Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gov't App Contests Are Cool, But Are They Useful?

Posted by timothy on from the why-we-have-the-word-overweening dept.

theodp writes "In 2008, Washington, DC, launched one of the hotter trends in public-sector technology: the 'apps contest'. But even as more jurisdictions jump on the bandwagon, the contests are reportedly producing uneven results, and the city that started it all is jumping off the bandwagon. 'I don't think we're going to be running any more Apps for Democracy competitions quite in that way,' says Bryan Sivak, who became the District's CTO in 2009. Sivak calls Apps for Democracy a 'great idea' for getting citizen software developers involved with government, but he also hints that the applications spun up by these contests tend to be more 'cool' than useful to the average city resident. 'If you look at the applications developed in both of the contests we ran, and actually in many of the contests being run in other states and localities,' Sivak says, 'you get a lot of applications that are designed for smartphones, that are designed for devices that aren't necessarily used by the large populations that might need to interact with these services on a regular basis.' Sivak also cited maintenance of the new apps over the long term as a concern."

41 comments

  1. "Designed for Smartphones" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then: "So let's have an app contest to design neat applications for smartphones!"

    Now: "Well it didn't work out because the apps were designed for smartphones..."

    NO SHIT

    1. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by al3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I understand that government needs to concern itself with building things that help the most people, but opening up interaction with government so that user groups can define how they want to interact is a good thing. It's sort of like the long tail.

      If you create conditions where someone makes an app for smartphones (open government data), and it only gets used by people with smartphones, this is a net gain for the society. It didn't cost government what it would cost to develop from scratch, including the cost of coming up with the idea. The smartphone people interact with government in a way they couldn't before: the way they want to. This potentially lessens visits to brick and mortar offices and calls to support centres. It might cost something to maintain the app, but in the end it might be saving you money and serving more people.

      Let every small interest groups create their own way to interact with government, and you end up serving more people than you would have if you had just focused on a solution that helped the majority.

    2. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by wangi · · Score: 1

      If you create conditions where someone makes an app for smartphones (open government data), and it only gets used by people with smartphones, this is a net gain for the society

      Nonsense. The folk with smartphones are typically those who'd already interact with government. You are doing absolutely nothing to interact with those who are totally disenfranchised. You know - the ones who cannot afford the net, cannot afford a fancy phone?

    3. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is possible to improve a situation without improving all facets of the situation at once.

    4. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by stdarg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Make it easier for the middle class is just as valuable as making it easier for the very poorest.

    5. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by al3 · · Score: 1

      Right. The point is these groups can often server themselves by writing their own apps that use government data, freeing government to focus on the other areas of the problem.

    6. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by delinear · · Score: 1

      From (one of) TFAs (I hate these summaries with no one clear article just a bunch of links):

      The first edition of Apps for Democracy yielded 47 web, iPhone and Facebook apps in 30 days - a $2,300,000 value to the city at a cost of $50,000

      If that's true, then even if the poorer communities can't benefit directly from the contest, they can certainly benefit indirectly from the fact that there's $2,250,000 more in the pot to spend on other services. I'd also like to point out that I'm a smart phone user who is disenfranchised, and I thought this sounded like quite a nice idea. Of course, it would be good if they could broaden the scope of the projects so they could be used as teaching aids in schools, etc and not just on smart phones, but either way it seems they're getting something for nothing and getting a few otherwise disinterested people to take a look at what they're up to, I fail to see the bad.

    7. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article seems to suggest that they save money by getting developers to do the work, with the aim of winning a prize, that would otherwise still have had to be done but would have been done by expensive contractors. In that case it's the opposite of a waste of money, you're saving money in the public purse that can be used elsewhere, to help those less privileged who wouldn't benefit directly from this initiative.

    8. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Make it easier for the middle class is just as valuable as making it easier for the very poorest.

      Not really...

      I mean, yes, 1 million people is 1 million people, regardless of their income level...

      But if you spend $X on an app that only reaches folks that own smartphones, you have to compare that to spending $X on a mass-mailing that would reach anybody with a mailbox. Or a radio campaign. Or Posters. Or billboard ads. Or whatever.

      Folks who can afford smartphones generally have fairly good access to information and resources. They generally have a halfway decent income and education. They usually have some kind of transportation. They frequently have a job where you can take personal time off, or at the very least aren't working nearly 24/7. They're usually able to pull up information on a web page, or make a phone call, or walk down to the office, or whatever. They don't, generally, need a whole lot of help to make information/resources/whatever more accessible.

      Folks with a lower income are generally hourly employees that probably can't afford to take time off from work. They may be working multiple jobs. They may not be able to afford to have someone else watch their kid. They may not have transportation, or Internet access, or even a working telephone/radio/TV. They're going to have a much harder time, in general, accessing information/resources/whatever.

      So there's a very real question... You've got $10 million to spend to help make government more accessible... Do you spend it on a smartphone app that will only reach folks who already have plenty of ways of accessing government? Or do you spend it on something that'll reach all the folks who have a hard time accessing government right now?

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    9. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hi honey! I was at the mall today and my favorite store had a sale on shoes. I bought $2.3 million worth of shoes for a mere $50,000. Sure, we can't pay the mortgage and I'm not sure where the grocery money is going to come from, but don't you see, I saved us $2.25 million! Oh, and the shoes are only theoretically worth $2.3 million, they were marked down to $50k because none of them match style, color or size, so nobody actually wants to buy them. But I saved us $2.25 million!

      It sounds like these apps weren't really all that useful. The stated worth is generated by some standardized metric, not the actual value to the government or its citizens. If it was such a great value, they wouldn't be discontinuing the program.

    10. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then: "So let's have an app contest to design neat applications for smartphones!"

      Now: "Well it didn't work out because the apps were designed for smartphones..."

      Well, except the contest wasn't specifically for smartphones, though it included them. The problem appears to be that with smartphone apps permitted, those kind of apps dominated, perhaps because they are most interesting to developers, even though they don't, to the same degree, dominate the contest sponsors interests.

      Of course, it would be easy enough to solve this problem with focus by excluding smartphone-specific apps from the contest, rather than not running the contest. (Since smartphones can use the web, a web-app only contest would still, most likely, develop apps that could be used by -- or at least, could be readily adapted to -- smartphones, while assuring that the apps had a broader potential reach.)

    11. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by stdarg · · Score: 1

      So there's a very real question... You've got $10 million to spend to help make government more accessible... Do you spend it on a smartphone app that will only reach folks who already have plenty of ways of accessing government? Or do you spend it on something that'll reach all the folks who have a hard time accessing government right now?

      I honestly don't think you can judge it based on the preconditions of the experiment, but on the outcome.

      A smartphone app that somehow let a million curious middle class people keep better tabs on the government would be extremely valuable and beneficial to our entire society in my opinion. Spending the same amount of money doing something to help the poor would be noble but not inherently more valuable to society overall.

      I guess this is the same sort of question as in No Child Left Behind. Is it better to spend $10 million to help kids who can't read, or $10 million on gifted programs for kids who are way past the basics? Both needs exist and both are valuable.

    12. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      You are doing absolutely nothing to interact with those who are totally disenfranchised.

      Who are those disenfranchised? The blind? The disabled? The homeless? The mentally ill? The non-english speakers? The incarcerated? The young? The old? I'm just wondering how you would suggest we reach this hugely fragmented group of people?

      The folk with smartphones are typically those who'd already interact with government.

      And yes, those same people, some of which may already be care-takers/nurses/doctors, librarians, church volunteers/priests, volunteer firefighters/medics, school staff, social workers, NGOs, community activists, good Samaritans/concerned citizens, etc, those people may be sometimes the only means we have to get to those who are disenfranchised anyhow.

      And with the mandatory upgrade path of many phone carriers, it won't be long until everyone with a cell phone has a smartphone (even a cheap prepaid one). And as to the people without cell phones, don't worry, that's why we have gps ankle bracelets, embedded shoe trackers for dementia patients and little kids, and electrical meters and car parking meters that are smart enough to reward us when we're good and smart enough to call home over the cell phone network to tell on us when we've been bad.

    13. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by Genwil · · Score: 1

      If you create conditions where someone makes an app for smartphones (open government data), and it only gets used by people with smartphones, this is a net gain for the society

      Nonsense. The folk with smartphones are typically those who'd already interact with government. You are doing absolutely nothing to interact with those who are totally disenfranchised. You know - the ones who cannot afford the net, cannot afford a fancy phone?

      I think you have made too large an assumption and ignored the points about the usefulness of allowing people to interact how, when, and in a manner of their choosing. Good apps are a net benefit.

    14. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      If you create conditions where someone makes an app for smartphones (open government data), and it only gets used by people with smartphones, this is a net gain for the society

      Nonsense. The folk with smartphones are typically those who'd already interact with government. You are doing absolutely nothing to interact with those who are totally disenfranchised. You know - the ones who cannot afford the net, cannot afford a fancy phone?

      Merriam Webster defines disenfranchised as: "to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote"

      Last I checked those who could not afford smartphones were not being deprived of their rights, and certainly not the right to vote. In addition smartphones are becoming more and more affordable, some are given away as the free phones with a contract now and many people are replacing landlines with cellphones.

      Smartphone apps are a viable way to reach a large audience currently and that audience is only getting larger. Considering that most dumbphones probably aren't capable of the task and the interface is awful even when they are what would you propose then? Keep in mind the pool of developers that are familiar with and have interest in programming for dumbphones is far smaller.

    15. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by exomondo · · Score: 1

      totally disenfranchised

      I don't think that means what you think it means.

    16. Re:"Designed for Smartphones" by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the real goal was to engage local application developers and gauge how well this kind of rapid one time application development project would work. This project had a budget of $50K, so if they got something that's useful to anyone at all they did well.

  2. that's because it's an app by happy_place · · Score: 0

    Wait. So they thought that writing an app would be useful? C'mon. Apps aren't useful, they're cute.

    --
    http://www.beanleafpress.com
  3. Citizen involved with the government by dimethylxanthine · · Score: 1

    ...citizen software developers involved with government...

    But a better idea would be to have the government involved with the citizen, every now and then.

  4. I don't see how the contest failed. by Grygus · · Score: 0

    A nebulous set of requirements leads to software that doesn't fulfill unwritten desires of the client. An old story.

  5. Contests are not cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contests are just a way of getting lots of people to work on a problem and then only paying the best.

    1. Re:Contests are not cool by delinear · · Score: 1

      Contests are just a way of getting lots of people to work on a problem and then only paying the best.

      That sounds kind of cool, unless you're happy with your tax dollars being spent on the below average?

    2. Re:Contests are not cool by fusiongyro · · Score: 1

      Upmod. You're absolutely right.

    3. Re:Contests are not cool by fusiongyro · · Score: 1

      I believe that people who do work should be paid for it. I believe the people doing the buying should select a good vendor. I don't believe the government is entitled to a different reality than the rest of us in this regard.

  6. a shame by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Why isn't "cool" enough?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  7. 98% of apps are bullshit by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    98% of "apps" in "app stores" are bullshit, that have the functionality of a web form, but that for some reasons were coded in a proprietary, non portable API instead of the ubiquitous xml-http-javascript-html-LAMP. The only reason I can think of is that "buying the app" is a kind of subscription service, for which subscription systems would work better. It doesn't explain the free apps.

    I mean WTF, a "New York Times" app? What can it do that a web browser cannot do ?

    The only 2% of apps that make sense actually use the terminal in a way for which web techs are not optimal: for its I/O capabilities (GPS, camera, phone...)

    1. Re:98% of apps are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because phones are limited devices. They are limited on computing power, memory, etc. Browsers, in general, like to eat up computing power and memory when using any type of "advanced" feature set.

      Using a the proprietary UI/Application format for *any* smart phone to date will (read: should) always result in a better end-user experience (I'm making the assumption that 12 year old is not using a WYSIWYG to make the UI).

      Less flexible? Absolutely. Faster? Absolutely. Will I take this trade-off? Yes, I will, until my phone has enough processing power available to the browser to make it just as good as using a native application

    2. Re:98% of apps are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me read the NYT on an airplane?

  8. Poorly designed rules by Covalent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am a teacher, and so I know this first hand: poorly designed rules result in poorly designed products. If smartphone apps are no good, then prohibit them. This has nothing to do with the designers or the idea of using a contest to design good software. This is about redesigning the rules to get what you actually want.

    --
    Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
    1. Re:Poorly designed rules by lyinhart · · Score: 1

      I am a teacher, and so I know this first hand: poorly designed rules result in poorly designed products. If smartphone apps are no good, then prohibit them. This has nothing to do with the designers or the idea of using a contest to design good software. This is about redesigning the rules to get what you actually want.

      Yup. As a matter of fact, here's Item 2 in the Apps for Democracy guide to making your own Apps contest: (pdf)

      Item 2 - Define Rules

      Rules are the enemy of creativity and innovation. Avoid rules at all costs. With Apps for Democracy our only rule was to use at least one data source from http://data.octo.dc.gov/ to build an application of some kind.

      Software development, even in the public sector requires some kind of planning. You've got to know what you want/need and how you're going to develop it. Can you imagine if they extended Apps for Democracy type programs to public works projects? Some dude thinks he should build a tree house in the middle of a forest. Another person thinks it would be great to build a bird feeder in another tree. Someone else thinks they should chop down a tree or paint a wall pink. Yeesh.

      --
      Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
  9. Smartphones not reaching people? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Here is the pulse. And here is your finger, far from the pulse, jammed straight up your ass.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Lazy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're too cheap to pay software developers to build tools to actually enhance the performance of our duties.
    When someone gives them to us free, we're too lazy to sift through them for ones that are useful.
    When crowdsourcing or someone else identifies the useful ones for us, we're too cheap and lazy to maintain them.

    So, the faceless bureaucrats would like to know....could you please get someone to identify what they need, code it up, and then integrate and maintain it indefinately. For free.
    So they could do less "work".
    All the Pr0N surfing and intern boinking is exhausting.

  11. Not a troll, mod troll. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    A quote, potentially flamebait, but not really. The truth is that people are buying smartphones en masse and developing an app is a good way to reach the public. Sorry my use of a quote confused you. Better luck next time you have mod points.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. Sustainable results? by JansenVT · · Score: 1

    A contest might save money initially, but does it take into consideration the support, maintenance, updates, etc that the winning developer is going to offer?

    In many software business models, the support is much more expensive than the actual application

    1. Re:Sustainable results? by FearlessReader · · Score: 1

      You could just run another contest when the internal api of the city program changed and get support for 50k ... ooo.. wait.. they stopped doing that... so back to hiring expensive contractors to maintain code written by citizens... it's a vicious circle!

  13. Update: New D.C. CTO scraps 'Apps for Democracy' by theodp · · Score: 1

    New D.C. CTO scraps 'Apps for Democracy'