Government cultures are usually attempting to increase value, improve careers, and expand services. Sounds reasonable enough until executed over long periods, during which time organizations tend to experience all kinds of challenges, from apathy to fiscal ruin and lack of innovation. This project was a breath of fresh air for many of us, but for the seasoned vets in gov and those who observe closely, it had problems from inception.
As my old friends in gov remind me often, the agencies control the budgets, and the WH CIO and CTO are (in my words) more like leaders on the playground than the school board, or even teachers. Without budget authority in the federal government, one can do very little, and seasoned managers don't pay much attention frankly. In knowledge systems, which is where semantics really came from-- culturally in research and to some extent funding, we discovered the hard way that in the U.S., cross agency efforts must first be on the WH agenda. We did manage to get a rational KS on the WH agenda for the first time post Katrina, but nothing happened. With the new admin we then saw the MUCH SMALLER data.gov effort that fails to address organizational issues, without which we don't even begin to address the underlying challenge. This is a far more complex issue than just data.gov
If it were possible to sep data.gov from the fed gov't structural challenges, and it's not, then I would recommend a couple of things, but first some context in casual format.
This project like many others was sold as a government efficiency program. Typically, however, government was not reduced due to efficiencies gained, but rather expanded, and therefore lost credibility with those they serve-- the generic tax payer who collectively owns the data, so immediately we are back to the core fundamental issue of the role of government, and who is in control-- who works for whom.
The data created and produced by federal agencies, with the exception of course of any that cannot be made public due to legitimate safety and/or security concerns, is fundamental to the very mission of government-- its reason for being. Most forget that a government job is not an inalienable right, but is rather a service dependent upon the whim of the people in a democracy, their representatives, and more important of all-- the economic ability that empowers choices. Only in a very misguided culture of power and turf battles that result in crisis creating silos can it be viewed that government employees have power over citizens relating to public data, but that is the culture in many of the 400+ entities I have engaged with. Most of us have met true servants in government attempting to get things done and transform -- heroes in my book, even if often martyrs.
Traffic, or popularity, has absolutely nothing to do with the value or business case, unless one is selling advertising.
The solution is obvious-- make the data available, preferably as the fundamental mission of the agencies within existing budgets, and allow the private sector to create value from it. In our existing regulatory structure, that leadership must come from the WH.
