This idea creatively addresses a real need.
I work with small, community-based NGO's in outer-suburban Sydney. They have difficulty getting statistical evidence to establish levels of need or assess the impact of their programs. This is because most sources of statistical information aggregate data at units of measurement (often whole of LGA or suburb) which mean the data is not useable or relevant to them. The other challenge is that what is being measured is often not what they need or want to know.
I have done preliminary work with networks of such agencies and with local governments to establish data-collection processes which agencies drive themselves.
What Rdkallman has suggested here provides a structure and a process for doing this. It also demonstrates an understanding that what's really useful knowledge to individuals and communities is not always reflected in the choice of things which are currently measured statistically.
Finally, it also fits nicely with what Marcus has described elewhere as 'Mighty Mashups for mindful service targeting'. After all, the purpose of getting better information is to deliver better services and have a greater impact. I wonder if there's some way these two ideas could be married into a proposal that's even more powerful?
Good feedback and worth exploring as an action. In general I feel that too often the measures we use are constructed from a top-down control perspective, rather than to enable accountable individuals to improve performance. This was just one approach.
I guess this would be more like a space for conversations around the things that people care about in terms of data and that governments could use when designing what they want to measure? - I imagine it would play an activist role?
I don't understand the idea.
Does it say that citizens/non-profits can make suggestions on particular statistics that need collecting? At present, I think that anyone can collect just about data they want and publish it. Are you saying that the government should prevent that? Or that any data that's published should have a public forum for discussion?
Or, is, perhaps the suggestion something to do with having a collaborative space where government (ie, Australian Bureau of Statistics) statistics can be discussed?
PS: What's the deal with focussing on non-profits? What about other sorts of agencies, there can be for-profit community groups that could benefit from data and collaboration.
Thanks for your comments fxi. The idea is primarily around defining a new set of measures and supporting statistics by which the broader community determines its level of success. The literature about the current limitation of important 'performance' measures based around GDP is growing significantly. In Europe (Sarkozy) we see Government driven initiatives to broaden out the measures of performance for a nation.
Books such as 'Capitalism: as if the World Matters' are serious efforts to define broader categories of measures. This idea is to give such efforts momentum and legitimacy in Australia by engaging a grass-roots community to work in collaboration with Government to say how they want 'performance' measured.
Some pretty exciting changes are heading your way. ASIX is being re-launched as SIXAUS and shifting from a
self-service model to an actively managed membership community. Find out how you can get involved.
Comments
Re: Citizen driven stats
Re: Citizen driven stats
Re: Citizen driven stats
Re: Citizen driven stats
Re: Citizen driven stats
Re: Citizen driven stats