Authors: Damien Lanfrey, Donatella Solda Policy advisors, Ministry of Education, University and Research, Italy Open government practice does not guarantee good policy design to translate into impactful processes. The next step in policy-making asks practitioners to design policies that are "living agents" rather than mere sets of rules. Policies must enable communities and ecosystems, accelerate quality, introduce enzymes, promote agility and be impact-driven.

1. From Open Government
to
Living Policy making
Damien Lanfrey + Donatella Solda
Policy Advisors, Ministry of Education, University and Research, Italy

2. Part 1: Lesson plan
DESIGNING ENGAGEMENT FOR POLICY
(AKA OPEN GOVERNMENT)
1.1THE MANY CONCEPTUAL ROOTS OF ENGAGEMENT
GW. IDENTIFYING A TOOL FOR MANAGING ENGAGEMENT
1.2 SOME CHALLENGES OF ENGAGEMENT IN THE DIGITAL AGE
1.3 CASE STUDIES FROM OPEN GOVERNMENT DESIGN: PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
1.4 A FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING PARTICIPATORY POLICY-MAKING
GW. GROUP-WORK CHALLENGE: APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK

3. Part 2: Lesson plan
LIVING POLICY MAKING
GW. PART 1 GROUP-WORK PITCH AND DISCUSSION
2.1 COMPLETING THE FRAMEWORK: THE POLICY CYCLE
2.2 INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN: STATE OF THE ART
2.3 FROM OPEN POLICY TO LIVING POLICY-MAKING
GW. APPLIED LIVING POLICY MAKING & FINAL DISCUSSION

4. Part 1:
Designing Engagement
towards Policy
1

5. Is it possible to design impactful
engagement towards policy ?
CHALLENGES / 1

6. CHALLENGES / 2
Is it possibile to model
a theory on Engagement ?

7. SOME PILLARS FOR THE DAY
there is no such thing as
“participation for
participation’s sake”

8. SOME PILLARS FOR THE DAY
enough with the “idealized citizen”

9. SOME PILLARS FOR THE DAY
when it comes to government
(policy & politics)
scale makes a difference

10. 1.1
The (many) conceptual
roots of
Engagement

11. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement

12. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Politics Advocacy Governance mobilization
Design
(Experience/Service/
Process/System)
Law-Making
[Sunstein, Thaler]
Community Organizing
[Alinsky]
Communication /
Information Systems
[tech-makers themselves]
Education
(pedagogy, skills,
learning patterns)
Citizenship
+

13. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Political roots [Bennett, Coleman]: Participation as emerging forms of citizenship
Communication roots [Bimber, Shirky]: Every bit counts, communication = collective action
Organizational roots [Bennett, Earl & Kimport, Chadwick]: Collective action as organizational change
Philanthropic roots filantropiche [Fine, Kanter]: Reimagining our links to social causes
Conflictual and symbolic roots [Diani, Della Porta]: Social movement theories, alternative spaces in society, framing processes,
mobilizing structures, political opportunities
Macro-theories [Benkler, Castells]: Collective action as power-shifting (communicative and economic)
Techno-Legal roots [Bollier, Lessig]: Code as law, power of digital architectures/artifacts, remix
New media roots [Loader and Mercea, Manovich]: Social media, new modes of engagement, narratives, genres, new media theories
Design roots [various]: open design, p2p design, user-centred design, service design, design for policy
(Social) Innovation roots [Mulgan et al]: hybridity, iteration, social impact

14. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
As “ladder” of activities

15. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
As “ladder” of activities
Source: Forrester

16. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
As “ladder” of activities
Source: Forrester

17. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
As “ladder” of activities
Credits: Beth Kanter

18. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Mode of Production
Crowds Communities

19. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Mode of Production
Crowds Communities
Credits: Haythornthwaite

20. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Crowds and Communities
Credits: Pew Research Centre

21. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
As Citizenship practice
Credits:
Nathaniel Heller

22. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
As Civic Tech Categories
As emerging “fields” of the civic
tech sector, defined by the
proliferation of tools
(Credits: Young Foundation)

23. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
As Civic Tech Categories

24. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
As Civic Tech Categories

25. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Impact over the system
Melucci's (1996)framework categorizes
all forms of collective action

26. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Sifry's (2014) summary of debates on
categorizing public engagement
By Impact over System Vs Mode of Production

27. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
As “format work”
A Scuola di OpenCoesione, a 6-step lesson plan
for engaging students through open data in civic
monitoring of cohesion funds expenditure

28. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Leveraging Participation “Styles”
Take the example of kiva.org, the
online social lending platform.
It is way more than the lending
practice, leveraging many
“engagement paths”

29. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “tight community” path

30. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “community” path

31. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Leveraging Participation “Styles”
Leveraging existing communities

32. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Leveraging Participation “Styles”
Communities as distributed governance

33. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The Education Path

34. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “instrumental” Path

35. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The individual/utilitarian Path

36. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “Ambassador” Path

37. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “every bit counts” Path

38. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “Generative” Path
Case 1: Poverty2Prosperity
Created by Scott, KivaFriends member
Allows other Kiva users to make loans
automatically to safe funds
Fosters non-generative, simplified engagement
Case 2: 101 Cookbooks Blog
Created by Heidi , author of the Cookbooks blog
Posted on September 3rd, 2008 + instructions
763 lenders, 38,000$ in loans

39. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Leveraging Participation “Styles”
kiva.org, the online
social lending platform, is way more
than the lending practice. it leverages
many “engagement paths”

40. So, engagement can be interpreted in many ways
“Ladder” of activities
Mode of production
Civic tech categories
Impact over the system
Leveraging “participation styles”
“format work”

41. GROUP WORK
IDENTIFYING A TOOL (or combo of up to 2
tools) FOR MANAGING ENGAGEMENT
GROUP 1: the Council of Rome wants to gather opinions and ideas from citizens before
drafting the next traffic plan
GROUP 2: the Ministry of Economic Development has just launched its policy brief on
startups and wants to hear from stakeholders and the public before final revisions
(40 minutes)

42. GROUP WORK

43. Engagement
in the Digital Age
1.2

44. E-Participation Dilemmas
“VOICES FAILING TO BE HEARD” (Keen, 2007; Hindman, 2009)
“LARGELY UNCHANGED HABITS” (Bimber, 2003, 2009)
“PSEUDO PARTICIPATION” (Noveck, 2004)
“THICK COMPETITIVE ELITISM” (Davis, 2011)
“SLACKTIVISM” (Morozov, Gladwell)
“CYBERPOLARIZATION” (Sunstein, Dahlberg)

45. Online consultations, “no longer an exotic experience” (Shane, 2012)
BUT: failure to deliver (various scholars, at various stages, 2005-2014)
Two recurring problems:
“[...] few online forums for political expression are tied to in any ascertainable, accountable way to actual governmental
policy making” (Shane, 2012).
“most most exercises in online deliberation attract relatively small numbers of participants” (Shane, 2012)
A negative spiral
Weak link to policy
Low numbers
Low impact in policy
Low trust, apathy
Low attention from polity & policy
Lower trust, numbers “A recessive spiral”

46. E-participation Dilemmas

47. E-participation Dilemmas

48. Case Study:
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
in Italy (2012-2015)
1.3

49. The “Attempts” Phase
OGP - Action Plan
Numbers: very low,“usual suspects”
Impact: minimal
low diffusion for the theme
a detailed report
Main Issues: lack of debate, closed networks,
numbers not sufficient to legitimate the policy
Spending Review
Numbers: very high, but mostly useless
Impact: very low (“complaint box”)
not demonstrable, low accountability
negative on tools
Main Issues: the tools used, too simplistic, and low
accountability
Valore Legale Titolo di Studio
(Legal value of degrees)
Numbers: high, but negative debate, and results
Impact:“unfortunately” for the Gov, very high:
Activism from various groups
Policy was interrupted and Gov “lost”
No accountability on the process
Main Issues: how the debate was managed, the
relationship between tools and objectives
35.335 questionnaires in 30 days 550.000 messages in 28 days few dozens of comments

50. The “Tools” Phase
HIT2020: Horizon 2020 Italy - 2012
Numbers: good, but partisanship and lack of
attention from non-research world
Impact:
Over the policy drafing
Rich analysis (report)
Higher participation than EU equivalent
Clarity of the process
Main issues: partisanship, lack of attention from
non-research world
Italian position on Internet General
Principles (IGF) - 2012
Numbers: decent, but, low engagement across
networks besides info-tech world
Impact:
co-drafting
(partially) international credibility
issue awareness
good value of physical workshops
Main Issues: tools, lack of literacy, timing, short
policy window
Digital Agenda (AdiSocial) - 2012
Numbers: decent, but lack of communication
Impact: multiple
Influence over working groups
Leveraging diversity
Consistency with auditions
First innovations with tools
A rich report on the process
Main Issues: lack of time, low inter-ministerial
coordination, communication, accessibility
3000 users, 343 ideas, 1967 comments,
11.000 votes in 35 days
760 users, 159 ideas, 480 comments
3500 votes in 44 days
4272 questionnaires + 3500 users, 133
ideas, 500 comments, 7500 votes in 35 days

51. The “Paths” Phase
Destination Italy
Numbers: decent, but negative agenda
Impact:
very direct: policy was “adjusted” in various parts
clear priorities from participants
stakeholder engagement (e.g. think tank)
Main Issues: political instability, lack of debate
PartecipaGov: Constitutional Reforms
Numbers: very high (largest in Europe)
Impact: debatable, ongoing, soft, DELAYED
Keeping constitutional reforms high in the agenda;
educational, knowledge development; very detailed
report; very clear findings from citizens
Main Issues: political instability, limited offline
debate
Social Innovation Agenda co-design
Numbers: low, but significant stakeholder
network
Impact: limited, but high intangible value
Co-drafting of the agenda; Institutional working
groups launched and few projects launched;
International attention; Cultural impact
Main Issues: political instability
85 stakeholders involved,
250 inputs in 5 areas, 1 month
131.676 Q1 + 71.385 Q2 = 214.000 contributions
77000 textual comments, 595 ideas, 1763 comments
475.000 visits, 9:34 minutes per visit, 3 months
278 comments , 369 questionnaires, 167 ideas, 23 position
papers, 30.000 participants, 2 months

52. Case Study:
PartecipaGov public consultation
on constitutional reforms

53. PartecipaGov: designing the participation process

54. 200k people involved
at the time: largest online consultation by a gov in europe
PartecipaGov (Public Consultation on Constitutional Reforms) has been
organized around a multi-phase process designed through a range of
participation means, media campaigns and engagement occasions.
PartecipaGov: designing the participation process

55. PartecipaGov: participation paths
Enabling different
“layers” of
engagement
Having the highest
participation possible for a
Government consultation
“Respecting” the subject:
constitutional reforms.
Qualifying engagement
progressively: from Q1
to Q2 to public debates
Putting pressure on
institutions
Providing clear indications
for constitutional reforms
Consulting ex-ante to
avoid ex-post failure
(referendum)

56. PartecipaGov: QUESTIONNAIRE #1

57. PartecipaGov: QUESTIONNAIRE #2

58. PartecipaGov: Public debates

59. PartecipaGov: COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
Partecipa alla Consultazione Pubblica online indetta dal
Governo per conoscere il parere dei cittadini sulle riforme della
Costituzione. Potrai esprimere la tua opinione su temi chiave
per l’assetto e il funzionamento del nostro Paese. Partecipare
è semplice: basta collegarsi al sito www.partecipa.gov.it e compilare
due veloci questionari entro l’8 ottobre. Un’occasione unica
per costruire, tutti insieme, un Paese più moderno ed efficiente.

60. PartecipaGov: ENGAGEMENT (MEDIA CAMPAIGNS)
- Spike of users: + 50%, +100%, +200% depending on timing
- Spike of mobile users: from 5% to 30-40%
- Participation slows in 10 minutes (mobile especially)
- Participation increases again (more desktop users + social)
- Campaigns contribution steady

61. Tv spikes Vs Web spikes
TG2 (20)
UnoMattina (7am) + start campaignsIlPost (11am)
Re-launch + TG5 (13)
Ad campaign
Web = fragmented, apart from social PA campaigns + institutional
websites = lower but constant
contributionMedia necessary, debate necessary
PartecipaGov: GENERAL ENGAGEMENT METRICS

62. PartecipaGov: ONLINE ENGAGEMENT METRICS
200k people involved
largest online consultation by a gov in europe
PartecipaGov (Public Consultation on Constitutional Reforms) has
been organized around a multi-phase process designed through a range
of participation means, media campaigns and engagement occasions.
Conversion Rates
Desktop: 29,3% (n=80.976)
Tablet: 25,22% (n=7.638)
Mobile: 16,3% (n=11.295)

63. PartecipaGov: PARTICIPANTS’ DEMOGRAPHICS
Q1 Q2

64. PartecipaGov: CONVERSION RATES
TermometroPolitico.it: 48% (n=203)
TiConsiglio.com: 43,4% (n=618)
Governo.it: 39% (n=3.271)
Direct: 31,3% (n=40.062)
ACI Banner: 31,3% (n=1.374)
IlPost: 30,5% (n=269)
INPS Banner: 30,1% (n=2.916)
Total: 27,5%
Facebook web: 25,5% (n=5.379)
Province websites: 24,1% (n=1.058)
All Campaigns: 23% (n=11.966)
Comuni websites: 22,5% (n=1.521)
Twitter: 19% (n=985)
All referrals: 19,9% (n=35.291)
Facebook mobile: 11% (n=3.186)
- Social media lower conversion rate (influenced by mobile)
- Tablet higher conversion than mobile, but lower than
desktop
- .Gov websites (+Governo.it) effective with 39% conversion
- Web-zines also effective, though lower absolute numbers

65. Case Study:
La Buona Scuola
Public consultation on education reform

66. La Buona Scuola

67. La Buona Scuola: designing the participation process
La Buona Scuola (a comprehensive
school reform proposal +
engagement plan) involved the design
of a 6-months policy process
including expert groups, a public
consultation, a national tour, a
communication and media strategy.

68. La Buona Scuola (a comprehensive school reform proposal) consultation involved 3 main participation “paths”:
A 7-section questionnaires, 16 co-design themes and a strategy for live debating.
La Buona Scuola: participation paths

69. La Buona Scuola consultation: every participation path underlies a thick organizational process, including administrative regional offices,
stakeholders’ engagement and political liaising
La Buona Scuola: offline events as key strategy

70. 1.8M people involved
DEBATESTOUR STAGES
300 people per debate POSITION PAPERS
Rapporti degli
Uffici Scolastici Regionali
207k
1.3 M
20 115204040
200k
documented online
1.5 M
reached
La Buona Scuola: consultation final numbers

71. A Learning Curve
• Innovation/expansion in tools
• A shift from tools to processes
• A wider variety of processes put in place
• More “organizational work”
• Stronger, more directed impact
• Much more variables involved in design
• Demonstrating that Government can handle participation
• A (mildly) positive public debate (or at least a debate)

72. A FRAMEWORKFOR
DESIGNING (AND ASSESSING)
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
1.4

73. Why A Framework?
• Too much focus on technologies (technocratic approach) and on designing “the perfect
software for the perfect citizen”
• Too little focus on organizational and institutional aspects, need for more “inside the box”
approaches (Chadwick, 2011)
• Need a better focus on information dynamics (i.e. attention scarcity)
• Inability to locate e-participation within a wider social context, too much focus on “online
interactions”
• A need to fill the e-democracy from below and above mismatch by better understanding the
many dimensions of civic engagement
• Need for multi-dimensional, context-aware and staged approaches
• Multi-disciplinarity (Dawes, 2009)
• Raising the bar (practice), enriching the debate (intellectual)
• Designing for impact (thus, innovation?)

74. A Framework for designing engagement
outcomes and externalities
outputs
media and symbolic space
modelling and organizational dimension, participation process
pre-conditions to participation and motivations
participation
culture
digital
culture
social needs
and interests
trustinformation
organizational and institutional fitnessreachlivenessrichness
activism and
advocacy
occasions
& eventsdebate
1
2
3
4

75. A Framework for designing engagement
1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations
participation
culture
digital culture
social needs
and interests
trust
information
dialogue
democratic behavior
netiquette
access to relevant information
content clarity
clear explanation of the process
clear link to facts, sources and
policy contents
participatory pact
(static or dynamic)
clear link to policy cycle
centrality in policy
security of the platform
Information management
openness to challenge
relevance
urgency
link to current debate
opportunity
framing processes
identities
e-skills
digital divide
netiquette
a pilot model - 1

76. A Framework for designing engagement
1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations
information
access to relevant information
content clarity
clear explanation of the process
clear link to facts, sources and
policy contents
a pilot model - 1
clear link to facts, sources access to
relevant
information
content clarity

77. A Framework for designing engagement
1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations
a pilot model - 1
trust
participatory pact
(static or dynamic)
clear link to policy cycle
centrality in policy
security of the platform
Information management
openness to challenge
participatory pact / social trust
technical trust / security
centrality in policyinformation
management

78. netiquette
A Framework for designing engagement
1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations
a pilot model - 1
participation
culture
dialogue
democratic behavior
netiquette“participation day”
rewarding democratic behavior
rewarding democratic behavior

79. A Framework for designing engagement
1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations
a pilot model - 1
digital culture
e-skills
digital divide
netiquette
digital divide
digital literacy

80. A Framework for designing engagement
2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
a pilot model - 2
organizational and institutional fitness
reach
liveness
organizational micro-politics
boundary work
partnering
richness
enhancing participation styles
ladder of engagement
flexibility of participation paths
customization
social technographics
ability to produce
step-goods, remix,
transcoding
communication efforts
virality and diffusion
mechanism, partnering
appeal
storytelling
media presence

81. A Framework for designing engagement
2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
a pilot model - 2
The digital economy moved the richness/reach (quality/quantity)
threshold, but attention scarcity keeps it relevant

82. A Framework for designing engagement
2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
richness
enhancing participation styles
building ladders of engagement
flexibility of participation paths
customization
social technographics
54% of respondents
to Q1 (8 questions)
also completed Q2
(24 questions)
Building ladders of engagement
light weight v. heavy weight
production models
Flexibility of participation paths
a pilot model - 2

83. A Framework for designing engagement
2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
communication efforts
virality
partnering
appeal
storytelling
media presence
mobile
tablet
Desktop
designing for
mobility
partnering
reach
communication
efforts
a pilot model - 2

84. A Framework for designing engagement
2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
liveness
ability to produce
step-goods, remix,
transcoding
GOV.UK/performance
analytics dashboard
participation
mapping
semantics and argument
visualization
debate mapping
a pilot model - 2

85. A Framework for designing engagement
2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
liveness
ability to produce
step-goods, remix,
transcoding
a pilot model - 2

86. A Framework for designing engagement
2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
Main reasons for e-participation failure
(Chadwick, 2011)
Budget Constraints and Organizational
Instability
Policy Shifts
Political Ambivalence
Legal Risks and Depoliticization
Outsourcing / Insourcing
organizational and institutional fitness
organizational micro-politics / hierarchies
boundary work
institutional and political partnering
understand the
organization
budget
constraints
political
ambivalence
a pilot model - 2

87. A Framework for designing engagement
3 media and symbolic dimension
a pilot model - 3
activism and
advocacy
occasions
& events
debate
contribution from public debate
fostering democratic
occasions
design thinking
social innovation
agonistic dimension

88. A Framework for designing engagement
3 media and symbolic dimension
a pilot model - 3
debate
contribution from public
debate

89. A Framework for designing engagement
3 media and symbolic dimension
a pilot model - 3
occasions
& events
fostering democratic
occasions
accreditation
design thinking
social innovation
Social Innovation Agenda 2013
IBAC 2014 (Destinazione Italia)
Design jams as goal-setter

90. A Framework for designing engagement
3 media and symbolic dimension
a pilot model - 3
activism and
advocacy
leveraging the agonistic
dimension

91. A Framework for designing engagement
4 outputs, outcomes and externalities
a pilot model - 4
outcomes and externalities
accountability efficiency legitimacy
awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust

92. A Framework for designing engagement
4 outputs, outcomes and externalities
a pilot model - 4
outcomes and externalities
accountability efficiency legitimacy
awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust
quantity vs quality of debate
who is saying what/how groups behave
turning noise into meaning
cost-effectiveness,
completion rates, user satisfaction
actual feedbacks

93. A Framework for designing engagement
4 outputs, outcomes and externalities
a pilot model - 4
outcomes and externalities
accountability efficiency legitimacy
awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust
conversion rates
- Direct + Search = 62% of total Q1 completed
- Campaigns + Referrals = 38% of total Q1 completed
- Mobile + Tablet contributes for 14% of Q1 completed
- Facebook + Twitter = 7% of of Q1 completed
- Main institutional websites = 18,4% of Q1 completed
11%
1%1%1%1%1%
1%
2%
4%
4%
4%
6%
17%
45%
Direct Google Facebook
Agenzia Entrate Governo.it INPS
ACI Comuni MIT
TiConsiglio.com Province INAIL
Twitter Other
capturing moments
stickiness

94. GROUP WORK
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK
GROUP 1 & 2: The Government wants to raise awareness about European
citizenship in the context of the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the
signing of the “Rome Treaty”.
Framework conditions: high euro skepticism (varying degrees by country), revision of EU general
budget, Brexit referendum by October 2016
Possible Subjects: the “four freedoms” of European Union: people circulation (Research,Tourism,
Workers), Goods circulation (Duties and taxation), Services (e.g. unified mobile roaming, Internet
purchases, Digital single market) and Capital circulation (e.g. Monetary union, the Banking system).
What you need to do: Prepare a timeline for organizing engagement between now and
March 25th 2017 (when a celebration with all EU Ministers for a new declaration will be
held).
Details required:Timeline, tools & techniques used, partners involved, barriers to overcome,
incentives to be leveraged, participation phases, communication strategy, outputs and outcomes
expected

95. Part 2
Living Policy
design

96. Part 2: Lesson plan
“LIVING POLICY” DESIGN
GW - GROUP-WORK PITCH FROM PART 1 & DISCUSSION
2.1 - COMPLETINGTHE FRAMEWORK:THE POLICY CYCLE
2.2 - INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN: STATE OFTHE ART
2.3 - FROM OPEN POLICYTO LIVING POLICY-MAKING
GW APPLIED LIVING POLICY CHALLENGE & FINAL DISCUSSION

97. GROUP-WORK
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK
Context: The EU is celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome.
The EU bodies and Member States intends to raise awareness about
European citizenship.
Framework conditions: high euro
skepticism (varying degrees by
country), revision of EU general
budget, Brexit referendum by
October 2016.The celebration with
all EU Prime Ministers will include a
new declaration.
Possible Subjects: the “four freedoms” of
European Union: people circulation (Students,
Research,Tourism,Workers), Goods
circulation (Duties and taxation), Services (e.g.
unified mobile roaming, Internet purchases,
Digital single market) and Capital circulation
(e.g. Monetary union, Banking system).
What you need to do: Prepare a timeline of events for organizing
engagement between now and March 25th 2017.
Details required:Timeline, tools & techniques used, partners involved, barriers
to overcome, incentives to be leveraged, participation phases, communication
strategy, outputs and outcomes expected

98. GROUP-WORK examples

99. GROUP-WORK examples

100. GROUP-WORK
PITCH FROM PART 1
FINAL GROUP WORK
--
DISCUSSION
(40 minutes)

101. The Legal
roots of
Engagement
2.1

102. CONTEXT
• OpenGovernment policy: pro-active disclosure of information and for engagement with citizens and
stakeholders.
• Stated goals: strengthen accountability of institutions, increasing legitimacy and efficiency of decision and policy
making
• sought externalities: filling the democratic gap, reinforce social identity and attain social justice
PLANS AND PRINCIPLES
• US OpenGovernment Directive and the Memorandum for the OpenGovernment initiative (Obama, Feb 2009)
• EUTowards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue (2002), PlanD for Democracy (2005), Better
Regulation initiative (2005) and Smart regulation (2012).
BY SUBJECT AND INITIATIVES
• environment: [1991] ESPOO Convention on Environmental Impact assessment in a transboundary context;
[1992] RIO Declaration on Environment and Development; 1998 Aarhus Convention on Access to
Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters; 2000
European Landscape Convention
• constitution-making: India [1950], Bosnia-Herzegovina [1995], Uganda [1995], Poland [1997],Timor-Leste
[2002],Afghanistan [2004], Bolivia [2009], Kenya [2005; 2010]
• Peer-to-patent: remedying the information deficit of Patent Offices, such as in the case of establishing prior art
which is central to the quality of an examined patent.The peer-to-patent projects show that the Patent
community - a relatively clear and competent community with a critical view on the development of the patent
system - is capable of supporting the process (Noveck 2006)
The Legal Roots of Open Government / 1

103. 12.04.2013
First document
of the “wisemen”
2013
17.10.2003
Draft Legislation
2006
25-26.06.2006
Referendum
18.11.2005
Legislation
published
25.03/15.10.2005
Final version
approved
Reform Part II of the Italian Constitution
06.2013
extra-
parliamentary
working group
08.07.2013
Public
Consultation
opens
08.10.2013
Public
Consultation
closes
12.11.2013
Report to the
Parliament
turnout 52%
Yes 39%
No 61%
Reform Part II of the Constitution
--.--.20--
Referendum
18.07.2003
DraftTreaty
establishing a
Constitution
for Europe
2006
Consultative Referendum29.10.2004
Treaty signed in
Rome
04.10.2003
[IGC]
InterGovernmental
Conference starts
Constitution for Europe
Yes Spain, Luxembourg
No France,The Netherlands
15.12.2001
Laeken
Declaration
European Convention for the Future of Europe
Ratification period [by October 2006]
Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia,
Italy,Austria, Greece, Malta,
Cyprus, Latvia, Belgium,
Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania,
Slovakia, Germany, Finland
Ratification
suspended: Czech Republic,
Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Portugal,
Sweden, UK
COM(2005)494 final
Plan D
for Democracy
Dialogue Debate
Failures and Debates

104. Devolution - Reform of TitleV
12.04.2013
First document
of the “wisemen”
2013
2001
20.01.1998
Draft legislation
18.10.2001
Legge Costituzionale
n. 3/2001
26.09.2000
Unified text
approved
08.03.2001
Final version
approved
07.10.2001
Referendum
turnout 34%
Yes 62%
No 36%
25.06.1944 Norm to call for a
consultation at the end of the war on
the form of government and to elect a
Constitution Assembly
02.06.1946
Referendum “Istituzionale”
[Monarchy v. Republic]
Election of the Constitution Assembly
31.01.1948
Publication of the
Italian Constitution
Monarchy v. Republic
Constitutional Assembly
1948
17.10.2003
Draft Legislation
2006
25-26.06.2006
Referendum
18.11.2005
Legislation
published
25.03/15.10.2005
Final version
approved
Part II of the Constitution
06.2013
extra-
parliamentary
working group
08.07.2013
Public
Consultation
opens
08.10.2013
Public
Consultation
closes
12.11.2013
Report to the
Parliament
turnout 52%
Yes 39%
No 61%
Part II of the Constitution
Italian Constitutional Reforms

105. — STATED GOALS
• ACCOUNTABILITY “The Governments will be forced
to act according to justice only if their actions could be
constantly challenged through the publicity: there won’t be
any justice if the political action cannot be publicly known”
Immanuel Kant,“Perpetual Peace.A philosophical
sketch” (1795).
• EFFICIENCY make use of shared and local knowledge,
well adapted and needed decisions and rules
• LEGITIMACY increased acceptance and respect of the
final decision/rule
The Legal Roots of Open Government / 2

106. —SOUGHT EXTERNALITIES
• Reinforcement of local identity
• Promote timely disclosure of relevant information
• Make use of place-specific knowledge and social norms
• Learning and improving the quality of debate
• Create trust, strengthen institutional legitimacy and face democratic
deficit
• Support in tackling conflicts
• Representing heterogeneity and attaining social justice
—ENABLING FACTORS
• ICT evolution has opened a useful array of sources and tools
• Institutions recognize the need to involve iteratively interested
parties and groups
• Citizens manifest increasing expectations from the dialogue with
the institutions
The Legal Roots of Open Government / 2

107. Completing the framework
The Policy Cycle
2.1

108. The Policy Cycle
long term
decision & policy
cycle
action for
change or improvement
drafting
decision
adoption
deployment
implementation
evaluation
review
impact
assessment

109. A Framework for designing engagement
decision & policy
cycle
case for change
deployment
evaluation
decision
implementation

110. A Framework for designing engagement
exante
decision & policy
cycle
action for change
or improvement
drafting
decision
adoption
solutions
issues
identification
ex ante impact
assessment
resources
allocation
co-design
e-deliberation
petitions
advocacy

111. A Framework for designing engagement
decision & policy
cycle
adoption
deployment
implementation
endorsement
buy - in
ecosystems &
communities
innovative
procurement
awareness
agile policy
making

112. A Framework for designing engagement
evaluation
impact
assessment
decision & policy
cycle
monitoring
sustainability
deployment
co-management
pay-for-success
gathering data
for quality and
quantitative
assessment
accelerators
watch-dog

113. action for
change or improvement
A Framework for designing engagement
decision & policy
cycle
ex post impact
assessment
emerging
societal needs
feedback-
gathering
e-
deliberation
evaluation
review

114. Outputs , Outcomes and Externalities
implementation
design
evaluation
adoption
endorsement
monitoring
solutions
issues
identification
ex ante impact
assessment
ex post impact
assessment
resources
allocation
emerging
societal needs
drafting
co-design
e-deliberation
sustainability
buy-in
visualization
feedback-
gathering
e-deliberation
decision & policy
cycle

115. A Framework for engagement
outputs
citizens’ input
expected impact
in the policy cycle
weak
strong
type of input
simple
complex
co-management
co-design
resource allocation
e-deliberation
endorsement
feedback gathering
information - awareness
outcomes and externalities
accountability efficiency legitimacy
awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust

116. Innovations in
Policy Design
2.2

117. 1.POLICY DRAFTING
1.PARTICIPATION & GOOD GOVERNANCE
2.EFFICIENCY & EVIDENCE-BASED
3.SIMPLIFICATION & NUDGING
2.INNOVATION TEAMS
3.PROCUREMENT OF SOLUTIONS
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

118. A. POLICY
DRAFTING
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

119. 1. PARTICIPATION
- political polarization
- democracy dilemmas
- process foul
- internal decisions: specialized
information held by diverse people
within the executive branch
- public comment: draft rules
undergoing analysis and feedback
from other levels of gov, businesses,
interest groups
- substantive, technical, non political,
agreeable
good governance practice (not compulsory)
OPEN GOV
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

120. 2. EFFICIENCY
EVIDENCE BASED POLICY-MAKING
Test, Learn,Adapt: Developing Public
Policy with Randomised Controlled
Trials (9 steps)
- short terms costs vs major long term
benefits
- Moneyball regulations: substituting
empirical data for long-standing
dogmas, intuitions, anedocte-driven
judgements
DATA-DRIVEN
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

121. 3. SIMPLIFICATION
NUDGES, PATHS, FRAMING
BEHAVIOURAL
SCIENCESChoice Architecture:
default rules vs active choice
information on consequences together
with clear, explicit and actionable
instructions
[Sunstein-Thaler] Positive reinforcement
and indirect suggestions to try to achieve
non forced compliance
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

122. CASE STUDY:
#GOODLAW
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

123. #Good law Participation Efficiency Simplification
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

124. Participation
Efficiency
Simplification
Improving Parliamentary and public scrutiny of
legislation has been a government objective in
recent years, seeking to improve both
democratic engagement and legislative quality.
Setting out policy targets in legislation can be
“a low-cost way for governments to give the
appearance of vigorous action” and a way to
strategically influence (or limit) the decision-
making of future governments
consultation and engagement are important. But traditional
consultation exercises can feel burdensome and
unrewarding; and generic questions asked in a consultation
may generate cluttered feedback that is difficult to analyse
and to integrate into the policy or the draft bill.
In an increasingly complicated policy- making context,
consultations that are not predominantly reactive
often work better than the traditional model.
- Volume (number and length of statutes and
regulations)
- Quality (addressing political and social
objectives, harmonious, clear and well-integrated,
in time and efficiently
- Perception of disproportionate complexity
(layered and heavily amended, ambiguous or
contradictory provisions)
- unnecessary (target unachievable, redundant,
unnecessary burdens)
- ineffective (it does not achieve intended
objectives, fragmented or problematic
implementation, substantial negative outcomes)
- inaccessible (difficult to identify and access
up-to-date versions, language and style, lack of
guidance)
#Good law
necessary, effective, clear, coherent and accessible legislation
It is about the content of law, its architecture, its language and its accessibility – and about the links
between those things.
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

125. #Legislate?!
The Cabinet Office has brought out a board game "Legislate?!":
a fun way to learn about the passage of laws from Bill to Act
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

126. CASE STUDY:
DYI
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

127. INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

128. B. INNOVATION
TEAMS
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

129. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs - US
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is located within the Office of
Management and Budget and was created by Congress with the enactment of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA). OIRA carries out several important functions,
including reviewing Federal regulations, reducing paperwork burdens, and overseeing
policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.
Behavioural Insights Team - UK
The Behavioural InsightsTeam, often called the ‘Nudge Unit’, applies insights from
academic research in behavioural economics and psychology to public policy and services.
In addition to working with almost every government department, we work with local
authorities, charities, NGOs, private sector partners and foreign government, developing
proposals and testing them empirically across the full spectrum of government policy.
The Presidential Innovation Fellows (PIF) program pairs top
innovators from the private sector, non-profits, and academia with top
innovators in government to collaborate during focused 6-13 month
“tours of duty” to develop solutions that can save lives, save taxpayer
money, and fuel job creation. Each team of innovators is supported by a
broader community of interested citizens throughout the country.
Independent charity that works to increase the innovation capacity of the UK.
The organisation acts through a combination of practical programmes,
investment, policy and research, and the formation of partnerships to promote
innovation across a broad range of sectors.
Originally funded by a £250 million endowment from the UK National Lottery,
now kept in trust, and its interests are used to meet charitable objects and to
fund and support projects.

130. C.
PROCUREMENT
OF SOLUTIONS
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

131. CHALLENGE PRIZES
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

132. INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

133. •Pay only for success and establish an ambitious goal
without having to predict which team or approach is most
likely to succeed.
•Reach beyond the “usual suspects” to increase the
number of citizen solvers and entrepreneurs tackling a
problem.
•Bring out-of-discipline perspectives to bear.
•Increase cost-effectiveness to maximize the return on
taxpayer contributions.
•Inspire risk-taking by offering a level playing field through
credible rules and robust judging mechanisms.
challenge prizes
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

134. challenge prizes
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

135. INNOVATIVE
& Pre-Commercial
PROCUREMENT
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

136. INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

137. INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

138. PAY-FOR-SUCCESS
SCHEMES
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

139. INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

140. Principles for
LIVING
POLICY-MAKING
2.3

141. Living Policy-Making
1.DESIGNING IMPACT-DRIVEN
ACTIONS
2.DESIGNING FOR AGILITY
3.FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES
4.FROM PROJECTS TO ECOSYSTEMS
5.ACCELERATORS

142. EXAMPLES: SOCIAL IMPACT BONDS, PAY FOR SUCCESS SCHEMES
Financial schemes that
reward the social impact
generated by a publicly-
funded program (pay for
success) or repay private
funding (a “social impact”
bond issued by the public)
through savings
• DESIGNING IMPACT-DRIVEN ACTIONS
Living Policy-Making

143. • From courses to learning experiences
• From certification to continuous
assessment and badging
• From funding for courses to “pay for
success”
• Training as professional development,
rather than an obligation
Example: shaping teachers’ training
• Very little impact from courses across time
and countries
• Certification increasingly less relevant
• Italian teachers more in need than their
peers around the globe
• The age factor
• The “fear” factor (low skills-low motivation)
• DESIGNING IMPACT DRIVEN ACTIONS
Living Policy-Making

144. Example: the school curriculum
• “National indications” are a rigid and ineffective
policy tool
• Teachers training ineffective, especially for
“new” skills (e.g. digital literacy)
• Students demotivated by traditional didactics
• FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES
Living Policy-Making

145. Example: innovating the school curriculum
• Turning classroom activities into national & global communities
• Teachers become facilitators, students as project managers
• Gamification + “Format work” (e.g. Data expedition, role-playing)
• FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES
Living Policy-Making

146. Innovating the school curriculum
• Every classroom projects becomes a community project: the final
step requires a strategy for local engagement
• FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES
Living Policy-Making

147. School curriculum as national partnership
code.org + Programma il Futuro: a national partnership
between MIUR, Italian Informatics professors andTech
companies to bring coding classes to every Italian student
• FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES
Living Policy-Making

148. • FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES
Sustaining the policy by leveraging a
community of tinkerers.The format
“instruction” becomes common standard
Living Policy-Making

149. Every student gets engaged in the “Olympics of entreprenership”
AN ENTRY-LEVEL CURRICULUM
FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP
IN EVERY SCHOOL
A CONTEST, HACKATHON, CAMP,
TECH GARAGE IN EVERY REGION
1,000 STUDENTS WIN
“ACCELERATION”
• FROM PROJECTS to ECOSYSTEMS
Living Policy-Making

150. • ACCELERATORS
Schoolkits
Living Policy-Making

151. • ACCELERATORS
challenges for models of labs and spaces
to spur innovation in learning environments
Living Policy-Making

152. • ACCELERATORS
A “Digital ambassador” in every school to:
• Organize internal training for teachers and
motivate those more resistant to change
• Develop and share innovative and effective
digital practice
• Engage communities for digital innovation (e.g.
local communities, parents) and spur student-led
innovation
Living Policy-Making

153. CASE STUDY:
THE NATIONAL PLAN
FOR DIGITAL
SCHOOLS (2015)

154. WHERE WE COME FROM
1st phase (2007-2012)
classrooms as labs,
rather than in labs
• Classrooms 2.0: 416
• Schools 2.0: 14 schools
• Interactive whiteboards:
35.000
• Digital publishing: 20 schools
2nd phase (2012-2014)
• Classrooms 2.0: 905
• Schools 2.0: 21 schools
• Interactive whiteboards: 1.931
• Plan for “Isolated schools”: 45
• 38 “digital training centers”
created
• Wi-fi in school
In total…
• Roughly 130M investments + 20M
from Regions
• 90,000 teachers trained
• 25% of secondary schools with fast
broadband (15% of primary schools)
• 78% of labs connected, 56% with LIM
• 46% of rooms connected (32% with
LIM)
• 58% of electronic registers

155. WHERE WE COME FROM
Starting point:
a critical analysis of the context
• We trained 90,000 teachers, but
don’t know about impact (and
snowballing effects)
• Inconsistent policies over time
• Lack of systemic vision and,
especially, impact
• Hard technology rather than soft
• No support for school (cultural
issues)
This means:
• Our training schemes weren’t
effective
• The “classroom as labs” vision
proved too tech-centered, and
too expensive
• Teachers tried to absorb
innovation, but mostly couldn’t
deliver to students
• Skills policy mostly linked to tech
rather than a comprehensive
vision on literacy
• Fragmented projects, low impact:
what to incubate?

157. WHERE WE NEED TO GO
1. Not true that digital natives know it all: digital literacy is broadening, and formats are (e.g.
MOOC). We need to develop a strategy/service to involve the private sector, civil society and
creatives to leverage the “engagement as format work” path.
2. Teachers’ training needs to become permanent and structural: it needs to regard almost
800,000 teachers. How do we organize it, leveraging innovative schools and teachers.
3. We need to create a link between digital skills and the kind of careers they produce
(entrepreneurship, emerging jobs, science, research).
4. We need to develop schemes that leverage public + private investments in school
infrastructures, connectivity in particular
5. We need to modernize school labs and school spaces, and change the way we think of them
as linked to digital education

166. Studenti Docenti
Longitudinalità

174. Poli e snodi formativi
I poli (scuole capofila di rete) e gli snodi (sedi di corso) sono individuati mediante
tre diversi bandi. I poli per la formazione degli animatori digitali (DM 435/15) e per
il team per l’innovazione (DM 762/14) sono già stati individuati e visibili al seguente
indirizzo: https://goo.gl/WgjQhH.
Fino al 23 febbraio è possibile candidarsi come snodo formativo per i percorsi destinati
al Personale scolastico e finanziati attraverso le risorse del PON 2014-2020
D.M.
762/2014
PON
2014/20
D.M.
435/2015
Animatori
digitali
Team per
l’innovazione
Personale
scolastico
cliccare per ingrandire

176. how institutions approach innovation in policy design

177. GROUP WORK
APPLIED
“LIVING” POLICY-MAKING
GROUP 1
The Ministry of education
needs to improve the ways
to talk to, listen to, empower
and enable innovation from
“Digital School
Ambassadors” (8,300
people, 1.000 Eur minimum
budget, every school grade).
GROUP 2
The recent school reform has
introduced 200-300 hours of
VocationalTraining experiences
during last 3 years of Upper
Secondary school. Resources
are100 Mln/year, to be used
mainly by schools directly and,
in a percentage, to mentor and
coordinateVET projects.

178. THANK YOU!
@damienlanfrey
damien.lanfrey@istruzione.it
@dskutz
donatella.soldakutzmann@istruzione.it