I recently attended an European chapter of ASIS&T Information Science Trends online conference This year it focussed on health information hehaviour. The following are my digitally-assisted memories of #AECIST20, i.e. adaptations of my live-tweets from the event. As ever, this report is mostly to help me sort what I need to do from what I want to do after being stimulated by many fascinating presentations. Any mistakes or misrepresentations in the below are of course my mistakes.
The RIVAL network: I’m PA to the ∏, administrator, map-creator, videographer, data-analyst and much more
IL measures paper: Peter and I are contributing a section to a paper by Gunilla Widen. This will report not he survey of community councillors, and how (not to) measure workplace information literacy.
marking: some marking of students’ placement reports.
information avoidance in diabetes: because I don’t want to know about my diabetes, but because I do want to know why this is. And I want to to help others with this bad combination, and to maybe generate some theory!
This is an update of a post from my first week in São Paulo, with input from my much better half. Mistakes of course are my fault, not hers.
If we don’t get PB right first time, people will lose confidence in it.
In this lesson, right can be replaced with good enough, because nothing is perfect, and Scotland is just learning to do PB.
This lesson means we need effective processes so that people know they have made the choices.
It also means that what is promised must be delivered near enough on time and near enough on budget.
This should happen in any context, no matter how much (or how little) money is involved.
We can argue about what near enough means at appropriate points.
Projects must be monitored as they proceed.
Also, due diligence/monitoring must happen at the end of project periods.
And that data must be analysed to see what is effective.
There should also be the possibility of discontinuing projects if it turns out that they are unlikely to be delivered, or if the benefits can be delivered in better ways, or if an urgent need arises for the money allocated to the project.
But this must be done transparently, and must not even appear to be party-political.
Don’t rely on revenue forecasts, because what is forecast may not materialise!
Annual cycles, i.e. projects that must be started and completed in a year, may be sub-optimal.
LeithChooses’ 2018 turnout (1000/20,000 = 5%) is good.
I’ve been a mostly-quiet member of the Open Government Network Scotland for about two years. I’ve not done much, just quietly supported the idea that if we have access to facts and ideas, we can make more informed, and hence better, decisions. However, in December I spent a weekend proofreading a late draft of the new Open Government Action Plan, so I was delighted to be invited to this morning’s launch of the finished document.
As ever, this post is to consolidate and review my thinking and learning, as well as to share it. So errors and omissions in this account are mine.
Here is the agenda for the day. My tweets, thoughts and write-up follow it.
Official Launch (Livestreamed): Welcome speeches by, then Q&As with, co-chairs of Open Government Steering Group:
Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Relations, Michael Russell
Member of the Open Government Partnership International Steering Committee, Lucy McTernan
COSLA (Convention of Scottish Local Authorities) – Cllr Graham Houston, Vice President
Workshop: Delivering the Action Plan in partnership and beyond
Group discussion questions: How do we work in partnership?
How do you want to be involved? How can government and civil society/third
sector work collaboratively together? How might this work? How do we take
Table 1: financial transparency
Table 2: participation and public involvement
Table 3: access to information
Table 4: being more accountable
Table 5: transparency on Brexit
Closing remarks – Stephen Gallagher, Director of Local Government