#4 from 2012: Openness for Whom? and Openness for What?
Our Top Ten Blog Posts by Readership in 2012
Originally published on April 9, 2012
The emerging concept of “Open Development” has become a topic of keen interest to citizens, policy makers, and development practitioners alike.
Opening data to enhance transparency, accountability and development outcomes sounds great. However, two main issues remain unclear: Openness for whom? And openness for what?
Two weeks ago, I participated in a fascinating panel, entitled ‘Does Openness Enhance Development?’ at the ICTD2012 Conference in Atlanta. At the center of the discussion were the following issues: (i) what do we mean by open development? (ii) Can openness close the ‘accountability loop’ between citizens, governments and international donors? (iii) Can openness lead to a more inclusive development? (iv) What is truly open and what not? and (v) What are the main barriers to opening up the development process?

The open agenda took a new twist a few weeks ago when
Development organizations operate at the global level, partnering both with countries to implement country strategies, and within sectors to tackle sectoral challenges. NGOs on the other hand, operate at the grassroots level, working with individuals towards the betterment of communities. Development organizations have the advantage of resources, many years of experience and knowledge but are generally several degrees removed from the individual. NGOs are in touch with the needs of citizens and are able to respond quickly to challenges but unable to scale up. The two have worked together, but so much more can be done. Over the last several years the dynamic has undergone a fundamental change. Cue to technology, which is fast emerging as a game changer in the world of development. Technology enables linkages based on mutual agreement (e.g. development institutions-NGOs) as well as linkages that evolve organically (e.g. a grassroots human rights group in Kenya that builds a relationship with a Swedish development institution focused on social inclusion).
How do you ‘disrupt’ your business from the core by building on your strengths and leveraging your assets? Jeff Immelt, GE’s CEO talked about the fear of losing too many engineers and scientists who don’t ‘fit corporate culture’ but proceed to found billion dollar businesses (Sergei Brin started at GE). It reminded me of a session at the Indian School of Business led by a senior Google Executive where he said that it’s not Microsoft, Facebook, or Twitter that keeps him up at night, it’s ‘three kids in a garage’. Hewlett Packard, Apple, Google, and Groupon, all started small, learned fast from failure, took risks nobody was willing to take, and then fundamentally disrupted business models and industries.
There has been a lot of buzz lately around open development, and new initiatives seem to be popping up everywhere. My colleague
A few weeks ago, I was wrestling with how to frame the narrative on the open development agenda—open data, open knowledge, open solutions – at the Bank. The work in this area has multiplied across the Bank and for many it was a bit bewildering – lots of new initiatives, interesting ideas, experimental projects – and so it was important to explain in a simple and compelling way how all of these pieces fit together.
Is the newly fashionable term 'open development' another masterpiece of imprecision, or does it mean something real, definable and enduring? The
The