1.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
ICT
Seventh
Framework
Programme
(ICT
FP7)
Grant
Agreement
No:
288828
Bridging
Communities
for
Next
Generation
Policy-­‐Making
Towards
Policy-­‐making
2.0:
The
International
Research
Roadmap
on
ICT
for
Governance
and
Policy
Modelling
Internal
Deliverable
Form
Project
Reference
No.
ICT
FP7
288828
Deliverable
No.
D2.2.2
Relevant
Workpackage:
WP2
Nature:
Report
Dissemination
Level:
Public
Document
version:
FINAL
1.0
Date:
12/09/2013
Authors:
David
Osimo
&
Francesco
Mureddu
(T4I2),
Riccardo
Onori
&
Stefano
Armenia
(CATTID),
Gianluca
Carlo
Misuraca
(IPTS)
Reviewers:
Eva
Jaho
(ATC),
Andrea
Bassi
(MI)
Document
description:
This
deliverable
describes
the
final
version
of
the
new
International
Research
Roadmap
on
ICT
Tools
for
Governance
and
Policy

2.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
Modelling
History
Version
Date
Reason
Revised
by
1.0
30/06/2013
1st
draft
T4I2
2.0
12/07/2013
2nd
draft
sent
for
peer
T4I2
review
26/07/2013
Peer
review
feedback
3.0
09/08/2013
3rd
draft
sent
for
final
T4I2
confirmation
06/09/2013
Partners’
approval
1.0
12/09/2013
Final
version
sent
to
ATC
the
PO
and
reviewers
and
ATC,
MI
ATC,
DIAG,
IPTS,
MI
W3C,
2
|
P a g e

3.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 5
1.
BACKGROUND:
WHY
A
ROADMAP?........................................................................................................ 8
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
The
rationale
of
the
roadmap:
what
is
the
problem? ............................................................................. 8
An
open
and
recursive
methodology ...................................................................................................... 9
Scope
and
definition.............................................................................................................................. 16
Policy:
Between
politics
and
services .................................................................................................... 19
2.
NOT
JUST
ANOTHER
HYPE:
THE
DEMAND
SIDE
OF
POLICY-­‐MAKING
2.0 ................................................ 20
2.1.
The
typical
tasks
of
policy-­‐makers:
the
policy
cycle .............................................................................. 21
2.2.
The
traditional
tools
of
policy-­‐making................................................................................................... 22
2.3.
The
key
challenges
of
policy-­‐makers ..................................................................................................... 23
2.3.1.
Detect
and
understand
problems
before
they
become
unsolvable............................................... 24
2.3.2.
Generate
high
involvement
of
citizens
in
policy-­‐making................................................................ 24
2.3.3.
Identify
“good
ideas”
and
innovative
solutions
to
long-­‐standing
problems .................................. 24
2.3.4.
Reduce
uncertainty
on
the
possible
impacts
of
policies ................................................................ 25
2.3.5.
Ensure
long
-­‐
term
thinking ............................................................................................................ 27
2.3.6.
Encourage
behavioural
change
and
uptake ................................................................................... 27
2.3.7.
Manage
crisis
and
the
“unknown
unknown” ................................................................................. 27
2.3.8.
Moving
from
conversations
to
action ............................................................................................ 28
2.3.9.
Detect
non-­‐compliance
and
mis-­‐spending
through
better
transparency ...................................... 28
2.3.10.
Understand
the
impact
of
policies ............................................................................................... 29
2.4.
When
policy-­‐making
2.0
becomes
a
reality:
a
tentative
vision
for
2030............................................... 29
2.4.1.
Agenda
setting
phase:
recognizing
the
problem ............................................................................ 29
2.4.2.
Policy
design ................................................................................................................................... 30
2.4.3.
Implementation.............................................................................................................................. 31
2.4.4.
Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 31
2.5.
The
key
challenges
for
policy
makers
and
the
corresponding
phases
in
the
policy
cycle ..................... 32
3.
THE
SUPPLY
SIDE:
CURRENT
STATUS
AND
THE
RESEARCH
CHALLENGES................................................ 33
3.1.
Policy
Modelling .................................................................................................................................... 33
3.1.1.
Systems
of
Atomized
Models ......................................................................................................... 33
3.1.2.
Collaborative
Modelling ................................................................................................................. 42
3.1.3.
Easy
Access
to
Information
and
Knowledge
Creation .................................................................... 53
3.1.4.
Model
Validation ............................................................................................................................ 56
3.1.5.
Immersive
Simulation..................................................................................................................... 59
3.1.6.
Output
Analysis
and
Knowledge
Synthesis..................................................................................... 61
3.2.
Data-­‐powered
Collaborative
Governance ............................................................................................. 64
3.2.1.
Big
Data .......................................................................................................................................... 64
3.2.2.
Opinion
Mining
and
Sentiment
Analysis......................................................................................... 78
3.2.3.
Visual
Analytics
for
collaborative
governance:
the
opportunities
and
the
research
challenges.... 85
3.2.4.
Serious
Gaming
for
Behavioural
Change ........................................................................................ 98
3.2.5.
Linked
Open
Government
Data .................................................................................................... 103
3.2.6.
Collaborative
Governance ............................................................................................................ 109
3.2.7.
Participatory
Sensing .................................................................................................................... 113
3.2.8.
Identity
Management................................................................................................................... 117
3.2.9.
Global
Systems
Science ................................................................................................................ 120
4.
THE
CASE
FOR
POLICY-­‐MAKING
2.0:
EVALUATING
THE
IMPACT .......................................................... 127
4.1.
Cross
analysis
of
case
studies .............................................................................................................. 127
4.1.1.
Global
Epidemic
and
Mobility
Model ........................................................................................... 128
Impact
of
Gleam ......................................................................................................................................... 128
4.1.2.
UrbanSim ...................................................................................................................................... 129
3
|
P a g e

4.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
4.1.3.
Opinion
Space............................................................................................................................... 130
4.1.4.
2050
Pathways
Analysis................................................................................................................ 132
4.1.5.
Cross
analysis
of
the
case
studies................................................................................................. 134
4.2.
Survey
of
Users’
needs
results............................................................................................................. 136
4.3.
Analysis
of
the
prize
winners............................................................................................................... 139
4.4.
Lessons
learnt
from
cases
and
prize.................................................................................................... 143
4.5.
An
additional
research
challenge:
counterfactual
impact
evaluation
of
Policy
Making
2.0................ 144
5.
CONCLUSIONS:
POLICY-­‐MAKING
2.0
BETWEEN
HYPE
AND
REALITY .................................................... 149
6.
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 153
7.
LIST
OF
ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................ 157
LIST
OF
FIGURES
Figure
1:
the
fragmentation
of
policy-­‐making
2.0.................................................................................................. 8
Figure
2
Outline
of
the
participatory
process ...................................................................................................... 10
Figure
3:
Policy
Cycle
and
Related
Activities ........................................................................................................ 22
Figure
4:
Total
Disasters
Reported ...................................................................................................................... 28
Figure
5:
Agricultural
Production
and
Externalities
Simulator
(APES) ............................................................... 36
Figure
6:
Conversational
Modelling
Interface .................................................................................................... 45
Figure
7:
the
PADGET
Framework ....................................................................................................................... 46
Figure
8:
the
Time-­‐Space
Matrix ......................................................................................................................... 49
Figure
9:
COMA,
COllaborative
Modelling
Architecture .................................................................................... 50
Figure
10:
OCOPOMO
eParticipation
Platform................................................................................................... 51
Figure
11:
Twitrratr.............................................................................................................................................. 81
Figure
12:
Wordclouds......................................................................................................................................... 82
Figure
13:
UserVoice............................................................................................................................................ 82
Figure
14
Open
Data
Business
Model
(source:
Istituto
Superiore
Mario
Boella) .............................................. 106
Figure
15
-­‐LOD
providers
and
their
linkages ...................................................................................................... 107
Figure
16
Rating
other
opinions'
in
Opinion
Space ............................................................................................ 131
Figure
17
Playing
the
My2050
game
for
the
demand
side................................................................................. 133
Figure
18
Adoption
of
ICT
Tools
and
Methodologies
for
policy-­‐making
(source:
CROSSOVER
Survey
of
Users’
Needs
2012) ....................................................................................................................................................... 137
Figure
19
Needs
and
Challenges
in
the
Policy
Making
Process
(source:
CROSSOVER
Survey
of
Users’
Needs
2012) .................................................................................................................................................................. 138
Figure
20:
a
proposed
evaluation
framework
for
policy-­‐making
2.0 ................................................................. 144
Figure
21:
Relation
Between
Policy-­‐Making
Needs
and
Research
Challenges................................................... 149
4
|
P a g e

5.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
Executive
Summary
This
deliverable
introduces
and
describes
the
interim
version
of
the
new
International
Research
Roadmap
on
ICT
tools
for
Governance
and
Policy
Modelling,
renamed
by
the
project
team
as
“Policy-­‐
Making
2.0”,
one
of
the
core
outputs
of
the
Crossover
project,
which
is
developed
under
WP2
Content
Production.
The
roadmap
aims
to
establish
the
scientific
and
political
basis
for
long-­‐lasting
interest
and
commitment
to
next
generation
policy-­‐making
by
researchers
and
policy-­‐makers.
In
doing
so,
it
contains
an
analysis
of
what
technologies
are
currently
available,
for
what
concrete
purposes,
and
what
could
become
available
in
the
future.
The
main
rationale
for
such
a
document
is
the
current
fragmentation
of
the
landscape
between
different
stakeholders,
disciplines,
policy
domains
and
geographical
areas.
The
document
is
the
result
of
a
highly
participative
process
undergone
between
the
first
draft
and
the
final
roadmap,
with
the
involvement
of
hundreds
of
people
through
11
different
input
methods,
from
live
workshops
to
online
discussion.
5
|
P a g e

6.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
After
a
brief
introduction
of
the
background,
the
document
analyses
the
demand
side:
the
current
status
of
policy-­‐making,
with
the
key
tasks
(illustrated
by
the
traditional
policy
cycle)
and
existing
challenges:
a. Detect
and
understand
problems
before
they
become
unsolvable
b. Generate
high
involvement
of
citizens
in
policy-­‐making
c. Identify
“good
ideas”
and
innovative
solutions
to
long-­‐standing
problems
d. Reduce
uncertainty
on
the
possible
impacts
of
policies
e. Ensure
long
-­‐
term
thinking
f. Encourage
behavioural
change
and
uptake
g. Manage
crisis
and
the
“unknown
unknown”
h. Moving
from
conversations
to
action
i. Detect
non-­‐compliance
and
mis-­‐spending
through
better
transparency
j. Understand
the
impact
of
policies
It
then
presents
a
concrete
tentative
vision
of
how
policy-­‐making
could
look
in
2030,
if
these
challenges
were
overcome.
Section
3
represents
the
core
of
the
roadmap
and
presents
the
key
research
challenges
to
be
addressed
to
achieve
this
vision,
updating
the
original
version
based
on
the
input
of
the
consultation.
For
each
research
challenge,
it
presents
the
current
status,
the
existing
gaps,
and
short
and
long
term
research
perspectives.
The
key
research
challenges
are:
1. Policy
Modelling
1.1. Systems
of
Atomized
Models
1.2. Collaborative
Modelling
1.3. Easy
Access
to
Information
and
Knowledge
Creation
1.4. Model
Validation
1.5. Immersive
Simulation
1.6. Output
Analysis
and
Knowledge
Synthesis
2. Data-­‐powered
Collaborative
Governance
2.1. Big
Data
2.2. Opinion
Mining
and
Sentiment
Analysis
2.3. Visual
Analytics
for
collaborative
governance:
the
opportunities
and
the
research
challenges
2.4. Serious
Gaming
for
Behavioural
Change
2.5. Linked
Open
Government
Data
2.6. Collaborative
Governance
2.7. Participatory
Sensing
2.8. Identity
Management
2.9. Global
Systems
Science
But
to
what
extent
policy-­‐making
2.0
can
be
said
to
genuinely
improve
policy-­‐making?
Section
4
looks
at
the
available
evidence
about
the
impact
of
policy-­‐making
2.0,
across
case
studies,
the
survey
and
the
prize.
As
it
emerges
that
no
robust
impact
evaluation
is
available,
we
propose
an
additional
6
|
P a g e

7.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
research
challenge
on
impact
evaluation
of
policy-­‐making
accompanied
by
a
proposed
evaluation
framework.
Finally,
we
summarize
the
findings
of
the
document
bringing
together
the
different
sections,
suggesting
that
policy-­‐making
2.0
cannot
be
considered
the
panacea
for
all
issues
related
to
bad
public
policies,
but
that
at
the
same
time
it
is
more
than
just
a
neutral
set
of
disparate
tools.
It
provides
an
integrated
and
mutually
reinforcing
set
of
methods
that
share
a
similar
vision
of
policy-­‐
making
and
that
should
be
addressed
in
an
integrated
and
strategic
way;
and
it
provides
opportunities
to
improve
the
checks
and
balances
systems
behind
decision
making
in
government,
and
as
such
it
should
be
further
pursued.
and
as
such
it
should
be
further
pursued.
7
|
P a g e

8.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
1.
BACKGROUND:
WHY
A
ROADMAP?
1.1.
The
rationale
of
the
roadmap:
what
is
the
problem?
The
CROSSOVER
project
aims
to
consolidate
and
expand
the
existing
community
on
ICT
for
Governance
and
Policy
Modelling
(built
largely
within
FP7)
by:
-­‐
Bringing
together
and
reinforcing
the
links
between
the
different
global
communities
of
researchers
and
experts:
it
will
create
directories
of
experts
and
solutions,
and
animate
knowledge
exchange
across
communities
of
practice
both
offline
and
online;
-­‐
Reaching
out
and
raising
the
awareness
of
non-­‐experts
and
potential
users,
with
special
regard
to
high-­‐level
policy-­‐makers
and
policy
advisors:
it
will
produce
multimedia
content,
a
practical
handbook
and
high-­‐level
policy
conferences
with
competition
for
prizes;
-­‐
Establishing
the
scientific
and
political
basis
for
long-­‐lasting
interest
and
commitment
to
next
generation
policy-­‐making,
beyond
the
mere
availability
of
FP7
funding:
it
will
focus
on
use
cases
and
a
demand-­‐driven
approach,
involving
policy-­‐makers
and
advisors.
The
CROSSOVER
project
pursues
this
goal
through
a
combination
of
content
production,
ad
hoc
and
well-­‐designed
online
and
offline
animation;
as
well
as
strong
links
with
existing
communities
outside
the
CROSSOVER
project
and
outside
the
realm
of
e-­‐Government.
The
present
deliverable
is
one
of
the
core
outputs
of
the
project:
the
International
Research
Roadmap
on
ICT
Tools
for
Governance
and
Policy
Modelling.
It
aims
to
create
a
common
platform
between
actors
fragmented
in
different
disciplines,
policy
domains,
organisations
and
geographical
areas,
as
illustrated
in
the
figure
below.
Figure
1:
the
fragmentation
of
policy-­‐making
2.0
But
most
of
all,
it
aims
to
provide
a
clear
outline
of
what
technologies
are
available
now
for
policy-­‐
makers
to
improve
their
work,
and
what
could
become
available
tomorrow.
8
|
P a g e

9.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
CROSSOVER
builds
on
the
results
of
the
CROSSROAD
project1,
which
elaborated
a
research
roadmap
on
the
same
topic
along
the
whole
of
2010.
With
respect
to
the
previous
roadmap,
this
document
is
firstly
a
revised
and
updated
version.
Beside
this,
it
contains
some
fundamental
novelties:
-­‐ A
demand-­‐driven
approach:
rather
than
focussing
on
the
technology,
the
present
roadmap
starts
from
the
needs
and
the
activities
of
policy-­‐making
and
then
links
the
research
challenges
to
them.
-­‐ An
additional
emphasis
on
cases
and
applications:
for
each
research
challenge,
we
indicate
relevant
cases
and
practical
solutions
-­‐ A
clearer
thematic
focus
on
ICT
for
Governance
and
Policy-­‐Modelling,
by
dropping
more
peripheral
grand
challenges
of
Government
Service
Utility
and
Scientific
Base
for
ICT-­‐
enabled
Governance
-­‐ A
global
coverage:
while
CROSSROAD
focussed
on
Europe,
CROSSOVER
includes
cases
and
experiences
from
all
over
the
world
-­‐ A
living
roadmap:
the
present
deliverable
is
accompanied
by
an
online
repositories
of
tools,
people
and
applications
1.2.
An
open
and
recursive
methodology
The
present
Research
Roadmap
on
Policy-­‐Making
2.0
is
developed
with
a
sequential
approach
based
on
the
existing
research
roadmap
developed
by
the
CROSSROAD
project.
In
order
to
achieve
the
goals
of
overcoming
the
fragmentation,
an
open
and
inclusive
approach
was
necessary.
In
the
initial
phase
of
the
project,
up
to
M6
(March
2012),
the
consortium
started
a
collection
of
literature,
information
about
software
tools
and
applications
cases.
In
addition
to
this
desk-­‐based
review,
the
document
has
benefited
from
the
informal
discussions
being
held
on
the
LinkedIn
group
of
the
project
(Policy-­‐making
2.0),
where
more
than
800
practitioners
and
researchers
are
discussing
the
practices
and
the
challenges
of
policy-­‐making.
The
first
draft
of
the
roadmap
was
then
released
in
M9
(June
2012)
of
the
project,
for
public
feedback.
The
publication
of
the
deliverable
kicked
off
the
engagement
activities
of
the
project,
designed
to
provide
further
input
and
to
improve
the
roadmap:
-­‐
As
soon
as
it
was
released,
the
preliminary
version
of
the
roadmap
was
published
in
commentable
format
on
the
project
website
http://www.CROSSOVER-­‐project.eu/.
Animators
stimulated
discussion
about
it
and
generated
comments
by
researchers
and
practitioners
alike.
This
participatory
process
helped
enriching
the
roadmap,
which
was
then
published
in
its
final
version
after
validation
by
the
community/ies
of
practitioners
and
policy
makers
-­‐
Two
workshops
organised
by
the
project
aimed
at
gathering
input
on
the
research
challenges
and
feedback
on
the
proposed
roadmap
-­‐
An
online
survey,
as
well
as
several
focus
groups
and
meetings
with
practitioners
from
civil
society
and
government
helped
to
focus
the
roadmap
on
the
actual
needs
1
http://CROSSROAD.epu.ntua.gr/
9
|
P a g e

10.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
Figure
2
Outline
of
the
participatory
process
The
process
for
updating
the
roadmap
included
therefore
a
wide
set
of
contributions.
Firstly,
the
Crossroad
roadmap
was
enriched
with
desk-­‐based
research:
202
cases
collected
in
the
platform
+
4
cases
collected
and
described
in
the
case
studies
performed
by
the
National
Technical
University
of
Athens
(NTUA),
and
the
50
applications
to
the
prize.
This
first
draft
was
then
published
for
comments
by
some
of
the
800
members
of
the
LinkedIn
group
who
also
provided
relevant
cases.
An
additional
survey
of
users’
needs
provides
provided
insights
from
240
respondents
and
over
200
people
presents
presented
at
focus
groups.
Additional
discussions
with
Global
Systems
Science
community,
third
party
workshops
and
the
US
Policy
Informatics
Network
helped
in
refine
refining
further
the
roadmap.
The
two
workshops
provided
high-­‐quality
insight
that
enriched
the
roadmap
with
specific
contributions.
In
the
table
below
we
outline
in
detail
the
specific
contribution
of
each
section
of
the
roadmap,
that
is
described
in
full
in
the
following
section.
10
|
P a g e

11.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
Type
of
contribution
Extent
of
the
contribution
Contribution
to
the
roadmap
1)
Comments to the roadmap
• 40
comments
• 9
different
experts
•
•
•
•
2)
Presentations in the PMOD
• Papers
received:
42
• Registered
participants:
70
• No.
Countries’
citizens
present:
20
• Linked
Open
Government
Data
• 16
presentations
• 30
participants
• Collaborative
Modelling
• Systems
of
Atomized
Models
• Opinion
Mining
• Impact
of
policy
making
2.0
• Roadmap
methodology
• Linked
Open
Government
Data
• Opinion
Mining
• Collaborative
Governance
workshop
3)
Presentations
in
Transatlantic workshop
4)
Survey of User’s Needs
the
• 236
respondents
• 33%
engaged
in
policy
design
• 27%
engaged
in
monitoring
and
evaluation
• 22%
engaged
in
agenda
setting
• 18%
engaged
in
policy
implementation
5)
Focus groups
6)
Case studies
7)
Analysis of the prize
8)
LinkedIn group
139
attendants
-­‐
Forum
PA,
the
Italian
leading
conference
on
e-­‐
government
• 35
attendants-­‐
INSITE
event
on
sustainability
• 40
attendants
-­‐
Webinar
for
the
United
Nations
Development
Programme
• Collection
of
202
tools
and
practices
• Elicitation
of
20
best
practices
• Further
elicitation
of
4
best
practices
for
in-­‐depth
case
study
•
•
•
•
47
submission
received
10
short
listed
3
winners
840
participants
Visual
Analytics
Systems
of
Atomized
Models
Model
Validation
Serious
Gaming
• Impact
of
policy
making
2.0
• Roadmap
methodology
• Impact
of
policy
making
2.0
• Roadmap
methodology
• Annex
with
a
repository
of
cases
• Analysis
of
the
prize
process
on
the
Impact
Chapter
• Comments
to
the
roadmap
• Increased
attendance
to
the
workshops
• Collection
of
practices
and
tools
Table
1
Contributions
to
the
roadmap
1) Comments
to
the
Roadmap
The
roadmap
has
been
published
in
commentable
format
in
two
different
versions:
a
short
one
on
Makingspeechtalk2,
and
a
full
version
(downloadable
after
answering
the
survey
on
the
needs
of
2
http://makingspeechestalk.com/CROSSOVER/
11
|
P a g e

12.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
policy-­‐makers)
available
in
the
CROSSOVER
website3.
Everybody
was
able
to
comment
on
single
parts
of
the
roadmap
or
to
propose
new
topics,
application
cases
and
research
challenges.
The
aim
of
publishing
the
document
in
commentable
format
was
to
get
the
input
from
experts
for
co-­‐
creating
the
roadmap.
More
specifically
we
were
interested
in
knowing
if
the
current
formulation
of
the
research
challenge
was
acceptable,
and
we
wanted
to
collect
best
practices
and
application
cases
from
the
community
of
experts
and
practitioners
at
large.
As
already
mentioned,
the
roadmap
received
over
40
useful
and
detailed
comments
from
a
number
of
experts
in
the
different
domains.
2) PMOD
Workshop
The
June
2012
workshop
was
the
first
of
three
to
be
organised
under
the
CROSSOVER
project.
Formally
titled
"Using
Open
Data:
policy
modelling,
citizen
empowerment,
data
journalism"
but
generally
referred
to
by
the
term
PMOD
(policy
modelling),
it
set
out
to
explore
whether
advocates'
claims
of
the
huge
potential
for
open
data
as
an
engine
for
a
new
economy,
as
an
aid
to
transparency
and,
of
particular
relevance
to
CROSSOVER,
as
an
aid
to
evidence-­‐based
policy
modelling,
were
justified.
In
terms
of
organization,
the
event
was
run
as
a
W3C/CROSSOVER
workshop
and
held
at
the
European
Commission's
Albert
Borschette
Conference
Centre
in
the
two
days
immediately
prior
to
the
Digital
Agenda
Assembly.
That
combination
helped
to
secure
good
support
from
a
high
calibre
audience.
42
papers
were
received
and
the
majority
was
accepted
by
the
programme
committee
for
full
presentation.
Authors
of
several
other
papers
plus
members
of
the
programme
committee,
the
CROSSOVER
animators
and
a
small
number
of
invited
guests
comprised
the
70
registered
attendees
of
which
67
turned
up.
The
event
reached
a
larger
audience
through
organising
a
networking
event
on
the
evening
following
the
workshop
to
which
attendees
of
the
data
workshop
at
the
Digital
Agenda
Assembly
were
invited.
Furthermore,
through
the
live
IRC
channel
and
Tweets
using
the
#pmod
hashtag,
others
were
able
to
monitor
proceedings.
The
agenda,
attendee
list
and
final
report
are
all
available
on
the
W3C
Web
site
which
provides
a
high
profile
for
the
workshop
and
the
project.
Most
of
the
results
of
the
workshop
were
used
to
improve
the
research
challenge
on
Linked
Open
Government
Data.
3) Transatlantic
Workshop
The
Transatlantic
Research
on
Policy
Modelling
Workshop
that
was
held
in
Washington,
DC
on
January
28th
and
29th,
2013.
It
was
organized
by
the
Millennium
Institute
and
the
New
America
Foundation
(NAF),
Washington,
DC,
USA.
NAF
is
a
nonprofit,
nonpartisan
public
policy
institute
that
invests
in
new
thinkers
and
new
ideas
to
address
the
next
generation
of
challenges
facing
the
United
States.
This
event
brought
together
speakers
and
attendees
working
and/or
interested
in
improving
ICT
tools
for
education
and
policy
makers.
The
speakers
and
attendees
came
from
a
diverse
background,
both
technical
and
non-­‐technical
to
share
experiences
and
knowledge
and
discuss
ways
to
make
the
current
state
of
modelling
and
ICT
more
accessible
and
attractive
for
decision
makers
on
both
sides
of
the
Atlantic
Ocean.
The
models
presented
in
the
workshop
have
been
integrated
in
the
“Collaborative
Modelling”,
“Systems
of
Atomized
Models”
and
“Opinion
Mining”
research
challenges.
4) Survey
of
User’s
Needs
3
http://www.CROSSOVER-­‐project.eu/ResearchRoadmap.aspx
12
|
P a g e

13.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
The
Survey
of
Users’
Needs
performed
within
the
scope
of
the
CROSSOVER
project
aimed
at
collecting
the
views
and
the
requirements
of
policy-­‐making
stakeholders.
More
in
particular
the
survey
intended
to
stimulate
actual
and
potential
practitioners,
such
as
decision
makers
(government
official
involved
in
the
policy-­‐making
process)
or
policy
advisors
(technical
expert
advising
decision-­‐makers
from
outside
government)
to
provide
input,
feedback
and
validation
to
the
new
research
roadmap
on
ICT
tools
for
Governance
and
Policy
Modelling
under
development
(CROSSOVER,
2012b).
About
450
people
took
part
in
the
overall
exercise,
combining
live
meetings
(214)
and
online
survey
(240+
answers),
providing
concrete
elements
to
improve
the
CROSSOVER
roadmap
and
the
other
activities
to
be
carried
out
by
the
project.
5) Focus
groups
In
addition
to
the
survey,
Tech4i2
ran
a
series
of
dedicated
meetings
where
the
roadmap
was
presented
and
followed
up
by
intense
dedicated
discussion.
These
events
where
all
high-­‐profile,
attended
by
policy-­‐makers
in
the
broad
sense:
not
only
government
officials,
but
also
policy
advisors
and
civil
society
organisations.
More
precisely
three
events
have
been
run:
•
On
the
17th
of
May
2012
CROSSOVER
was
invited
to
give
a
keynote
speech
to
ForumPA
on
the
CROSSOVER
Research
Roadmap.
FORUM
PA
is
a
leading
European
exhibition
exploring
innovation
in
Public
Administration
and
local
systems.
For
22
years,
FORUM
PA
has
attracted
thousands
of
visitors
and
hundreds
of
exhibitors
(public
authorities,
private
companies
and
citizens)
to
come
together
and
learn
and
the
participation
of
important
leaders:
ministers,
Nobel
prize
winners
(Amartya
Sen,
Edward
Prescott),
industry
leaders
(Luca
Cordero
di
Montezemolo)
and
hundreds
of
speakers.
•
On
May
24th
2012,
CROSSOVER
was
invited
to
attend
the
HUB/Insite
project
meeting
of
sustainability
practitioners
from
all
over
Europe.
The
Hub
and
the
INSITE
Project
brought
together
more
than
25
sustainability
practitioners
working
at
the
cutting
edge
of
innovation
within
industry,
urban
development,
energy,
technology
and
policy
across
Europe.
This
includes
people
tackling
today’s
key
challenges
in
carbon
reduction,
smart
cities,
governance
and
behavioural
change
across
all
these
areas.
Tech4i2
presented
the
Research
Roadmap,
and
facilitated
a
dedicated
session
CROSSOVER
was
invited
to
attend
the
HUB/Insite
project
meeting
of
sustainability
practitioners
from
all
over
Europe.
•
On
March
22nd
2012,
CROSSOVER
was
invited
to
present
the
policy-­‐making
2.0
model
to
the
practitioners
of
the
“governance”
network
of
UNDP
–
Europe
and
CIS,
which
included
about
40
people
from
Central
and
Eastern
Europe.
Webinar
for
the
United
Nations
Development
Programme
–
Europe
and
CIS
6) Case
Studies
Within
the
scope
of
the
CROSSOVER
project,
the
European
Commission's
Joint
Research
Centre,
Institute
for
Prospective
Technological
Studies
(JRC-­‐IPTS),
in
collaboration
with
a
team
of
experts
of
the
National
Technical
University
of
Athens
(NTUA)
carried
out
the
activity
of
mapping
and
identification
of
Case
Studies
on
ICT
solutions
for
governance
and
policy
modelling
(CROSSOVER,
2013).
The
research
design
envisaged
a
set
of
macro
phases.
The
initial
phase
consisted
in
the
creation
of
a
case
study
repository
through
the
identification
and
prioritization
of
potential
sources
of
information,
an
open
invitation
for
proposal
of
cases
through
web2.0
channels,
followed
by
the
definition
of
the
1st-­‐round
criteria
for
selecting
at
least
twenty
practices
and
the
information-­‐
oriented
selection
of
the
corresponding
case
studies
on
applications
of
ICT
solutions
for
governance
and
policy
modelling.
In
the
second
phase,
case
studies
have
been
elicited
through
the
definition
of
the
2nd-­‐round
criteria
for
selecting
eight
promising
practices
and
the
application
of
a
multi-­‐criteria
method,
followed
by
further
elaboration
on
the
eight
case
studies
that
have
been
selected
by
the
13
|
P a g e

14.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
multi-­‐criteria
method
based
on
desk
research.
In
the
third
phase
the
final
four
cases
have
been
selected
and
subjected
to
an
in-­‐depth
analysis
carried
out
through
meticulous
study
of
the
available
public
documentation
and
the
conduction
of
interviews
with
key
involved
stakeholders.
After
the
final
selection
of
cases
and
the
in
depth
analysis,
the
findings
have
been
synthesized
through
the
analysis
of
the
emerging
trends
from
applications
of
ICT
solutions
for
governance
and
policy
modelling
as
well
as
the
development
of
key
considerations
for
the
CROSSOVER
roadmap
for
the
themes
that
refer
to
its
scope.
Finally
the
key
findings
of
the
analysis
of
the
four
cases
have
been
shared
with
the
CROSSOVER
partners
and
the
community
that
follows
closely
the
Policy
Making
2.0
domain
over
various
Web
2.0
channels,
to
provide
feedback
and
validation.
The
key
results
of
the
case
studies
are
described
later
in
the
impact
section.
7) Analysis
of
the
Prize
This
prize
was
given
to
the
best
policy-­‐making
2.0
applications,
that
is
are
for
the
best
use
of
technology
to
improve
the
design,
delivery
and
evaluation
of
Government
policy.
The
focus
of
the
jury
has
been
on
implementations
that
can
show
a
real
impact
on
policy
making,
either
in
terms
of
better
policy
or
wider
participation.
These
technologies
included,
but
are
not
limited
to:
• Visual
analytics
• Open
and
big
data
• Modelling
and
simulation
(beyond
general
equilibrium
models)
• Collaborative
governance
and
crowdsourcing
• Serious
gaming
• Opinion
mining
An
important
condition
for
participating
to
the
selection
has
been
the
real-­‐life
implementation
of
technology
to
policy
issues.
Out
of
50
applications,
the
jury
selected
the
best
12
and
eventually
the
3
winners,
which
received
an
IPAD
mini.
The
principal
domains
of
the
applications
were
as
follow:
•
•
•
•
•
•
23
in
the
“Collaborative
Governance
and
Crowd-­‐sourcing”
domain
13
in
the
“Open
and
Big
Data”
domain
4
in
the
“Visual
Analytics”
domain
2
in
the
“Modelling
and
Simulation
(beyond
general
equilibrium
models)”
domain
2
in
the
“Serious
Gaming”
domain
1
in
each
of
the
following
domains:
“Open
Source
Governance”,
“Opinion
Mining”,
“Participatory
Policy
Making”
All
the
relevant
applications
received
have
been
integrated
in
the
roadmap.
The
criteria
for
judging
the
applications
were:
•
•
•
•
Impact
on
the
quality
of
policies
Openness,
scalability
and
replicability
Extensiveness
of
public
and
policymakers’
take
up
Technological
innovativeness
To
this
respect,
the
applicants
to
the
prize
were
required
to
provide
the
following
information:
•
Name
of
the
application
14
|
P a g e

15.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Year
of
launch
Short
description
of
the
technological
domain
Link
to
the
application
Describe
the
impact
of
the
application
on
the
quality
of
policies
Describe
the
public
and
policymaker
take
up
of
the
application
Describe
to
what
extent
the
application
was
technologically
innovative
Contact
details
of
the
applicant
8) LinkedIn
Group
Policy-­‐Making
2.0
A
crucial
element
in
the
engagement
of
stakeholders
is
given
by
the
creation
of
a
group
on
LinkedIn
called
Policy
Making
2.0 4 ,
which
is
a
virtual
place
where
actual
and
potential
practitioners
of
advanced
ICT
tools
for
policy-­‐making
can
exchange
experiences.
The
group
displays
a
high
selected
pool
of
high
level
members
(over
840)
engaging
in
discussions
and
exchange
of
views.
In
order
to
foster
debate
in
the
group,
the
CROSSOVER
consortium
posts
on
a
regular
base
info
about
the
new
cases
and
tools
to
be
integrated
in
the
knowledge
repository.
Some
other
discussion
topics
relate
to
the
best
ways
to
engage
the
government
in
online
policy
making,
the
posting
of
third
parties
content
and
info
about
incoming
CROSSOVER
workshops.
In
particular
the
group
is
being
used
for
disseminating
the
Survey
on
the
ICT
Needs
of
Policy
Makers,
as
well
as
the
roadmap
in
commentable
format.
The
Policy
Making
2.0
group
also
serves
as
a
liaison
channel
with
similar
projects
such
as
eGvoPoliNet
and
OCOPOMO.
As
agreed
the
eGovPoliNet
LinkedIn
group
has
merged
with
the
CROSSOVER
Policy
Making
2.0
group,
and
after
the
end
of
the
CROSSOVER
project
the
interaction
will
continue
led
by
the
eGovPoliNet
consortium.
Moreover
as
we
are
approaching
the
end
of
the
project
we
decided
to
shift
from
a
closed
LinkedIn
group
to
an
open
one.
4
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=4165795
15
|
P a g e

16.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
1.3.
Scope
and
definition
Policy-­‐making
2.0
refers
to
a
set
of
methodologies
and
technological
solutions
aimed
at
innovating
policy-­‐making.
As
we
will
describe
in
section
2.1,
the
scope
goes
well
beyond
the
focus
on
“Decision-­‐
making”
notion
typical
of
eParticipation,
and
encompasses
all
phases
of
the
policy
cycle.
The
main
goal
is
limited
to
improving
the
quality
of
policies,
not
of
making
them
more
consensual
or
representative.
Policy-­‐making
2.0
is
a
new
term
that
we
have
coined
to
express
in
more
understandable
terms
the
somehow
technical
notion
of
“ICT
for
governance
and
policy
modelling”.
Its
usage
in
the
course
of
the
project
proved
more
effective
than
the
latter
when
discussing
with
stakeholders.
Thereby
from
now
on
we
will
refer
to
the
roadmap
as
the
Research
Roadmap
on
Policy-­‐Making
2.0.
The
full
set
of
methodologies
and
tools
has
been
spelled
out
in
the
taxonomy
in
WP15:
1.1.
Open
government
information
&
intelligence
for
transparency
1.1.1.
Open
&
Transparent
Information
Management
1.1.1.1.
Open
data
policy
1.1.1.2.
Open
data
licence
1.1.1.3.
Open
data
portal
1.1.1.4.
Code
list
1.1.1.5.
Vocabulary/ontology
1.1.1.6.
Reference
data
1.1.1.7.
Data
cleaning
and
reconciliation
tool
1.1.2.
Data
published
on
the
Web
under
an
open
licence
1.1.2.1.
Human-­‐readable
data
1.1.2.2.
Machine
readable
data
in
proprietary
format
1.1.2.3.
Machine-­‐readable
data
published
in
a
non-­‐proprietary
format
1.1.2.4.
Data
published
in
RDF
1.1.2.5.
SPARQL
endpoint
for
querying
RDF
data
1.1.2.6.
RDF
data
linked
to
other
data
sets
1.1.3.
Visual
Analytics
1.1.3.1.
Visualisation
of
a
single,
static,
embedded
data
set
1.1.3.2.
Visualisation
of
multiple
static
data
sets
1.1.3.3.
Visualisation
of
a
single
live
data
feed
or
updating
data
set
1.1.3.4.
Visualisation
of
multiple
data
points,
including
live
feeds
or
updates
1.2.
Social
computing,
citizen
engagement
and
inclusion
1.2.1.
Social
Computing
1.2.1.1.
Collaborative
writing
and
annotation
1.2.1.2.
Content
syndication
1.2.1.3.
Feedback
and
reputation
management
systems
1.2.1.4.
Social
Network
Analysis
1.2.1.5.
Participatory
sensing
1.2.2.
Citizen
Engagement
5
The
taxonomy
presented
here
builds
on
CROSSROAD
taxonomy,
which
has
been
expanded,
reviewed
and
updated
by
the
members
of
the
Consortium
16
|
P a g e

17.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
1.3.
1.4.
1.2.2.1.
Online
deliberation
1.2.2.2.
Argumentation
support
1.2.2.3.
Petition,
Polling
and
voting
1.2.2.4.
Serious
games
1.2.2.5.
Opinion
mining
1.2.3.
Public
Opinion-­‐Mining
&
Sentiment
Analysis
1.2.3.1.
Opinion
tracking
1.2.3.2.
Multi-­‐lingual
and
Multi-­‐Cultural
opinion
extraction
and
filtering
1.2.3.3.
Real-­‐time
opinion
visualisation
1.2.3.4.
Collective
Wisdom
Analysis
and
Exploitation
Policy
Assessment
1.3.1.
Policy
Context
Analysis
1.3.1.1.
Forecasting
1.3.1.2.
Foresight
1.3.1.3.
Back-­‐Casting
1.3.1.4.
Now-­‐Casting
1.3.1.5.
Early
Warning
Systems
1.3.1.6.
Technology
Road-­‐Mapping
(TRM)
1.3.2.
Policy
Modelling
1.3.2.1.
Group
Model
Building
1.3.2.2.
Systems
Thinking
&
Behavioural
Modelling
1.3.2.3.
System
Dynamics
1.3.2.4.
Agent-­‐Based
Modelling
1.3.2.5.
Stochastic
Modelling
1.3.2.6.
Cellular
Automata
1.3.3.
Policy
Simulation
1.3.3.1.
Multi-­‐level
&
micro-­‐simulation
models
1.3.3.2.
Discrete
Event
Simulation
1.3.3.3.
Autonomous
Agents,
ABM
Simulation,
Multi-­‐Agent
Systems
(MAS)
1.3.3.4.
Virtual
Worlds,
Virtual
Reality
&
Gaming
Simulation
1.3.3.5.
Model
Integration
1.3.3.6.
Model
Calibration
&
Validation
1.3.4.
Policy
Evaluation
1.3.4.1.
Impact
Assessment
1.3.4.2.
Scenarios
1.3.4.3.
Model
Quality
Evaluation
1.3.4.4.
Multi-­‐Criteria
Decision
Analysis
Identity,
privacy
and
trust
in
governance
1.4.1.
Identity
Management
1.4.1.1.
Federated
Identity
Management
Systems
1.4.1.2.
User
centric,
self
managed
and
lightweight
credentials
1.4.1.3.
Legal-­‐social
aspects
of
eIdentity
management
1.4.1.4.
Mobile
Identity
(Portability)
1.4.2.
Privacy
1.4.2.1.
Privacy
and
Data
Protection
1.4.2.2.
Privacy
Enhancing
Technologies
1.4.2.3.
Anonymity
and
Pseudonymity
1.4.2.4.
Open
data
management
(including
Citizen
Profiling,
'digital
shadow'
tracing
and
tracking
1.4.3.
Trust
17
|
P a g e

18.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
1.5.
1.4.3.1.
Legal
Informatics
1.4.3.2.
Digital
Rights
Management
1.4.3.3.
Digital
Citizenship
Rights
and
feedback
loops
1.4.3.4.
Intellectual
Property
in
the
digital
era
1.4.3.5.
Trust-­‐building
Services
(including
data
processing
and
profiling
by
private
actors
for
public
services)
Future
internet
for
collaborative
governance
1.5.1.
Cloud
Computing
1.5.1.1.
Cloud
service
level
requirements
1.5.1.2.
Business
models
in
the
cloud
1.5.1.3.
Cloud
interoperability
1.5.1.4.
Security
and
authentication
in
the
cloud
1.5.1.5.
Data
confidentiality
and
auditability
1.5.1.6.
Cloud
legal
implications
1.5.2.
Pervasive
Computing
&
Internet
of
Things
in
Public
Services
1.5.2.1.
Ambient
intelligence
1.5.2.2.
Exploiting
smart
objects
1.5.2.3.
Standardization
1.5.2.4.
Business
models
for
pervasive
technologies
1.5.2.5.
Privacy
implications
and
risks
1.5.3.
Provision
of
next
generation
public
e-­‐services
1.5.3.1.
Fixed
and
mobile
network
access
technologies
1.5.3.2.
Mobile
web
1.5.3.3.
Models
for
information
dissemination
1.5.3.4.
Management
of
scarce
network
capacity
and
congestion
problems
1.5.3.5.
Large-­‐scale
resource
sharing
1.5.3.6.
Interworking
of
different
technologies
for
seamless
connectivity
of
users
1.5.4.
Future
Human/Computer
Interaction
Applications
&
Systems
1.5.4.1.
Web
accessibility
1.5.4.2.
User-­‐centered
design
1.5.4.3.
Augmented
cognition
1.5.4.4.
Human
senses
recognition
Policy-­‐making
2.0
encompasses
clearly
a
wide
set
of
methodologies
and
tools.
At
first
sight,
it
might
appear
unclear
what
the
common
denominator
is.
In
our
view,
what
they
share
is
that
they
are
designed
to
use
technology
in
order
to
inform
the
formulation
of
more
effective
public
policies.
In
particular,
these
technologies
share
a
common
approach
in
taking
into
account
and
dealing
with
the
full
complexity
of
human
nature.
As
spelled
out
originally
in
the
CROSSOVER
project
proposal:
“traditional
policy-­‐making
tools
are
limited
insofar
they
assume
an
abstract
and
unrealistic
human
being:
rational
(utility
maximizing),
consistent
(not
heterogeneous),
atomised
(not
connected),
wise
(thinking
long-­‐term)
and
politically
committed
(as
Lisa
Simpson)”.
Policy-­‐making
2.0
thus
accounts
for
this
diversity.
Its
methodologies
and
tools
are
designed
not
to
impose
change
and
artificial
structures,
rather
to
interact
with
this
diversity.
Agent-­‐based
models
account
for
the
interaction
between
agents
that
are
different
in
nature
and
values;
systems
thinking
accounts
for
long-­‐term
interacting
impacts;
social
network
analysis
deals
with
the
mutual
influences
between
people
rather
than
fully
rational
choices;
big
data
analyses
observed
behaviour
rather
than
theoretical
models;
persuasive
technologies
deal
with
the
complex
psychology
of
individuals
and
introduces
gaming
values
to
involve
more
“casual”
participants.
Moreover,
policy-­‐making
2.0
tools
allow
all
stakeholders
to
participate
to
the
decision-­‐making
process.
18
|
P a g e

19.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
1.4.
Policy:
Between
politics
and
services
The
application
of
technology
to
governmental
issues
is
not
a
new
topic.
Indeed
e-­‐government
and
the
new
buzzword
of
government
2.0,
have
become
mainstream
in
recent
years:
how
and
why
a
future
looking
research
agenda
could
still
refer
to
the
2.0
paradigm
as
innovative?
The
novelty
lies
in
the
“policy”
part
of
the
definition.
So
far,
the
application
of
"2.0"
technologies
to
governmental
processes
has
focussed
mainly
on
the
usage
of
social
media
for
political
communication,
best
exemplified
by
the
Obama
campaign.
The
typical
narrative
is
that
in
the
age
of
social
media,
traditional
communication
campaigns
and
political
parties
are
unsuited
to
generate
commitment
and
action
by
citizens,
which
instead
want
to
take
active
part
in
the
campaign
and
self-­‐organize
via
social
media:
""A
candidate
who
can
master
the
Internet
will
not
only
level
the
playing
field;
he
will
level
the
opposition."
RightClick
Strategies'
Larry
Purpuro.
A
second
area
of
strong
focus
proved
to
be
the
collaborative
provision
of
public
services
based
on
peer-­‐to-­‐peer
support
and
open
data,
best
exemplified
by
the
widely
spread
"appsfordemocracy"
contests.
The
narrative
here
is
that
government
should
act
as
a
platform
and
enable
third
parties
(and
citizens
themselves)
to
co-­‐create
and
deliver
public
services
based
on
open
government
data.
This
is
what
Goldsmith
and
Eggers
(2004)
call
"governing
by
network".
Indeed,
the
Obama
administration
clearly
shows
these
priorities,
moving
from
state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art
campaigning
in
order
to
be
elected,
and
then
implementing
a
strong
open
data
policy
with
crowdsourcing
initiatives
to
let
citizens
create
services
based
on
these
data.
Between
"politics"
and
"public
services
co-­‐delivery",
much
less
attention
has
been
devoted
to
the
usage
of
social
technology
to
improve
public
policy.
While
politics
deal
with
the
legislative
branch,
the
Parliament,
policy-­‐making
is
mainly
the
realm
of
the
executive
branch.
Typically,
the
job
of
policy-­‐making
involves
a
great
deal
of
socio-­‐economic
analysis
as
well
as
consultation
with
stakeholders.
This
roadmap
aims
to
fill
this
gap,
by
providing
a
complete
picture
of
how
technology
can
improve
policy-­‐making.
19
|
P a g e

20.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
2. Not
just
another
hype:
the
Demand
side
of
policy-­‐making
2.0
In
the
context
of
new
technologies,
we
are
periodically
informed
about
the
emerging
wave
that
will
change
everything,
only
to
see
it
quickly
forgotten
after
years
or
even
month
in
what
Gartner
calls
“trough
of
disillusionment”.
While
some
of
this
emphasis
is
certainly
driven
by
commercial
interests,
in
many
other
cases
it
reflects
a
genuine
optimism
of
its
proponents,
who
tend
to
underestimate
the
real-­‐life
bottlenecks
to
adoption
by
less
enthusiast
people.
Movzorov
critically
calls
this
cyber-­‐utopianism
or
technological
solutionism
(Morozov
2013);
on
a
similar
note,
many
years
of
eGovernment
policy
have
revealed
the
fundamental
importance
of
non-­‐
technological
factors,
such
as
organisational
change,
skills,
incentives
and
culture.
One
way
to
prevent
policy-­‐making
2.0
to
become
yet
another
hype
in
the
Gartner
curve,
is
to
precisely
spell
out
the
challenges
that
these
new
technologies
help
to
address.
Indeed,
the
importance
of
this
demand-­‐driven
approach
based
on
grand
challenges
is
fully
embraced
by
the
new
Horizon2020
research
programme
of
the
European
Union. 6
Furthermore,
a
demand-­‐driven
approach
helps
us
to
frame
the
technological
opportunities
in
a
language
understandable
to
policy-­‐
makers,
thereby
supporting
the
awareness-­‐raising
objective
of
the
CROSSOVER
project.
When
analysing
the
demand
side,
our
first
consideration
is
that
policy-­‐making
is
more
important
and
complex
than
ever.
The
role
of
government
has
substantially
changed
over
the
last
twenty
years.
Governments
have
to
re-­‐design
their
role
in
areas
where
they
were
directly
involved
in
service
provision,
such
as
utilities
but
also
education
and
health.
This
is
not
simply
a
matter
of
privatisation,
or
of
a
linear
trend
towards
smaller
government.
Indeed,
even
before
the
recent
financial
turmoil
and
nationalisation
of
parts
of
the
financial
system,
government
role
in
the
European
societies
was
not
simply
“diminishing”,
but
rather
being
transformed.
At
the
same
time,
it
is
increasingly
recognized
that
the
emergence
of
new
and
complex
problems
requires
government
to
increasingly
collaborate
with
non-­‐governmental
actors
in
the
understanding
and
in
the
addressing
of
these
challenges7.
As
an
OECD
report
states
the
following:
“Government
has
a
larger
role
in
the
OECD
countries
than
two
decades
ago.
But
the
nature
of
public
policy
problems
and
the
methods
to
deal
with
them
are
still
undergoing
deep
change.
Governments
are
moving
away
from
the
direct
provision
of
services
towards
a
greater
role
for
private
and
non-­‐
profit
entities
and
increased
regulation
of
markets.
Government
regulatory
reach
is
also
extending
in
new
socio-­‐economic
areas.
This
expansion
of
regulation
reflects
the
increasing
complexity
of
societies.
At
the
same
time,
through
technological
advances,
government’s
ability
to
accumulate
information
in
these
areas
has
increased
significantly.
As
government
face
more
new
and
complex
problems
that
cannot
be
dealt
with
easily
by
direct
public
service
provision,
more
ambitious
policies
require
more
complex
interventions
and
collaboration
with
non-­‐governmental
parties”
This
is
particularly
challenging
in
our
"complex"
societies.
“Complex”
systems
are
those
where
“the
behaviour
of
the
system
as
a
whole
cannot
be
determined
by
partitioning
it
and
understanding
the
behaviour
of
each
of
the
parts
separately,
which
is
the
classic
strategy
of
the
reductionist
physical
sciences”.
The
present
challenges
governments
must
face,
as
described
by
the
OECD,
are
complex
as
they
are
characterised
by
many
non-­‐linear
interactions
between
agents;
they
emerge
from
these
interactions
and
are
therefore
difficult
to
predict.
The
financial
crisis
is
probably
the
foremost
example
of
a
complex
problem,
which
proved
impossible
to
predict
with
traditional
decision-­‐making
tools.
6
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020
7
See
Ostrom:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2009/ostrom-­‐lecture.html
20
|
P a g e

21.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
2.1.
The
typical
tasks
of
policy-­‐makers:
the
policy
cycle
Policy-­‐making
is
typically
carried
out
through
a
set
of
activities
described
as
"policy-­‐cycle"
(Howard
2005).
In
this
document
we
propose
a
new
way
of
implementing
policies,
by
first
assessing
their
impacts
in
a
virtual
environment.
While
different
versions
of
the
cycle
are
proposed
in
literature,
in
this
context
we
adopt
a
simple
version
articulated
in
5
phases:
-­‐
agenda
setting
encompasses
the
basic
analysis
on
the
nature
and
size
of
problems
at
stakes
are
addressed,
including
the
causal
relationships
between
the
different
factors
-­‐
policy
design
includes
the
development
of
the
possible
solutions,
the
analysis
of
the
potential
impact
of
these
solutions8,
the
development
and
revision
of
a
policy
proposal
-­‐
adoption
is
the
cut-­‐off
decision
on
the
policy.
This
is
the
most
delicate
and
sensitive
area,
where
accountability
and
representativeness
are
needed.
It
is
also
the
area
most
covered
by
existing
research
on
e-­‐democracy
-­‐
implementation
is
often
considered
the
most
challenging
phase,
as
it
needs
to
translate
the
policy
objectives
in
concrete
activities,
that
have
to
deal
with
the
complexity
of
the
real
world
.
It
includes
ensuring
a
broader
understanding,
the
change
of
behaviour
and
the
active
collaboration
of
all
stakeholders.
-­‐
Monitoring
and
evaluation
make
use
of
implementation
data
to
assess
whether
the
policy
is
being
implemented
as
planned,
and
is
achieving
the
expected
objectives.
The
figure
below
(authors’
elaboration
based
on
Howard
2005
and
EC
2009)
illustrates
the
main
phases
of
the
policy
cycle
(in
the
internal
circle)
and
the
typical
concrete
activities
(external
circle)
that
accompany
this
cycle.
In
particular,
the
identified
activities
are
based
on
the
Impact
Assessment
Guidelines
of
the
European
Commission
(EC
2009).
8
A
very
important
element
in
policy
design
and
formulation
is
given
by
ex-­‐ante
evaluation.
In
this
respect
ICT
tools
for
policy-­‐making
can
play
an
important
role,
simulating
alternative
policy
options
and
impacts
before
implementing
a
policy
action
21
|
P a g e

22.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
Figure
3:
Policy
Cycle
and
Related
Activities
Traditionally,
the
focus
about
the
impact
of
technology
in
policy-­‐making
has
been
on
the
adoption
phase,
analysing
the
implications
of
ICT
for
direct
democracy.
In
the
context
of
the
CROSSOVER
project,
we
adopt
a
broader
conceptual
framework
that
embraces
all
phases
of
policy-­‐making.
2.2.
The
traditional
tools
of
policy-­‐making
Let
us
present
now
what
are
the
methodologies
and
tools
already
traditionally
adopted
in
policy-­‐
making.
Typically,
in
the
agenda-­‐setting
phase,
statistics
are
analysed
by
government
and
experts
contracted
by
government
in
order
to
understand
the
problems
at
stake
and
the
underlying
causes
of
the
problems.
Survey
and
consultations,
including
online
ones,
are
frequently
used
to
assess
the
stakeholders’
priorities,
and
typically
analysed
in-­‐house.
General-­‐equilibrium
models
are
used
as
an
assessment
framework.
Once
the
problems
and
its
causes
are
defined,
the
policy
design
phase
is
typically
articulated
through
an
ex-­‐ante
impact
assessment
approach.
A
limited
set
of
policy
options
are
formulated
in
house
with
22
|
P a g e

23.
0205F01_INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
ROADMAP
the
involvement
of
experts
and
stakeholders.
For
each
option,
models
are
simulated
in
order
to
forecast
possible
sectoral
and
cross-­‐sectoral
impacts.
These
simulations
are
typically
carried
out
by
general-­‐equilibrium
models
if
the
time
frame
is
focused
on
short
and
medium
term
economic
impacts
of
policy
implementation.
Based
on
the
simulated
impact,
the
best
option
is
submitted
for
adoption.
The
adoption
phase
is
typically
carried
out
by
the
official
authority,
either
legislative
or
executive
(depending
on
the
type
of
policy).
In
some
cases,
decision
is
left
to
citizens
through
direct
democracy,
through
a
referendum
or
tools
such
as
participatory
budgeting;
or
to
stakeholders
through
self-­‐regulation.
The
implementation
phase
typically
is
carried
out
directly
by
government,
using
incentives
and
coercion.
It
benefits
from
technology
mainly
in
terms
of
monitoring
and
surveillance,
in
order
to
manage
incentives
and
coercion,
for
example
through
the
database
used
for
social
security
or
taxes
revenues.
The
monitoring
and
evaluation
phase
is
supported
by
mathematical
simulation
studies
and
analysis
of
government
data,
typically
carried
out
in-­‐house
or
by
contractors.
Moreover,
as
numbers
aggregate
the
impacts
of
everything
that
happens,
including
policy,
it
is
difficult
to
single
out
the
impacts
of
one
policy
ex
post.
Final
results
are
published
in
report
format,
and
fed
back
to
the
agenda
setting
phase.
2.3.
The
key
challenges
of
policy-­‐makers
Needless
to
say,
the
current
policy-­‐making
process
is
seldom
based
on
objective
evidence
and
not
all
views
are
necessarily
represented.
Dramatic
crises
seem
to
happen
too
often,
and
governments
struggle
to
anticipate
and
deal
with
them,
as
the
financial
crisis
has
shown.
Citizens
feel
a
sense
of
mistrust
towards
government,
as
shown
by
the
decrease
in
voters
turnout
in
the
elections.
In
this
section,
we
analyse
and
identify
the
specific
challenges
of
policy-­‐making.
The
goal
is
to
clearly
spell
out
"what
is
the
problem"
in
the
policy
making
process
that
policy-­‐making
2.0
tools
can
help
to
solve.
The
challenges
have
been
identified
on
desk-­‐based
research
of
"government
failure"
in
a
variety
of
contexts,
and
are
illustrated
by
real-­‐life
examples.
One
first
overarching
challenge
is
the
emergence
of
a
distributed
governance
model.
The
traditional
division
of
“market”
and
“state”
no
longer
fits
a
reality
where
public
decision
and
action
is
effectively
carried
out
by
a
plurality
of
actors.
Traditionally,
the
policy
cycle
is
designed
as
a
set
of
activities
belonging
to
government,
from
the
agenda
setting
to
the
delivery
and
evaluation.
However
in
recent
years
it
has
been
increasingly
recognized
that
public
governance
involves
a
wide
range
of
stakeholders,
who
are
increasingly
involved
not
only
in
agenda-­‐setting
but
in
designing
the
policies,
adopting
them
(through
the
increasing
role
of
self-­‐regulation),
implementing
them
(through
collaboration,
voluntary
action,
corporate
social
responsibility),
and
evaluating
them
(such
as
in
the
case
of
civil
society
as
watchdog
of
government).
As
Elinor
Ostrom
stated
in
her
lecture
delivered
when
receiving
the
Nobel
Prize
in
Economics9:
“A
core
goal
of
public
policy
should
be
to
facilitate
the
development
of
institutions
that
bring
out
the
best
in
humans.
We
need
to
ask
how
diverse
polycentric
institutions
help
or
hinder
the
innovativeness,
learning,
adapting,
trustworthiness,
levels
of
cooperation
of
participants,
and
the
achievement
of
more
effective,
equitable,
and
sustainable
outcomes
at
multiple
scales”.
This
acknowledgement
leads
to
important
implications
for
the
9
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2009/ostrom-­‐lecture.html
23
|
P a g e