fostering specific community pilot initiatives for
alternative delivery mechanisms (more in keeping with the language and principles
of codesign and codelivery). This sort of dialogue is critically important because
privacy is frequently invoked by public servants as a barrier to exchanging informa-
tion and resources, also an analogous and wider point for tension for the evolution
of e-government and integrated and online service delivery (Roy, 2013, 2014a).
Here is where social assistance and service delivery (of the sort led by
ServiceOntario) are destined to be increasingly enjoined, with tremendous potential
for mobile devices and electronic service channels to facilitate greater self-service
options that can translate into platforms for the sort of participatory governance
models sought by the Review Commission. Indeed, the Ontario Government is
already undertaking similarly likeminded steps with small businesses, in trying
to better engage the small business community in a dialogue on how to improve
the regulatory environment for creating and growing commercial ventures.
Nevertheless, such logic, despite the calls of the Review Commission, has yet to
find resonance within apparatus of social assistance delivery.
Shifting to a more participatory and citizen-centric mindset within the social
assistance governance apparatus is a laudable and well-justified objective put forth
by the Review Commission, albeit one done so without recognition of the poten-
tial of Gov 2.0-stylized platforms and tools in enabling such a shift. Part of the
challenge here is a disconnect between the scope of the Commission's efforts, as
well as a separate and more encompassing framework for digital and mobile gov-
ernment reforms (akin to the previously mentioned British and Danish examples
and the State of Victoria Action Plan for that government as a whole). Despite the
participatory overtones to all three Ontario initiatives examined in this chapter,
the Review Commission reflects distinct and engrained boundaries rather than
synergistic thinking.
11.5.3 Transparency
Greater transparency and openness are central to the Gov 2.0 project, a sentiment
embraced by the State of Victoria in their Action Plan: “making government more
open and transparent through the release of public sector data and information.”
Ontario has followed many other governments at all levels in Canada in embracing
open data strategies, and as noted previously in this chapter, the Premier has sought
further reforms to enlarge the open government concept in a manner echoed by
many jurisdictions across the country (Roy, 2013, 2014a).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search