Guest Blogs

I have had the opportunity to post a number of blog topics on the ePSIplatform during the Month of October and I would look to this final blog posting as a means of summing up my arguments with regards the effective promotion of the PSI resource.

In my view, the ‘value’ of PSI should be exemplified in order that all participants within the information matrix are aware of the potential benefits of an effective information exchange mechanism. The burden of failing to realise this opportunity would fall on both public and private sector players and will be evidenced to the detriment of the pan European economies as a whole.

• The key message here is that public sector has to be engaged as an active and willing participant rather than being viewed as an adversary.

In my second Blog posting – the discussion centred on the prevailing cultural differences which affect the workplace relationship between Public & Private Sector participants

• It is this area where the strongest leadership and focus are required if we are to succeed in fostering positive engagement with the public sector data holders.

The third Blog posting concentrated on the differing ‘Value’ of PSI dependent upon the position within the information matrix.

• We are now in the 21^st Century – The Information Age – and it is essential that clearly a mandated policy framework is in place to deliver fair, open, transparent and accountable access & pricing policies from within the public sector.

The forth Blog posting related mainly to the UK Property Search market and showed proof that effective lobbying can grant access rights BUT that increased access rights:

• Come at a price in terms of actual cost and bureaucracy which remain beset by the divergence between public & private sector cultures

This blog is intended as a summary highlighting the positives, in order the PSI community are able to interface & engage in a reasonable manner with Public Sector bodies and exert reasoned arguments underlining the need to achieve that level of access which will allow the real growth of value added products to generate additional goods, services and benefits within the information market.

Finally, I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the ePSIplatform for having allowed me the opportunity to voice my opinions.

Within the UK market, the Property search sector, where there is a critical interface between public sector data-holders and potential private sector re-users, shows the relationship between sectors at it’s most confrontational.

Since 2002, we have witnessed specific high level lobbying of the UK Government. There are many reports & studies which have impacted upon this area of the market with the intention of promoting information re-user rights, good practice and clear & accountable charging. These include.

• OFT Property Searches Study 2005
• OFT Commercial Use of Public Sector Information Report 2007
• ODPM Personal Search Guidelines 2005
• DCLG Personal Search Guidelines 2007
• CIPFA Property Searches Charging study 2006
• DCLG (KPMG) Charges for Property Searches Study 2008

At a high level, the proliferation of reports, studies and PSI related activities indicate a degree of success in lobbying for information rightsBUT the harsh realities of information trading tell a different story.

The OFT Property Search Study although rightly viewed as groundbreaking in its scope – has largely failed to alter the working & trading relationships which exist between data holders and data re-users.

The Personal Search Good Practice guidelines (2005 & 2007) have often been ignored and where changes have occurred, the perception is that these have often been of a negative nature with public sector attitudes becoming more entrenched & hard line.

The CIPFA Charging study (withdrawn following concerns from within the private sector) led to the DCLG (KPMG) (Charges for Property Searches) Study. This study HAS changed the relationship field, although not necessarily in the manner initially envisaged by private sector trade associations & interests.

• Improved access (where same exists) has come at greatly increased levels of bureaucracy
• New Charging powers have been imposed where previously there had been no charging
• Rationing of access rights by public sector data holders continue to exist with greater delays & restrictions being evident now than before the publication of the KPMG Study
• Local Authorities (who are the main data – holders in this market sector) continue to ignore the solutions provided by OPSI – (Click Use Licensing, IFTS and Licensing Forums).
• The sheer scale of differential charging across all 412 District & County Level Authorities is astounding with 92 fee levels ranging from £6 to £67.00 being imposed for a standard information report (LLC1).
• A similar scenario has recently occurred with Building Regulations information where new charging rights introduced under the KPMG Study have resulted in a) Differential Fees for information which range from 0 to £38; b) Examples where each of the LA’s have initiated their own particular level of Bureaucracy determining the manner in which information can and cannot be requested, gathered & collected; c) Where (even in the 21^st Century) an inordinately high % of the LA’s are unable or unwilling to accept instructions or provide replies by email.

There is also much recent concern in the property search market with regards the case of Birmingham City Council where a statutory dataset of Adopted Highways (which has always been provided free of charge via access rights granted under Section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980) is from October 26^th to be charged out at a cost of £23.05 per individual property search via a Licensing arrangement. Interestingly, this charge will not be applied to the search report services produced by Birmingham City Council and which has led to suggestions that this represents a clear abuse of monopolistic position. The proposed License does not in any event, accord with the Click Use License model pioneered by OPSI and there is much concern within the property search sector that unless successfully challenged, a precedent will be set and other Local Authorities will follow suit in introducing further charging regimes.

In summing up, whilst there has been some success in terms of high level lobbying for re-use rights, it would be prescient of Public Sector Data Holders to understand that the increasingly high cost burden being imposed on participants in the property information marketWILL fall eventually on to the homeowner. It is however a matter of some concern, that irregular, inconsistent and ill considered charging schemes are being introduced to the market and may ultimately threaten the tenuous success of one of the governments key mandated policy themes – Home Information Packs.

I have previously commented upon PSI as a realizable asset and also on the cultural divides which continue to impede innovative re-use models within the European markets.

Public Sector Information is of obvious and transparent value to the economy and has been estimated as being the largest source of information within the European economic model. The US information industry by comparison, is approximately five times the size of the European market despite a similarity of size within the respective economies and populations and this disparity represents an enormous ‘opportunity cost’ loss to the European markets.

Commenting on the United States model, David Worlock (Outsell) states:

‘The US is an information Society for which the value of information as a resource is culturally embedded. Information is widely regarded as a tradable commodity’

However, the position within the European model is somewhat different:

‘There are innovative trading models within the current markets whose very ‘innovation’ continues to be stifled by red tape and bureaucracy’ – John Gray, PSI Consulting

Whilst there is obvious value to PSI, the perceptions as to actual value will differ widely across the sectoral divide and will impact upon potential re-use.

1. Within the Private Sector, the perception as to the value of PSI equates empirically to the cost of acquisition & capture of an information resource and which is by necessity viewed as a key determinant factor where Zero or Marginal Cost Pricing is favoured. (Marginal Cost Pricing in this context (within the UK) dates back to the Governments Cross Cutting Review of the Knowledge Economy in 2000). Marginal Cost prising is again promoted strongly within the Power of Information Review (2007) in aiming to promote a landscape which supports innovation within the information industries and a pricing model which is fair, equitable and transparent.
2. Within the Public Sectors of European economies however, the perception of value is often seen to equate to the maximisation (of value) to the information holder (even though the creation of the base information resource has often been largely tax funded) and of the recovery of all costs in allowing the re-use of that information resource, which can of course, act as strong disincentive to potential & effective re-use.
3. The perception of value therefore can be seen to differ quite radically, dependent upon the position of the information holder and that of the information re-user, within the wider information matrix. It is at this point that the dichotomy between sectors (PSI – The Cultural Divide 07/10/09) still prevails and distorts the downstream value. This is particularly so in the case of Trading Funds – as has been evidenced across the European marketplace to the cost ultimately of growth & innovation within the European Economies.

If we look to the lead of cutting edge players within the ‘Global’ marketplace, we will see the rise of the phenomenon of ‘Freemium Pricing’ (Free products that allow the sale of premium products) This model exists where the near zero marginal cost of digital distribution have created a new marketplace where potentially ‘free’ pricing is a force of economic ‘gravity’. A leading proponent of this activity model - Chris Anderson - argues that future markets will have companies competing with ‘free’ as a non price model. We see evidence of the ‘free’ model already at the cutting edge of the digital world economy with players such as Skype, Google & Spotify.

Given the rapid growth of these companies and others within the Global digital economy and of their wide impact upon Global society, it is possible to visualise the vast and as yet, unrealised potential of the European Public Sector Information resource.

My belief however, is that the true equitable value of PSI will only be recognised once we have an element of certainty in a mandated policy where there is CLEAR direction on fair, open, transparent & accountable pricing policies from within the Public Sector which will allow the full and unimpeded flow of innovative products & services.

Despite the increasingly high level political & institutional support afforded to the PSI Re-Use agenda as evidenced in many governmental policy initiatives (including a range of recent pragmatic solutions arising from Belgium, Denmark, France, Spain & Sweden), there is a clear and evident risk that the full economic value of the public information resource will fail to be delivered unless we can attempt to bridge the cultural dichotomy which has long existed between the Private & Public sectors within the wider pan European economic model.

The adversarial & antagonistic attitudes which are as prevalent in many areas today as they have ever been despite many governmental initiatives, continue actively to impede and obstruct the flow of information as a resource in its own right and to threaten the Re-Use agenda.

Pressures for access & engagement from within the Private sector continue in many areas to be blocked by ‘Gatekeeper’ attitudes from within large areas of the wider Public Sector where protectionist and obstructive attitudes often lead to a decrease of effective PSI re-use.

The private sector ‘cultural drivers’ are often borne from entrepreneurial instincts which by necessity are proactive, fast moving and subject to cutting edge commercial pressures whereas those within the generality of the public sector may often be seen as reactive, risk adverse, bureaucratic & lacking in the commercial awareness that permeates the private sector. This often negative interface between public sector & private sector within the economic system is where the widest dichotomy is evidenced and where the divergence in culture is at its most apparent.

If we really are intent on promoting the re-use agenda , we need to eradicate the proliferation of silo mentalities, narrow self interest agenda and resistance to change which whilst not confined to the public sector by any means ARE in many areas a fairly common indicative phenomena.

Peter Krantz, (www.opengov.se) has produced a Paper which states authoritatively, that whereas the information resource will increase in value within a system as it is actively shared and promoted, it will actually decrease in value & degrade in circumstances where it is hoarded. The views & objectives of Opengov are mirrored in the UK by the Open Knowledge Foundation (www.okfn.org) who have recently reaffirmed the need for improved and co-operative working relationships between public & private sectors.

Within the Pan European market there is great political support and vision which is increasingly providing & promoting a compelling argument to actively share the information resource but although the political leadership (as evidenced in the OPSI Model within the UK) remains highly focused, inertia and ignorance in large areas of the public sector continue to stifle progress and actively threaten the public sector information reform agenda. Making the best use of resources & paving the way for progress in effective service delivery remains a major challenge and one which needs to be addressed if the strategic aims of the re-use agenda are to be fully achieved.

The structure of high level management within the public sector from where ‘leadership’ would be expected to flow may itself be part of the problem. (Robert Heller – Management Today)

• The principle of the ‘Generalist’ still rules
• Rapid high level staff turnover diminishes the growth of expertise
• Objectives are often inappropriately estimated as a result of inadequate planning
• The chain of Command is long
• Policy directives lose impetus as they filter many levels of Bureaucracy
• The effective focus of downstream policy implementation suffers

There are of course very real resource implications implicit in delivering policy change and public sector bodies are by their very nature often overly pressured in financial terms in coping with the funding & fulfilment of their primary public task duties. Within the UK in particular, there are centres of excellence where the information resource is managed & promoted to the highest standards. In those areas of the wider market where the attainment and achievement of goals is evident and recognised, we should seek to build on that success leading by example to show how the public and private sectors can work supportively in promoting an open information resource that is available for re use and subsequent provision of value added services.

Notwithstanding same, the cross cultural interface where the custodians of the public information resource & the highly charged commercial pressures of the private sectors meet and interface continues to remain an area where the divide in workplace culture is at its greatest and where attitudes can often be seen as attritional. It is precisely THIS area where the strongest leadership is needed and where the potential benefits of successful policy implementation will be seen to be most effective in producing deliverables deriving from effective re-use.

It is certainly the case that the public sector needs to and must be engaged proactively as a full & active participant and stakeholder in the PSI Re-use agenda. Clear and unambiguous policy directives need to be laid down from within the political leadership through a structured educative programme emphasising the ‘win win’ ethos where the added value of effective psi re-use itself promotes downstream economic growth &revenue generation to the benefit of all.