Pitching OpenOakland: The Case for Getting Behind the Constituent Success Platform on the Internet Computer
OpenOakland is the local hacker brigade of Code for America, which meets at Oakland City Hall every Tuesday evening. I am not a member, but have joined a couple of meetings in the past. I let the current leadership know that I was interested in pitching my idea at an upcoming meeting and was provided a template designed to give structure to project proposals. This story uses that template to explain the Constituent Success Platform on the Internet Computer to OpenOakland and “good” hackers everywhere.
Goal of the Project Brief
According to the OpenOakland template, the “goal of the project brief is to make sure every project…considers a set of key factors before it can be considered an official active OpenOakland project. Namely:
- There are a clearly defined need and a constituency
- That the need has been validated
- There are clear goals and identified outcomes
- That the project contributes to the broader organizational goals
- That the impacts, both positive and negative, of the project have been considered, particularly through a lens of racial equity.
The project brief is intended to provide “a starting point for discussion amongst brigade members so that we can support each other’s efforts and hold each other accountable.”
Project Info
Your Name
Michael Ford
Any members of your team
At the moment, just me.
Project nickname
You can change this later. For now, we just need something to refer to it by.
“Constituent Success Platform on the Internet Computer” (CSP)
Questions
What issue does your project focus on?
Describe what you know about the issue and how the issue might contribute to inequities in Oakland.
Like other cities and towns, the City of Oakland succeeds when its constituents succeed. Unfortunately, success is not equitably distributed across Oakland constituents. What is sorely lacking or needed is a platform specifically designed to support the establishment, development, and resiliency of collaborative, goal-seeking, -setting, -sharing, -aligning, -realizing, -celebrating networks accessible to all constituents. To fill this need, the CSP combines four things: a c̶u̶s̶t̶o̶m̶e̶r̶ constituent relationship management system (CRM); time-tested leadership development concepts; robust models of participation; and the Internet Computer.
How does this project support OpenOakland’s values?
Read the values on OpenOakland’s website.
OpenOakland’s values and the CSP proposal:
OpenOakland believes “all Oaklanders’ ideas, skills and experiences can benefit our city when applied to civic challenges.”
The CSP is designed to support the efficient exchange of ideas, the identification and development of skills and other capacities needed to realize those ideas, and the sharing and valuing of diverse experiences as a way of building Oaklander’s capacity to meet any challenge, present or future.
OpenOakland believes “technology is an enabler and is far less important than the change it can support when used effectively.”
What is most important is the network of personal relations that constitutes the fabric of our community. The CSP, like any technology, is a powerful enabler of that network, one that is specifically designed to effect positive change. Robin Chase, co-founder of Zipcar, makes a compelling case for peer-to-peer platforms in her Peers, Inc.
OpenOakland is “nonpartisan and [does] not endorse candidates for elected office.”
The CSP supports the “public participation” process, not partisan politics. (cf. my previous Medium story, “To Think and Act Like Cities and Towns”)
OpenOakland provides “a bridge between government and communities and works to make government more accessible to all.”
At scale, the CSP would enable OpenOakland to build bigger, better, and bolder bridges between local governments and the communities that they serve. Moreover, “open” and “public” do not guarantee “access”; the CSP should provide the necessary and sufficient “scaffolding” that constituents need to access their city government in ways that are truly empowering and meaningful to them.
OpenOakland “are hackers for good — we experiment, we build, we push boundaries to discover better ways to do things.”
The CSP is a Salesforce that must be built by the people if it is going to truly work for the people. As such, it would not be possible without the collective efforts of “hackers for good” in Oakland and in other cities and towns around the world.
OpenOakland works “in the open, producing open source technology that others can use freely to improve their community also.”
In its original and still current form, the CSP exists as a Salesforce instance. The impending launch of the Internet Computer will enable the CSP to migrate from that private platform to an open, blockchain-based computing ecosystem.
OpenOakland prizes “diversity amongst our members, our leaders, and our stakeholders.”
I am an old, white dude who has benefitted from a life of privilege. I acknowledge the need to actively work to combat the systemic racism, sexism, classicism and other insidious dynamics that plague our community. Diversity in memberships, leadership and stakeholders at all stages of project development is absolutely essential and steps must be taken to proactively insure that it exists and is valued and sustained.
OpenOakland works “to maintain an environment where all people are respected.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Who is impacted by this issue?
Describe the population(s) in as much detail as possible. Try to move beyond demographics and think about underlying experiences, behaviors, needs, and goals.
By design, the target population for the CSP is constituents in general (i.e., “all people”). The experiences, behaviors, needs and goals of constituents will vary by constituent and depending on the use case.
In my official capacity in the City’s Department of Transportation (OakDOT), I have worked to apply the CSP-concept to Transportation Demand Management (TDM). The basic policy objective for TDM is “mode shift”: get more and more people out of private vehicles (taking single-occupancy trips and causing all kinds of problems as a result) and into active transportation (walking and biking), transit (BART and AC Transit buses), and shared mobility (bike share, car share, scooter share, etc.). TDM often works with employers (e.g. the City of Oakland or Clorox) which requires resources but is relatively easy to do. It can also target groups of individuals who share mobility challenges (e.g. low income people who work swing and graveyard shifts and are dependent on private vehicles because the transportation system is designed to support “normal” commuter needs). However, working with such groups is far more difficult and only feasible as grant-funded initiatives (e.g., the ACTC-funded “OakMob TDM” initiative that is set to begin in East Oakland now that construction of AC Transit’s “Bus Rapid Transit” system is almost complete).
The TDM use case is important in and of itself, but it can also serve as a model for other cases, and this for at least four reasons: first, the underlying goal of TDM is behavior modification (e.g., “stop driving your damn car and get your walking game on!”); two, traditional TDM relies almost exclusively on extrinsic motivators or incentives to change commuter behavior (e.g., transit pass subsidies or market-rate pricing for monthly parking); three, such “stick and carrot” motivators are costly and positive/healthy behavior tends to regress to negative/unhealthy behavior when those motivators are withdrawn; and four, the economic and environmental benefits to be realized by a successful TDM program are substantial and easily quantified/captured (e.g., for every one commuter who takes BART instead of driving to downtown Oakland, there is one less garage space needed; recent construction and land costs put each parking space at $70,000 — fewer parking garages means more space for housing — etc.).
How do you know this is an issue for this group?
What empirical data or anecdotal evidence do you have that this issue exists for this audience?
Prior to joining the City of Oakland in 2013, I worked for a series of IT startups in business development roles; before that, I completed an interdisciplinary doctorate degree with a focus on organizational learning and community development. Additionally, I have practiced personal leadership development for decades and have served as a volunteer faculty member and program director for a leadership development program in a service organization the past ten years (cf. Rotary District 5150 Potential Rotary Leadership Seminars).
Given these experiences:
- I understand the importance of CRM systems in the private sector and quickly realized that the City of Oakland was almost entirely reliant on the heroic efforts of individuals to establish and maintain constituent-City relations;
- I have both developed and identified what I believe are promising models of participation that inspire the CSP-concept and will inform the general design as well as basic functionality of the platform;
- I am acutely aware of the benefits and rewards that come from personal development and effective personal and organizational leadership.
The leap from a CRM to a CSP takes leadership development and its benefits from an event (e.g., a Saturday workshop) or a costly credentialing program available only to a select few (e.g., USF’s Organizational Leadership degree programs) to a technology-enhanced community of practice. This is the general idea behind what I call “Augmented Urban Reality” (AUR).
For local government agencies like the City of Oakland, efforts to engage and work with the community are typically policy-driven, project-based or program-centered. The Civic Design Lab based at Oakland City Hall now features a “human-centered” design process that represents a welcome alternative, and I have recently participated in the process myself (cf. a video produced by CDL-sponsor Citi). That experience only reinforced my conviction that the City of Oakland was in desperate need of a constituent-centered platform that effectively codifies that process and makes it scalable.
Whom might you partner within this community to inform the work?
We strongly encourage direct collaboration with community partners (and have found that the most successful projects tend to be produced in partnership with those impacted by a project).
There are no specific partners “within” the community that will inform this work; the CSP is designed to partner with the community, at multiple levels and with varying degrees of engagement. Regardless of level or degree, the basic prerequisite for participation in the CSP is an appreciation for the importance and value of “goal-directed” activity. Such an appreciation is based in part on the recognition that the status quo or present state is in some way problematic, unsatisfactory, unhealthy, unfair, unfulfilling, etc. and that concrete steps can be taken, individually and collectively, to remedy the situation or realize untapped potential.
Even so, there are three key partners or constituencies that will be needed in order for the CSP to go from project proposal to a functioning “canister” on the Internet Computer that meets even the most demanding requirements, specifically — the City of Oakland, OpenOakland, and Dfinity.
As a City of Oakland employee, I stand to benefit from this project. For now, I am pitching and helping to jump-start the CSP project as a civic-minded Oakland resident. As such, I am doing this on my own time and my own dime. No City of Oakland resources will be used to promote or support this project until such time that it is recognized as official city business. Still, even in this strictly “unofficial” capacity, my involvement means the City of Oakland is already at the project table.
OpenOakland provides an amazing space in which talented IT professionals can use their highly valued skills to create software applications with and for the public (cf. OpenOakland’s project page). The CSP on the Internet Computer will not be owned by, controlled or dependent on any particular person, department, city or corporation. As detailed above, the project appears to tick off all of the boxes for OpenOakland’s values. Moreover, it promises to give “good” hackers everywhere the opportunity to learn and contribute to a project that aims to leverage the full potential of Dfinity’s Internet Computer Protocol (ICP) and bring ICP-powered applications to cities and towns around the world.
While the basic idea for the CSP has been decades in the making, and a Salesforce-based version has been designed and deployed (in a very rudimentary instance) within OakDOT, it is only now that it can be pursued in earnest, and this because of the promised start of the Internet Computer. As such, the third and final key partner in this venture will be Dfinity. While I have been following the development of Dfinity for a number of years and have at least a non-technical appreciation for the disruptive potential of the Internet Computer, there’s a good chance that the active members of OpenOakland (and good hackers elsewhere) are not familiar with this ambitious undertaking, let alone have any expertise in the ICP architecture and the Motoko programming language. This being the case, it will be imperative that the CSP project earn a spot on the growing list of “early” applications supported by the Dfinity team. A good friend of mine who is associated with Dfinity is aware of my efforts to develop the CSP idea; I trust he will know if and when we should pitch it to Dominic and his team.
What other stakeholders do you need to consider, and do you have existing connections with them?
Will you be reliant on a government agency for specific data, input, or approvals? Are there other groups or communities that may be impacted by your project, and how might you include them in your design/build process? Is there anyone you can lean on for support or input?
The CSP does not process existing data, so there will be no reliance on government agencies at any level for data access; on the contrary, it facilitates and supports the generation of entirely new data sets that government agencies will greatly value and seek approval of different kinds to access and exploit.
As indicated above, the CSP will find a user base anywhere in the world that has local government agencies who are accountable to their communities and who can appreciate the idea that they succeed when their constituents succeed.
Support and input can come from other stakeholders, including other public servants like myself who have no technical expertise and are not likely to contribute code, but can identify other important use cases and help design and specify features of the platform.
Beyond OpenOakland, the CSP project could be adopted by other Code for America brigades and other civic hacker groups around the world.
What specific outcomes do you hope to achieve?
Instead of focusing on what you want to build, first describe how you hope to impact the particular community, institution, or individual(s) that you’re targeting.
The CSP will be truly impactful to the extent that it builds the capacity for individuals, groups and their local government agencies to effect positive change. The nature of a given problem or opportunity and the benefits to be realized or the losses to be avoided will vary, but the basic structure for supporting collaboration and teamwork between local government and community members remains the same.
How do you plan to achieve these outcomes?
Problems can often be solved in many different ways, so we want to think carefully about why we’re choosing a specific approach. Describe the solution, tool, or experience you hope to develop. Include as much detail as you need.
The CSP is a problem-setting and solving machine. It codifies a proven change process that is currently only available to those “in the know” and who have the means to “own it”. The component parts of the machine were introduced above and will be developed in future stories.
How will you know the project has been successful?
What indicators or signals might you measure to understand if you’ve achieved the impact you’re hoping for?
“The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” Like Slack or Gmail, one important measure of success will be acceptance and adoption rates. More importantly, however, the measure of success for the CSP will be the number and value of the individual and shared goals set and achieved by cities and towns and their constituents.
What are the potential negative impacts this project might have? What are the risks if this project isn’t successful? How do you plan to mitigate these negative impacts and risks?
Because we may be working with underrepresented and/or marginalized populations, it’s particularly important to consider ways we might inadvertently negatively impact our stakeholders. Examples might include “wasting our government partner’s time” or “eroding trust,” among others. Identifying these risks early can help us proactively solve them.
The biggest risk, perhaps, is that cities and towns will continue to squander the unique opportunity they have to serve as anchor partners in local networks. Moreover, the challenges that individuals, families, communities and local agencies face are only intensifying — as our world “gets smaller,” the challenges are only getting bigger. In response, local communities must take decisive measures to increase their capacity to collaborate and coordinate. Like the sun and wind, we must find new ways to harness the untapped energy of local networks.
Another major risk is lack of trust and confidence, in the platform itself or in the individuals and institutions that use or abuse it. This, however, is a topic for another story (or many stories) that touches on the necessity of building the CSP on the Internet Computer — for the people and by the people.
