What is government-as-a-platform and why should we care?
You might have heard this term bounced around recently “Government-as-a-Platform (GaaP).” What does it mean? And why should I care?
Here is my take, let’s start with the basics.
What is government?
“the governing body of a nation, state, or community.” ~ Google
Government (in a democracy) is at a basic level the collective arm of a community or society. It is where we come together to decide the rules that we will all play by; where we pool our resources to invest in collective projects that reflect our common needs and values. At its best, a government enables its citizens to be their ideal selves, to thrive (think Maslow’s hierarchy of needs).
What is a platform?
“a raised floor or stage used by public speakers or performers so that they can be seen by their audience.” ~ Google
We use platforms to see further and be more easily seen. They are enablers. The other key thing about platforms is that they can enable anyone, there is a certain equality to them.
In the digital world, a platform refers to a piece of software (or hardware) that enables users to connect, share and create. Digital platforms represent the revolution of web 2.0 when the internet became not just about finding cool information but actively participating in the development and sharing of it. Digital platforms brought about the rise of the prosumer, that is a user who is both a producer and a consumer. Think for example of Youtube. Youtube doesn’t create its own content, rather it creates a “platform” that enables its users to both produce and consume videos. Same with Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Craigslist etc..
What is government-as-a-platform?
Soon after the rise of web 2.0 a group of techies started to ponder how the new relationship between people and the web with its digital platforms could be applied to government. From this came the Gov 2.0 movement (for more on the concept of Gov 2.0 and its movement, check out this blog I wrote). At the heart of this was the idea of having government function like a platform. That is, to enable its users (citizens and organizations) to be active prosumers in the work of government (policy making, service delivery, budgeting).
To this end, Tim O’Reilly coined the term government-as-a-platform (GaaP) in his landmark 2010 article by the same title.
Why does it matter?
So what? Why should any of us care if governments start to re-organize themselves into platforms?
Simply put because it will transform our relationship to governments the way web 2.0 technology has changed our relationship to the internet. And that is to say dramatically. There is a lot of good that can come from this. Our relationship to government will become more personalized and convenient. We will be able to access our services any where, any time from any device and get services tailored to our individualized needs.
Platforms put users at the centre, often giving them the pen to create. This means that we as citizens will increasingly have opportunities to shape our experiences and have our voices heard. We will no longer feel like numbers, like outsiders, we will instead become insiders on the issues we care about.
This is a huge opportunity… but there are also dangers.
Though platforms give everyone an equal opportunity to create, it does not mean everyone will. Therefore those who put up their hands and get involved will have a larger influence in shaping government. Even if available, not everyone has the capacity (time, energy, knowledge, etc.) to get involved and it inevitably ends up being the usual suspects who drive action. Also, though anyone can create content and participate, it does not mean this content will be consumed equally. Social media has allowed for the outsized influence of individuals who are able to build a brand and strike a nerve. So platforms lower the bar to entry but the same social dynamics of power and influence are in play.
The other big danger is that citizens are not the only users of government, organizations are as well. And so there is a risk that GaaP will open the door for larger influence of organizations who already have an outsized influence on our governments. A great example of this is the common critique of O’Reilly’s GaaP model for opening the door to privatization of government services. As governments release their data and API’s, third party actors will use them to build services and service brokers (packages of services). These third parties have less accountability, transparency and different incentives than governments do.
Want to learn more about GaaP? Here are some articles that have inspired me:
- Government as a Platform by Tim O’Reilly
- A Working Definition of Government as a Platform by Richard Pope
- Government as a Platform: the next phase of digital transformation by Mike Braken
- The Evolving Role of Non-State Actors in Digital Era Government by Amanda Clarke
- Government as a Platform: What can Estonia Show the World by Helen Margetts and Andre Naumann
- Gov as a Platform: A Value Proposition Discussion Paper by Pia Andrews
- Government as a Platform: the foundation for Digital Government and Gov 2.0 by Pia Andrews
- The OECD Digital Government Policy Framework: Six Dimensions of a Digital Government
Also The Meme Hustler by Evgeny Morozov is a deep critique of Tim O’Reilly’s work including his thinking on GaaP. It is a long read but it worth it.
