Debate: Information sharing is dead-long live information sharing! Current challenges and looking ahead
Debate: Information sharing is dead-long live information sharing! Current challenges and looking ahead
复制标题
辩论：信息共享是死的信息共享！
DOI：
10.1080/09540962.2019.1611234
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Wilson R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wilson R
尽管信息共享卓越中心（www.信息共享org.uk），但信息共享在政策方面仍然支离破碎，在不同的政策领域（卫生、教育等）制定了不同的程序和观点。在不同的政策层面（关于同意的区域卫生倡议，如连接健康城市与NHS英格兰和NHS数字的国家尝试）。更糟糕的是，作为问题解决方案的“数据共享”的兴起似乎已经使我们不再需要担心的信息共享黯然失色，这与国际政策辩论从信息共享到数据共享的更广泛转变是一致的。随着“数据”在政策辩论中占据重要地位，我们似乎又回到了政府和大型IT服务公司经常提出的更早、更技术官僚的愿景（6，2004年; McLoughlin，Wilson和Martin，2013年），专注于运输和移动，能源分配和使用以及主要基于传感器捕获的数据的物理安全的硬基础设施系统的协调，仪表和摄像头。在这一愿景中，这些数据将被汇集、分析和可视化，以支持提高效率、预防以及最重要的有效流动。政府的作用是提供基于开放标准的平台，为公共服务创造一个创新的生态系统（Brown，Fishenden，& Thompson，2014）。在英国，政府的重点从联合服务提供和绩效的信息转向更广泛的数字经济概念，最近的数据道德框架以及对信息治理和健康大数据的持续讨论（Caldicott评论，2013年）。政府数字服务团队的数据共享往往意味着网关方法，其中大量数据与特定业务相匹配-例如，在支付车辆税时检查最新的汽车保险，或者在数字经济法案立法中，特定的数据共享网关用于检测欺诈或识别未支付罚款。数据共享问题的结构性方法可能会造成困难，因为所需的网关数量在政策和实践中是不可持续的。然而，这种乌托邦式的未来（或反乌托邦式的未来-取决于你的观点）似乎与英国出现的结构性变化不同步。从纯粹的信息角度来看，“一刀切”或纯粹官僚主义的信息共享技术或程序方法极不可能解决问题。我们必须退一步，设法处理复杂问题，这就要求为参与公共服务的人（个人和集体）开发适当的工具和解释技能。例如，个人和组织需要了解正在共享的信息的出处（谁发布了什么，关于谁，什么时候，在什么背景下，以及有什么权威？）他们需要技能和工具来根据所有这些问题做出判断（Wilson，Baines，Hardill，& Ferguson，2013; Cornford，Wilson，Baines，& Richardson，2013）。从实际角度来看，英国脱欧的迫在眉睫的前景意味着，近40年来建立的许多欧洲范围内的集体信息共享安排将需要在国家和权力下放的层面上进行彻底思考关于英国境内以及与国际合作伙伴共享数据和信息的协议。尽管通过了《…
Despite the efforts of the Centre of Excellence for Information Sharing (www. informationsharing. org. uk) which closed last year, information sharing remains fragmented in policy terms with different processes and perspectives being developed in different policy areas (health, education etc.) and at different levels of policy (regional health initiatives on consent such as Connected Health Cities versus the national attempts by NHS England and NHS Digital). Worse than that, it appears that the rise of ‘data sharing’as the solution to the problem seems to have eclipsed information sharing as something that we do not need to worry about any more—in line with the broader transition of the international policy debate from information sharing to data sharing. With ‘data’being foregrounded in policy debates, we seem to be harking back to earlier, more technocratic, visions often proposed by governments and large IT services companies (6, 2004; McLoughlin, Wilson, & Martin, 2013), focused on the co-ordination of hard infrastructure systems in transport and mobility, energy distribution and use, and physical security based mainly on data captured from sensors, meters and cameras. In this vision, such data are to be brought together and analysed and visualized to support improved efficiency, prevention, and above all effective flow. The role of government is supply the platform based on open standards to create an innovative ecosystem for public services (Brown, Fishenden, & Thompson, 2014). In the UK, the government’s focus shifted from information for joining-up service provision and performance to a wider notion of the digital economy, underpinned most recently by a Data Ethics Framework and the ongoing discussion of information governance and big data in health (Caldicott Review, 2013). Data sharing for the Government Digital Service team has tended to imply a gateway approach where large quantities of data are matched for specific purposes—for instance checking for up-to-date motor insurance when paying vehicle tax, or in Digital Economy Act legislation specific data sharing gateways for detecting fraud or identifying non-payment of fines. The structural approach to the problem of data sharing is likely to create difficulties down the line as the sheer number of gateways required will be unsustainable in policy and practice.However, this utopian future (or dystopian future—depending on your perspective) seems to be out of synchronization with the structural changes emerging in the UK. From a purely information perspective is highly unlikely that a ‘one-size-fits-all’, or purely bureaucratic, technological or procedural approach to information sharing is going to solve the problem. That we must take a step back and seek to deal with complexity requires the development of appropriate tools and interpretative skills (both individually and collectively) for those involved in public services. For example, individuals and organizations need to understand the provenance of information that is being shared (who published what, about whom, when, with what context, and with what authority?) and they need the skills and tools to make judgements based on all of these issues (Wilson, Baines, Hardill, & Ferguson, 2013; Cornford, Wilson, Baines, & Richardson, 2013). In practical terms, the imminent prospect of the UK leaving the EU means that many of the collective European-wide information sharing arrangements established over nearly 40 years will need to be thought through at a level of a national and devolved administration—agreements about the sharing of data and information both within the UK and with international partners. Despite the adoption of the …