Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Situating Open Data Within The Bigger Picture of the Global Data Economy

We make a stronger case for open data when we situate our argument within the larger picture of the global data economy, and then place developing countries within this economy to make the case how and why effective data management is the most efficient engine of sustainable growth and development. 


Global Data Economy Map: Bah 2015


The global data economy comprises seven commercial data brokerage industries.  They are those involved with:    

1.   Data creation: All sectors of society, particularly government, create data in their day-to-day activities. People Data is what Steve Adler calls the non-government aspects of this process. The creation may be passive or active, known and unknown, local or international—e.g. social media applications widely used in developing countries, such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Viber.

2.   Data collection: Companies, in concert with government ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs), non-profits and other companies, provide products and/or services geared toward facilitating efficient data collection. In other words, in a way that would indicate the data’s level of integrity (i.e. reliability, validity and comprehensiveness) and actionability (i.e. in formats that facilitate quick and effective use of the data for their intended purposes).

3.      Data storage:  Companies that provide hardware and software products and services to facilitate data storage to MDAs, businesses and non-profits . Cloud computing services typically fit here.

4.     Data sharing:  Companies and MDAs that provide products and services to facilitate data sharing.

5.   Data archiving :  Companies, non-profits and MDAs that provide products and services for the archiving of government and business data, per statutory requirements.

6.   Data destruction : Companies, non-profits and MDAs that provide products and services for the destruction of government, non-profit and business data per statutory requirements. E.g. Paper-shredding products and multi-billion-dollar data/document shredding companies such as Iron Mountain

7.   Data safety & security: Companies that provide products and services to individuals, MDAs and businesses to verify data integrity, prevent data breach, and/or prevent or mitigate harm borne of data breach (e.g. identity theft and ransomewaring). This category serves as the fulcrum to the rest. Some of the major big businesses in this sector are LifeLock and the three major credit bureaus in the United States (i.e. Equifax, Experian and TransUnion) with many subsidiaries overseas. A significant revenue source of these companies is now the various credit-monitoring services that they provide to individuals and companies.

Admittedly, the categorization above of the trillion-dollar global data economy is simplistic, serving merely to facilitate description and comprehension. In reality, the vast majority of the companies fall in more than one category, depend on one another to thrive and in many cases serve as B2Bs to one-another.
 *
Risk assessment would be the two-word expression that best describes what dictates what we do, with whom, when, where, how, why.  Just like the economy. The greater the perceived risk, the less inclined we tend to be to take such risk. Or when we do, the higher ROI margin we demand. And how do we well assess (the) risk? With data that pass the efficacy test. In other words, with data that are valid, reliable, comprehensive and actionable. Reflect a minute on the compendium of regulation, policies, procedures and institutions governing the financial services industry in developed countries; almost all of them deal with data management in one form or the other, and all geared toward assessing investment risk. Of the individual (e.g. individual credit reference bureaus), the company (e.g. the various stock exchanges), the institution and the state (e.g. credit ratings agencies such as Fitch, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s).

Impressive economic growth worldwide, attributable in no small measure to the BRIC, MINT and UAE economies, leaves the world flush with financial capital in need of ventures, mostly in developing countries, and mostly in Africa South of the Sahara. “China’s World Bank” all but guarantees this to remain so  in the foreseeable future. What is preventing infusion of private investment capital into these regions is not the purse-holders’ inability to see the huge market potential. Nor the erstwhile inhibitors that cluster around the phrase “inadequate infrastructure"; we are now so far technologically advanced that companies from any part of the world could offer well-heeled individuals living in any other part of the world the wherewithal to live off the oft dysfunctional government grid.  Think solar panels for electricity, boreholes for water, and Facebook’s drones for internet connectivity.

Nor is the problem investors’ inability to accurately assess risk. Rather, it is their inability to access efficacious data on, within and from these countries to enable them to estimate and monitor at their own level of confidence, the (potential) risks associated with their (potential) investment. We’re talking here, for example, about open data such as court records to show liens and other forms of encumbrances by lending agencies to protect their investment. We are also talking about shared data such as individual credit reports to help lending institutions assess individuals’ likelihood of defaulting. 

My point is, there’s a lot of data-management-related activities going on in developing countries. These activities span all scope and types of data--open, shared, closed and permutations between and betwixt. We make a stronger case for open data when we situate our argument within the larger picture of the global data economy, and then place developing countries within this economy to make the case how and why effective data management is the most efficient engine of growth and development.

I list four benefits of a comprehensive national data management blueprint geared toward optimal competitiveness in the global data economy:

1.      Generation of consistent revenue flow for the country’s coffers from both international and local sources. The government of Sierra Leone is a typical example of developing countries currently losing tens of of millions of dollars annually due to lack of effective national data management regulation, policies, procedures and practices. One main revenue source is “copy fees” typically levied by MDAs when fulfilling FOIA requests. Another is licensing fees paid to MDAs by legitimate businesses such as insurance agencies, for access to non-open data such as driving records.

2.      Support and growth of local innovation and entrepreneurship in data brokerage.

3.      Job and overall economic growth, borne primarily of #2 above and of making the country much more business-friendly for local, regional and international investors.

4.      Greater transparency and good governance.
 *
Something to consider.


Thursday, July 9, 2015

On Names and Naming #2: Problems with Open Data



This is the second in my series on the accuracy, connotations and denotations of terms/expressions widely known and used in the global society of data management for social change and development. Here is the first.
*

    My impressions so far with the reactions to the term Open Data of people across diverse sectors of the global community of data management for social change and development.

#1. Data is scary
Say “data” and people hear a jamboree of geeks such as statisticians, economists, computer scientists, number-crunchers and evil hackers.  

#2. Data is exclusive and exclusionary
As a result, the knee-jerk reaction of the significantly larger majority of those in the global community of data management for social change and development who do not see themselves as geeks is “Not interested. That’s not my thing.”

#3. Open Data is scarier
Open Data projects a global community of hacktivists who manipulate data to portray in a bad light (in)famous people such as politicians, corporatists, celebrities, barons and cartels. To these “embattled victims”, ethical and legal obligations governing data integrity, access and use, or those relating to balance and fairness or defamation matter little to not at all to the hacktivists.

#4. Open Data is adversarial
As a result, those of the government sector (whose support and participation are critical, especially in developing countries) are wary about the “true intent” of program sponsors and implementing partners. They tend to see them as tools enabling their opponents to cause trouble and remove them from office, rather than effective tools for good governance, sustainable development and local innovation and entrepreneurship. It does not help at all that quite a few of them have a foggy knowledge of this dreaded alien thing called Open Data.

#5. Open Data is (only) digital data accessible online
This view is doubtless informed by the history in developed countries of the collection of citizens’ data, first by government, then by corporations, currently by both in concert. Citizens’ apprehension of technological, economic and political developments and activities on these continue to influence their relentless advocacy on information(al) access, privacy and security.  In this information society (more accurately data society), practically all data are created, collected, stored, shared, archived and/or destroyed digitally.

Therefore for those in developed countries, the focus on Open Data is not at all data; this is assumed to be digital. Nor is it much on access; many laws guarantee them that. Laws such as court/open public records acts, open meetings/sunshine acts, freedom of information acts and public domain provisions in copyright and patent laws, to name but a few. More precisely, the focus is on making open data actionable to enable citizens to advocate for a government that is more transparent, answerable and responsive to the needs, wants and desires of its citizenry.

This belief influences the design and implementation strategies of most of the open data programs in developing countries. But with two distinct differences.  First, developing countries need to be open-data ready—in fact, readiness is a key indicator in the prestigious global open data barometer study conducted annually by the Open Data Research Network. And for this to happen, much faith is placed on government as the host and primary actor in the creation of laws and institutions similar if not identical to those in developed countries.

Secondly, programs that use Open Data to solve problems relating to health, education, agriculture, poverty alleviation, environmental protection and the like are actively encouraged and supported.  The activities of GODAN readily come to mind.

But as I, like a growing number of others, continue to point out, our understanding of data and of open data needs to be expanded to embrace the reality of the nature and magnitude of data management (i.e. from collection to destruction) in developing countries.

#6. Open Data is a privilege
A significant number (though not the majority) of Open Data advocates in developed countries tend to think that Open Data issues are negligibly applicable to developing countries. “They have more pressing issues to deal with” is the spoken and unspoken belief. Pressing issues like access to basic needs such as safe drinking water, reliable electricity supply, K-12 education, health, gender equality, individual and public safety & security, etc.

This view is easily debunked by countless examples on the ground that show the laudable extent to which Open Data is used to effectively address said pressing issues. Suffice it to say that this perception is strongly undergirded by that of #5 above.

Evidently, with the exception of the few above-noted, all of these beliefs are far from the reality. But then again we tend to be driven more by our perceptions than by the truth. It would help a lot to explore ways of addressing these misperceptions in our workshops, symposia, conferences and the like. It would help in equal measure to bear these (mis)perceptions in mind when we work on policies and programs geared primarily to those in developing countries.