Though I chose "partners", this is a should and an ideal; the complete answer is muddier and can - depending upon the individuals involved - include some amount of "threat".
The driver is the dominant (enforced) culture in the particular government entity - and more importantly, the behavior of individual decision-makers within that entity.
I've experienced cases wherein the official position toward the public is aloof or even arrogant, while the attitude and actions of individuals is meaningful and positive - if frustrating for both of us.
I've also seen the reverse, though in these cases, the official position is one which is typically in conflict in some way with reality - and predictably the result is cognitive dissonance and frustration.
Ultimately, it comes down to the model of government the public and the government workers believe extant (regardless of what they say). As a government worker, am I a representative or an authority? A servant or an administrator? Who am I seeking predominantly to please? Who am I being instructed (overtly and tacitly both) to please?
What's particularly enticing and rewarding about the Open Source development model is that service is built into the fabric of the process. If I am not particularly skilled at serving others before myself, the model provides me clear direction for how to do so - at least in regards to the particular project using the model. More, it provides me the assistance of real people - real, because they are enthusiastic. Enthusiasts tend to be more forgiving of flaws and missteps, particularly if owned.
About the data itself - the availability of copious amounts of real-time and / or historic data is tantalizing, particularly to information hounds such as myself. While the temptation is endemic to cull, correlate and transform data sets, let's endeavor not to create information reuse engines, fulfilling requests which duplicate or otherwise perform work-arounds in order to achieve one-off short-term goals. If the citizen is laboring with these assumptions, he's hardly a CIO - at least not a good one.
The CIO starts with the business case for the use of information - that is, expressing the need for actionable intelligence in realistic terms. Information, tied to its uses, is what defines intelligence. Citizens, CIOs or otherwise, must clearly and consistently communicate (sell) their vision for the use of information in a substantiated manner which decision-makers appreciate.
Though I chose "partners", this is a should and an ideal; the complete answer is muddier and can - depending upon the individuals involved - include some amount of "threat".
The driver is the dominant (enforced) culture in the particular government entity - and more importantly, the behavior of individual decision-makers within that entity.
I've experienced cases wherein the official position toward the public is aloof or even arrogant, while the attitude and actions of individuals is meaningful and positive - if frustrating for both of us.
I've also seen the reverse, though in these cases, the official position is one which is typically in conflict in some way with reality - and predictably the result is cognitive dissonance and frustration.
Ultimately, it comes down to the model of government the public and the government workers believe extant (regardless of what they say). As a government worker, am I a representative or an authority? A servant or an administrator? Who am I seeking predominantly to please? Who am I being instructed (overtly and tacitly both) to please?
What's particularly enticing and rewarding about the Open Source development model is that service is built into the fabric of the process. If I am not particularly skilled at serving others before myself, the model provides me clear direction for how to do so - at least in regards to the particular project using the model. More, it provides me the assistance of real people - real, because they are enthusiastic. Enthusiasts tend to be more forgiving of flaws and missteps, particularly if owned.
About the data itself - the availability of copious amounts of real-time and / or historic data is tantalizing, particularly to information hounds such as myself. While the temptation is endemic to cull, correlate and transform data sets, let's endeavor not to create information reuse engines, fulfilling requests which duplicate or otherwise perform work-arounds in order to achieve one-off short-term goals. If the citizen is laboring with these assumptions, he's hardly a CIO - at least not a good one.
The CIO starts with the business case for the use of information - that is, expressing the need for actionable intelligence in realistic terms. Information, tied to its uses, is what defines intelligence. Citizens, CIOs or otherwise, must clearly and consistently communicate (sell) their vision for the use of information in a substantiated manner which decision-makers appreciate.