Serdar Temiz

Competitions are good source of Innovation. I am currently involved with organization of an Open Data Competition in Sweden. It is eGovlab competition where OKFN Sweden supports.

eGovlab’s  “Apps4eGov Innovation Challenge” with the aim to innovate public service with use of Open Data. The contest is open for all students. Three finalists of the competition will be selected and will be offered an internship at the eGovlab in order to develop the app with the guidance of experienced developers and the institutional support of the lab.

The apps entering the contest should have a meaningful impact on society or improve public service delivery. Solutions can span the spectrum from concept ideation, prototypes and working demos, to advanced applications ready for use. All solutions should be related to Open Data.

The context: The apps entering the contest will be designed to support individuals or groups of individuals whenever they face a disruptive event in their lives – i.e. I lost my job, I am pregnant, I am divorcing, etc. Starting from that point, contestant will need to conceptualize an app that gathers information (public data or information) and streamline the services provided by some (or all) relevant public agencies in relation to such life-changing situations.

“This is an opportunity for young innovators and entrepreneurs to apply their knowledge, ingenuity, and creativity to develop an app concept that focuses on improving the life of the community by providing solutions to disruptive life events“, says Gudrun Paulsdottir, Project Manager at eGovlab.

Contestants are required to compete with ideas and functional web applications, widgets, mashups, mobile apps and other digital utilities that make use of public data, which runs on any platform.

Apps4egov Innovation Challenge consists of the following two phases (the Contest Period):

• The first phase of the Contest begins at 10:00 a.m. CET on April 6th, 2014 and closes at 10:00 a.m. CET on May 31st, 2014  (the “Submission Period”); and
• The second phase of the Contest begins at 10:00 a.m. CET on May 31st, 2014 and closes at 17:00 p.m. CET on June30th, 2014, (the “Selection Period”).

“We don’t care where contestants come from, as long as they are at least 16 years of age at the time of entry. What matters is that the idea is anchored on a local level: it must be implementable in Sweden”, Gudrun Paulsdottir explains.

If you have further questions please contact (yes, you can get in touch with me:):

Competition Project Manager: Serdar Temiz  serdar@okfn.se
Egovlab Project Manager: Gudrun Paulsdottir : gpaul@dsv.su.se
Technical Questions: apps4egov@egovlab.eu

Read more www.apps4egov.egovlab.eu

Facebook: www.facebook.com/apps4gov

Twitter:@apps4egov

One of the best things that happens being part of the OKFN Sweden team is, to get lots of information about open data, openness, to get inspired by great community members and to be part of global movement that promotes openness. Open Government is key to have more accountable and transparent  governments. Openness means the best use of public money. I would like to talk about a recent campaign that OKFN launched. I am well aware of lots of people being angry to corruption, fraud and  unaccountable governments. Now, you can do more than being angry.

One of the issues that limits citizens ability to have transparent, open and accountable government is secret contracts. A new campaign has just started by OKFN to stop secret contracts. OKFN has announced it with a press release By definition, public contracts means these should be public by default and classified only when strictly necessary. Citizens should be able to see that public money is properly spent, and not pocketed by politicians and businessmen.  If you are not sure how much it is important to have “open” contracts, please have a look at these figures:

• Europe loses an estimated €120 billion to corruption every year
• It is estimated that $20 billion dollars is lost to fraud and corruption in the defence sector every year.
•  Africa ‘s around a quarter of its GDP  is lost to corruption: around $148 billion .

If you care about open government please sign the petition. For more information please go to http://stopsecretcontracts.org/

Please Tweet on #SecretContracts

Organizations who would like to support the campaign should contact: contact@stopsecretcontracts.org and/or can reach OKFN Sweden

Articles:

Return to work: Toward post-industrial engineering by Diane E. Bailey and Stephen R. Barley. (2005) http://www.stanford.edu/group/WTO/cgi-bin/uploads/2005%20Return%20to%20Work.pdf

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Science: The Dilemma of Engineering Schools in the Twentieth Century by Svante Lindqvist (1998)

Bailey  & Barley (2005)’s article tracks the topics studied in industrial engineering and shows how concern for work studies declined and argues it should increase and industrial engineering research should also consider social science and should be more in the field and collect empirical data.

Lindqvisk (1998) shows how most of engineering schools of the western world are almost the same, how European and especially Swedish universities follow footsteps of MIT and how it is difficult and not right to assess the success of an engineering school with only publications. For example, as I see, even though promoted in this way, collaboration with industry is never a parameter to measure the success of the university. There are different rankings but most of them compare number of publications with number of active researchers. Engineering schools do not only publish article but gets patents, do cooperative projects with industry, develop new products and industrial processes. How should we count all of these to measure success?

When I think Bailey  & Barley (2005)’s article and after I did a little research, I saw that according to McKinsey Global Institute’s report from 2012, in advanced economies the demand is growing faster than supply for skilled workers. They predict the shortage of 13% of the demand for high-skilled labor by 2020. Moreover, according to Gallup’s (2013) study “The State of the American Workplace”, 70% of American workers are “not engaged” or “actively disengaged” from their workplace. They are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive. In the report it is estimated that “actively disengaged” workers cost the U.S. between $450 billion to $550 billion dollars a year in lost productivity. These numbers show the importance of having committed/ engaged employees at the workplace. If I also consider how the way people work have changed last 5 years, I agree with what the article suggests: industrial engineering researchers should focus on work research. Considering what Lindqvisk (1998) said regarding financing, I wonder whether funding sources and requirements are the result of the shift from work research to other topics.

At  Lindqvisk (1998)’s article, when I read “Grenoble is, in a manner of speaking, closer to Stockholm than Uppsala”, I recognized this mentality. I know, for some Swedish people, L.A is closer than Uppsala. I have seen people who follow what is happening at MIT but not at KTH. I think, engineering schools should also focus on research &development of their proximity and should not only follow USA universities. May be that’s why, Swedish universities are trying to do collaborative research with other  European universities and started different  projects like, EIT ICT Labs, Tempus projects. I like what Lindqvist (1998) bring to the discussion: do we care about  improvement that these engineering schools provide or do we mainly care to write it down and publish it?. Do we care about to “make history” or write history?

Both articles, actually suggest engineering research return back to their roots and be on the field

When it comes to financing, I think funding institutions dictate the research. If you look at PhD positions at Swedish universities, they are usually looking for PhDs for already ongoing projects. It is almost impossible to find a general ad regarding research at any of  engineering programs. It is usually tied to a project, to a funding etc. I can make an anology of usage of a technology in Sweden: Heat Pump. Heat Pump industry gained support with the government’s incentive for households via tax deduction. The same goes with research: When there is a fund, there is a clear objective mandated: Fund for renewable energy, for example. Let’s say a researcher has a theory to use oil energy more effectively or gain more energy from oil and if s/he had enough funding s/he would prove it. Researcher has to find relevant funding to be able to pursue his/her research. After I had talk with other searchers and observed what is happening with EU funds, I noticed that big amount of time is spent just for finding relevant funding and preparing application. I have noticed how researchers diverge from their main interest towards the funding organizations’ requirements. Are we trying to push for real research or research for funding?

I think, there should be some sort of funding that; researchers should be able to use it for the topic they want to use. Researchers should have, at least, 10 percent of their time to use for any topic they want to do research. Let’s say, a docent should be able to get x amount of research funding per year, for any topic s/he wants to pursue. I am sure; this flexibility will increase motivation of researchers and number of scientific outputs.

My research is related Open Innovation / Data in different platforms. I do not think both of articles would have much impact on my research. In the future, I might consider influence of Open Innovation methodologies on work related research.

Gallup (2013) The State of the American Workplace: Employee Engagement Insights for U.S. Business Leaders  Accessed  v ia http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/163007/state-american-workplace.aspx  september 2013