Education Between GovTech and Civic Tech

Abstract

In the recent movement towards smart societies, smart governments supported by GovTech and smart cities developed through Civic Tech have become known as dominant structures enabled by information and communications technology. Since GovTech and Civic Tech share the goal of giving citizens better and safer lives through their engagement with government and technology, the development of online public services is characterized by the use of collaborative production methods involving various stakeholders and players. Open data, collaboration, and systematic teamwork are key to understanding this production of heterarchical structures. This study reviews previous cases of collaboration between GovTech and Civic Tech, identifies the dominant mechanisms of the smart society, and summarizes existing pedagogical and industrial theoretical systems, mindsets, and skillsets with the aim of developing content for a university course. Double loop learning, design thinking, the Agile methodology, and the lean principle are identified as theoretical systems. Our findings are arranged so that they can be applied in the content of a university-level educational technology course, which we designed to develop students’ transformative competencies to enable them to become active citizens. In addition, we compared the processes involved in observed theoretical systems and conventional pedagogical theories to clarify the differences in their mechanisms. We conclude with a discussion of the need to recognize frameworks of different paradigms to prepare students for transformative social activities.

The government of Indonesia’s smart city development: Fiscal capacity, cognitive models in decision making, excessive caution about future accrual of benefits, and null regulatory leadership

“…This study focuses on the fact that smart city development projects are not immediately realised due to the incomplete knowledge of the cognitive model (Mohamed et al, 2006;Džupka, 2021) and the absence of double-loop learning (Tan et al, 2021;Yoshida and Thammetar, 2021). Furthermore, the GoI did not conduct a knowledge of the transformation process for regions to build smart cities or did not emphasise regions' knowledge mastery (Retna, 2002;Lerro and Schiuma, 2009;Purwanto, 2018), especially for the formation of mental models which have consequences for double-loop learning capabilities.…”

“…Furthermore, because regions have primary responsibility compared to the GoI, they should use functionalised all existing resources, producing the most professional approach and deploying the best ICT knowledge through their smart cities programmes. Consequently, they interactively stay ahead of the dynamisation curve of political economy phenomena via their groundbreaking strategies (Purwanto, 2018;Suartika and Cuthbert, 2020;Yoshida and Thammetar, 2021). However, the authors argue that all regions' poor progress in smart city programmes is caused mainly by the vagueness of the region itself in conceptualising a smart city project as an ongoing IST project rather than a mission to streamline all society activities.…”

“…Therefore, this article shows that the immediately unrealised smart city developments were solved when the central GoI shared congruent knowledge with the regions (Tan, Taeihagh, and Sha 2021;Tan and Taeihagh 2020;Yigitcanlar et al, 2019), supporting the regions' chiefs through their cognitive models. Consequently, the GoI has to dismantle its clandestine leadership for the control systems that always actively diagnose smart city development progress (Shelton et al, 2015;Silva et al, 2018;Yoshida and Thammetar, 2021). Next, when the GoI uses command leadership to replace clandestine ones, the regions' chiefs can construct their cognitive models (Donaldson and Luo, 2014;Chen et al, 2018;Džupka, 2021), which then get feedback to correct these development projects.…”

Smarter Open Government Data for Society 5.0: Are Your Open Data Smart Enough?

“…Today “openness” has become synonymous with “smartness” [ 5 ], which is also in line with the recent movement towards Smart Society, Smart Government supported by GovTech, and Smart Cities developed through Civic Tech, which have become dominant structures provided by information and communication technology (ICT) [ 6 ]. The common objective of both is to ensure a better and safer life for citizens through their engagement with government and technology.…”

“…Governments are seen as the main beneficiaries of so-called GovTech, where policies on OGD and government transparency are being developed to enable citizens’ access to information and participation in government. However, Civic Tech includes a series of projects that use OGD to act in the public good [ 6 ]. This requires the opening of “right”/“correct” data, i.e., data interesting to both data re-users taking advantage of them and transforming them into solutions, and governments who facilitate the data opening process and benefit the consumer.…”