Di Maio cree en la tecnología pop para la Administración
Últimamente estoy promocionando la expresión “tecnología pop” para apoyar la idea de que la Administración debe salir a donde están los usuarios a conversar y prestar servicios. Por lo tanto, debe usar los sitios con mayor densidad social de la web 2.0 como front-office.
Andrea Di Maio, del Gartner Group, voz autorizada donde las haya, piensa lo mismo. Cree que la Administración dejará atrás los portales “one-stop shop” e incluso que dejará atrás la idea de portal y creará microservicios que puedan servirse de manera ubicua. Esta es otra idea que hemos defendido en este blog, y que hemos oído a gente como Peter F. Brown o Ricardo Devis.
El artículo (Government and Web 2.0: The Emerging Midoffice) es tan interesante que espero traducirlo algún día y copiarlo en este blog.
Entre tanto, os dejo algunos párrafos en inglés:
“The deployment of Web 2.0 technology business models will force governments to reconsider their electronic channel strategies by moving the emphasis from the front office to the midoffice. Government IT architects and e-government planners need to take notice, since this will affect the role of enterprise architecture and how Web services will be designed and reused.
- User behaviors are being reshaped by their customer experiences with leading Internet players, as well as with virtual communities and social networks.
- The most natural starting point for several government-to-constituent (and government-to-business) interactions is not a government-owned channel. Besides this, Web 2.0 makes interoperability between different Web sites easier and more dynamic, hence the emerging role of “mashable” government services.
- Enterprise architecture initiatives should take into account the role and shape of a midoffice that provides mashable services to nongovernment organizations that act as intermediaries and value-added resellers.
- Service-oriented architecture (SOA) initiatives in government should make greater use of design and programming styles, such as representational state transfer (REST), that make services more easily usable and reusable.”
” How Constituent Behaviors Are Evolving
During the past few years, consumer behaviors have been significantly affected by services and customer experience offered by eBay, Amazon, Google and others. The first-stop shop for almost anything on the Internet is a search engine, a personal home page, or a preferred home page that matches the consumer’s needs and interests. This type of home page is likely to be provided — not by a government organization, but by an Internet player (such as Google, Yahoo or MSN), a media company (such as CNN or The New York Times), a telecom operator (especially for mobile devices), an investment firm, a parent association or a golf club. To command the consumer interest and attention, all these channels will compete to provide access to as many services as they can. Therefore, the basic assumption that a constituent will access a government-controlled channel when he or she needs a government service is flawed. Constituents’ experiences and expectations lead them to believe that government information and services will be accessible seamlessly through their preferred channel, according to what they are trying to accomplish, the time of the day, their location, their mood and the context in which they are operating. Although, in many cases, governments can mandate or limit the choice of channels (like in the past, by allowing interaction to take place only in their offices or at selected sites of authorized intermediaries), governments that genuinely strive for better customer service and constituent-centricity should no longer focus on owning or tightly controlling the channel. Rather, they should make sure that their information, services and applications are accessible through a variety of different channels, some of which are not controlled or directly owned by government.
Defining the Midoffice
While government channels will lose relevance as the preferred or most popular entry point to access information and/or services, governments will remain responsible for managing that information and delivering those services. Services will have to be accessed from a variety of different channels, most of which are outside government control (such as banks, insurance companies, retailers, search engines, utilities, mobile operators and social networks), and service delivery will imply cooperation between a variety of process components and elementary services that different government agencies or other parties are responsible for. From a business model perspective, future services will be delivered through a network of government and nongovernment organizations, depending on convenience, specialization, availability and resource management.
In this scenario, government accountability will be exercised by ensuring that individual process components and services comply with legal requirements, and by overseeing or directly managing process orchestration.”
Esta idea es también válida para la empresa. Sostiene Orihuela:
“Las empresas en la red ya no pretenden exclusivamente que los usuarios vayan a visitar el sitio corporativo: han comprendido que ahora lo que corresponde es ir a dónde están los usuarios y no sólo hablarles de sus productos, sino también y sobre todo, escuchar lo que dicen acerca de ellos”.
Por aquí hemos dialogado un poquillo sobre estas ideas en la empresa.
Parece que ya tenemos dos mandamientos para nuestra Administración 2.0: