Friends,
NCPRI has circulated a note on "Right to Information ... an opportunity for good governance" by Tata Consultancy Services, for public comments. It is placed below to elicit comments ( some of the tables could not be copied.) I will like to raise few preliminary issues:
(1) Section 26 of RTI Act envisages large scale educational programs by Government: why no pro-active measures have been taken to implement it ?
(2) Unless there are sustained measures to disclose and disseminate information by grass root public authorities under section 4 of RTI Act, they will not become accountable for results and performance to the intended beneficiaries of public expenditure in different fields. What measures have been taken to make grass-root public authorities directly accountable to citizens, who are empowered by RTI Act to access all public records ?
(3) What are the legal provisions/administrative directions to ensure action on finding of citizens on scrutiny of public records? There is legal provision for Social Audit in MGNREGA and no structured arrangement for ensuring action on "audit findings" of citizen's scrutiny of public record.
Dhirendra Krishna IA&AS (Retired)
.....................................................................................................................................
Right to Information ... an opportunity for good governance
(Tata Consultancy Services 4th and 5th Floor, PTI Building, 4, Parliament Street, New Delhi -110001, India.)
24 November 2011
Foreword
The Right to Information creates news almost daily in India. It is a unique and path-breaking law, perhaps the first of its kind that aims to empower common people. Ever since RTI became law in 2005, its importance and impact are being manifested at all levels of governance. It has been brewing a completely new wave of civil society activism seldom witnessed before. With growing awareness, education and prosperity of people and an increasingly active media, the usage of RTI is likely to rise in the coming years. Some of this will perhaps continue to be an irritant as there are many RTI requests which are filed only to test the government, but as citizens grow in maturity to balance democratic rights with responsibility, equilibrium can be reached where an instrument like RTI becomes a tool for improvement in a collaborative environment between the stakeholders.
The biggest roadblock for RTI today is the limited use of technology by the public authorities. Until their records become electronically available, neither will they be able to cope with the volume of RTI requests nor will citizens be satisfied with the response they get. The recent endeavor to create an Electronic Service Delivery Act is one step towards such automation, but it is more of a vision at present. Public authorities need to be more willing and aggressive in adopting technology in a planned manner, rather than being pushed to do so as legal compliance only. Imbibing such a shift in the mindset is necessary to create a progressive environment in the country.
Assuming public authorities will automate their processes sooner or later, which in turn will help them respond to RTI requests with ease and speed, a system would still be required to manage requests, appeals, complaints and information flow within each. Till now, public authority websites have a section for RTI, with no real automation or transparency of the request-to-fulfillment process. As a result, the number of requests received, their responses, reason for delay, pendency, escalations, grievances, appeals and complaints are not visible. The data reported by the public authorities is collated into an MIS and assumed to be right. Moreover, since RTI is being implemented by the public authorities individually, there is no mechanism of consolidation and analysis at a state or central government level which could become useful for improving governance.
If RTI is viewed as a citizen service, both service request management (request for information) and service delivery management (fulfillment of request for information) are important – the demand-side and the supply-side respectively. While service delivery management will depend upon when and to what extent different public authorities automate their processes, service request management can be done independently as a common initiative for all public authorities in a given jurisdiction (e.g. all state public authorities using a common service request management platform). The former will be important for public authorities and the latter for the citizens. End to end automation of managing RTI requests (service request management) will actually push public authorities to automate faster (service delivery management).
The scope of this document is service request management – the demand-side of RTI. It is acknowledged that focusing on the demand-side may result in exponential rise in the number of RTI requests, which could get further amplified in the form of more complaints with information commissions if public authorities are unable to cope. Nevertheless, the supply-side will gain momentum only if there is such a push. As this demand and supply momentum builds, it will eventually lead to faster responsiveness of public authorities. However, more data in the public domain may not reduce the number of RTI requests but increase it initially, as it may be used as a means to get to the next level of discovery by the citizens. The only difference will be in the nature of the requests – from data based requests to more analytical queries. This will actually be a good indicator of an evolving and vibrant democracy.
RTI need not be taken as a citizen-versus-government syndrome. The objective of RTI being transparency and accountability by empowering the people to seek information from public authorities, its biggest outcome could be good governance. For this to happen, public authorities need to view RTI requests as citizen feedback, although in an indirect manner, by deriving meaning out of the requests filed. This is because majority of the citizens file a request when they are aggrieved about some governance matter. If such cases could be identified and analyzed systematically, and action taken where necessary, the overall satisfaction of citizens with government could be improved.
Civil society activism that has gained strength recently is perhaps a result of citizens not being able to pursue RTI on their own, which may be due to inaccessibility to public authorities, lack of awareness of the process, fear of retribution or mere apathy that nothing will change. The day RTI becomes a credible and easy process for the citizens, activism will start becoming redundant.
Therefore the state leadership in India today can establish a better connect with its citizens through RTI. Focusing on service request management on the one side and working effortlessly in parallel on service delivery management could create a continuous improvement cycle of governance through an emergence of an environment of trust when people see their government as responsive, even if the actual problems take time to resolve.
The approach to RTI described in this document explains how service request management could trigger automation internally in government departments and lead to good governance. The approach is designed for the state as a whole rather for than an individual public authority. The same model could be used for central government public authorities as well.
Right to Information ... an opportunity for good governance
The "chamber of secrets" is slowly being unraveled now. The Right to Information Act is the magic wand in the hands of the people, which has transformed them from common citizens to agents of change towards transparency and accountability. People's trust, confidence and support will come sequentially, provided good governance remains the primary goal. Therefore fighting for RTI, instead of against it, should become the new mantra in governance.
The RTI Protagonists
The protagonists in RTI are many – citizens who need information for a specific purpose, activists who seek it to unearth government misdoings, public authorities who try to fulfill their obligations to their best ability, and information commissions who serve as protectors of the peoples' right to information. The transformative impact of RTI has been reinforced by the recent political events in the country with citizens getting empowered through newfound self-confidence and determination. This awakening is certain to transform into a tsunami sooner or later, either in the form of frenetic RTI usage resulting in exponential rise in the number of requests or increased activism, or both.
RTI has several antagonists as well – people who are disbelievers of the concept itself and this includes sections of both society and the government, and public information officers who have been given the additional charge of responding to RTI requests but not the ability to do so due to the voluminous paper records and manual processes which make it extremely taxing to dig out the required information quickly. There is also a section in government that does not want to share information at all. The first set of people could be converted into believers over time, if not protagonists, by building efficiencies in the service request and delivery processes of RTI. For the second set of people, perseverance and enforcement of law will be needed.
RTI being a law cannot be wished away. Opposition to it is perceived as political tactics for selfish gains, and any attempt at dilution as admittance of discomfiture and therefore hidden skeletons. Considering the mood that Indian democracy has today, none of this is expected to find any empathy. It therefore makes more sense to focus our energies on improving the RTI process for efficiency and good governance. RTI may not solve all our problems, but it could create an environment of collaboration and trust between the government and its citizens through a positive approach of responsiveness and transparency.
Inefficiency and Mala Fide
Out of the many issues that bedevil RTI implementation today, two main problems are: the inability of public authorities to manage the growing number of RTI requests, and the fear of exposure and harassment faced by RTI applicants. The first problem is the result of inadequate preparedness of public authorities, who perhaps did not anticipate the rapidly growing relevance and adoption of RTI in the country. This problem could be tackled relatively easily although it will take its own time and resources. The second problem unfortunately is more worrisome as it reflects the enormous malaise and mala fide that has set deep in governance over the years.
Assuming the power and ramifications of the RTI Act – rather, of the RTI "movement" considering the way it has caught the fancy of people at large – cannot be set aside as sporadic blips any more, it is important to build an implementation model that helps in managing public information and RTI requests in a manner envisaged when the Act was conceptualized. The model needs to be sustainable, which means:
 Scalable to handle larger volumes of RTI requests and information flow
 Efficient to allow public authorities to respond faster with less effort
 Protective for citizens to prevent vengeful action against them
The latter two, if addressed effectively, will actually give impetus to further growth in RTI requests. Depending upon how it is managed, this cyclical situation could either boomerang into a complete collapse, or result in an exponential rise in information transparency across the length and breadth of governance.
If there was an information repository of published data under RTI, automation of government processes, and a single uniform method of filing a request and receiving information, responding to RTI requests could have become effortless and inexpensive. Ways to manage scale and to protect user identities could have been explored. With information residing in thousands of pockets across central and state government public authorities, and with each pocket having different ways of storing and retrieving information, this is not just impractical but impossible too. However, if a long term roadmap approach is taken, with Information Technology as the enabler, a mechanism to render information, add information that emerges from new RTI requests, and capture, route and track RTI requests could be built. This document describes one such approach.
Defining the Problem
The public's growing hunger for information is faced with the stress of information mining by the authorities for every RTI request. If left to chance or natural progression, this dichotomy may take a long time to sort out.
The government has started many initiatives for automating its processes. If pursued with vigor, this would most certainly lead to improved efficiency and transparency in government processes, the obvious result of which will be a higher degree of information availability. This will help in service delivery management of RTI (supply side). However, action is also needed to automate service request management (demand side) for the benefit of the citizens and to generate metrics for the public authorities and the government for improvement.
The broad components of service request management and service delivery management in RTI are shown in the figure below.
SERVICE REQUEST MANAGEMENT
SERVICE DELIVERY MANAGEMENT
Department 1
User access management
Appeals management
Request management
automation Figure 1:CSoermvipcelaRineqtsuest Management and Service Delivery Management in RTI
CITIZENS
RTI repository
Department n
management analytics automation
increase in the number of RTI requestsSugboscinrigbinfgorPwAanrd. Coupled with the fact that there is minimal government information in the digital form which is easily accessible, sort-able and
search-able, RTI request provisioning faces a grim future. If public authorities are unable to Information Commission
management Reports and RTI's growing success in obtaining information to expose issues is likely to result in a sharp respond appropriately to RTI requests (with speed and quality), it would most likely lead to further citizen discontentment and recourse via the information commissions, as a result of which the number of complaints with the commissions may grow exponentially. It is therefore imperative to work on both service request management and service delivery management with urgency as otherwise the RTI request backlog may become similar to the judicial case backlog today.
On the other hand, the option of hiding information does not exist anymore; if not disclosed when asked for, it is an offense under law. This however does not rule out the possibility of some public authorities making it extremely difficult for people to draw information, unless the authorities automate and make the information electronically available through proactive disclosures. Like any other process of evolution, this too will get resolved over time, and in some cases with the intervention of information commissions and the courts. But this does not mean that the threat to human life will also diminish. Vested interests will continue to deter people seeking information by using any means they can. To counter this, the only option is to protect the identity of the information seeker in some manner.
The figure below depicts three types of conflicting issues faced in the RTI environment today. Although the increasing number of requests is not a problem with RTI per se but a good sign of a healthy democracy, it is a situational issue due to lack of preparedness of authorities. Despite causing a problem in public authorities, it is a progressive sign, unlike backend inefficiency which is regressive in nature, and internal resistance which is oppressive.
Figure 2: Nature of Issues in RTI: progressive, regressive and oppressive
For RTI to proliferate not just to the social activists but the masses, and to deliver the desired results, a holistic approach encompassing all stakeholders is needed. It is not sufficient to merely make people aware of their entitlements in RTI; equally important is the predictability and assurance of quality responses to RTI requests at all levels of governance. The entire process of RTI – from the time a request is filed till final closure, either with an appropriate response from the concerned public authority or through arbitration by the information commission – ought to become visible and measureable. This objective needs to be pursued in a proactive manner with active participation of all public authorities, instead of continuing with the current model in which unwilling or insincere steps are taken by them when pushed against the wall. This is where a technology-driven approach could become an effective enabler of RTI and trigger rapid transformation.
Service Request Management
A fundamental economic posit is that demand-supply mismatches cause inconvenience to consumers which is often manifested through increased prices when demand is higher. In the case of RTI, which as an Act of Parliament is free (barring a nominal fee and the cost of material), the mismatch of high demand and limited supply will manifest through increasing public discontentment. Ideally the initiatives for beefing up the supply side should have come before. Alternatively, it may be argued that government departments have not been ambitious enough in their technology initiatives, and therefore have not prepared themselves to handle RTI with efficiency and to the satisfaction of the citizens.
Whilst initiatives to improve service delivery management will happen gradually over time, it may not be necessary to wait for them to complete before focusing on service request management. On the contrary, the demand generated from RTI could actually become a catalyst to speed up internal automation of government departments. In fact, if this demand- push is not applied, the supply side may remain complacent for a much longer time like it has happened in the past. It is therefore important to push demand as much as possible in order to accelerate supply.
The subsequent sections of this document describe the service request management approach in RTI and how it can lead to improvement in governance.
Technology Driven Model
There are four pillars of RTI – awareness, accessibility, efficiency and transparency. Awareness about RTI, its provisions and entitlements is the starting point towards creation of an informed and vibrant society. This is followed with the ability for all to access information with ease, without having to struggle to identify the appropriate public authority and the process modalities, and without the fear of retribution. Once an RTI request is filed, the process to respond to it needs to be efficient and measurable. Lastly but most importantly, if RTI's objective is to create greater transparency and accountability in the country, first and foremost, the process of RTI itself – namely the stages, responsibilities, status, delays and escalations for a request – should become visible to all.
Operationally, RTI should be implemented in the reverse manner, in which the start-to-finish process should be deployed with the help of technology first. Once this process becomes visible, particularly to the citizens, it will automatically push public authorities for better responsiveness. Not only will it result in faster response, it will also compel the authorities to actively consider automation of their internal processes for the long term. Awareness and accessibility for citizens can be created at any time through available physical and digital channels (e.g. manual counters, mobile interface, call centre, radio, TV, internet portal), which could be continuously enhanced as new technologies and methods emerge. In fact, a new access channel could be seamlessly added when needed if the core RTI system is in place and in use.
It is worth emphasizing that citizen awareness and accessibility have meaning only if the RTI process works effectively and public authorities function efficiently. Till now, the focus has mainly been on awareness and accessibility but not the latter.
In any information based ecosystem, information technology (by its very nature) can play a pivotal role. RTI is actually an ideal candidate for IT intervention in that sense – since it is about managing information. RTI's data, accessibility, processes, workflows, escalations, reporting, analytics, scalability and overall performance can be fully automated. Information can be managed in multiple ways to cater to each stakeholder's needs – creating unique interfaces and views for different user groups, filtering data to highlight problem areas based on the number and frequency of requests received in each area, generating reports, showing trends, and so on. Access to information can be controlled by defining user roles and authorizations at the state, public authority, information commission and citizen levels. Mining of stored information could be done extensively to draw useful analysis for future planning and improvement, in which departments receiving maximum RTI requests could be an indication that they need to have more proactive disclosures of information or that they face greater public discontentment for the services they render. These could thus become "lead indicators" for improvement in RTI and in governance respectively.
Apart from being an enabler, technology could also become the biggest equalizer particularly when RTI is fraught with conflicting objectives of the participating entities. The identity of users may not be disclosed to other users of the system, particularly the public authorities who don't need the user identities in order to respond to RTI requests. This is possible only if the RTI service request management is automated where the system captures and stores the user's identity but forwards only the RTI request to the public authority for information.
The figure below is a high level representation of the RTI service request management system. At a state government level, it can be implemented for all public authorities and the information commission of the state as a single uniform system.
Assisted kiosks
Citizens
Mobile phone services
Internet
CITIZEN INTERFACE
Call centre
PA INTERFACE
Information Commission
Subscribing PA 1
Subscribing PA 2
RTI general data User management functions User registration functions Workflow management
User "My Page" Content management User functions in RTI Reports management User reports, analysis Other admin functions
Internet
(VPN)
RTI APPLICATION PLATFORM
Request management Subscriber management Rules & worklfow engine Search services
2 3
n
1
Processes
TFaisgkure 3: CoTraeskRTI System for Service Request Management 12
Subscribing PA n
Task Task The system is multi-user with2 a sepa#nrate database for each public authority, and yet has a
Reporting & analytics
common process implementation platform for all. It allows access to citizens through the internet, in which common service centers and other assistance groups could also file RTI
Database Database Database Process Knowledge (Dept #1) (Dept #2) (Dept #n) Data Repository
Page 11
Right to Information ... an opportunity for good governance
requests on behalf of the citizens. Mobile phones could be used to receive status updates while smart-phones (apart from computers) could be used to directly access the system on the internet. A call center could also be deployed to provide guidance and RTI request status to the citizens.
The proposed system would allow citizens to:
 Create a "MyPage" for all their current and past RTI transactions
 Use the same system for all RTI requests, appeals and complaints
 Use system-guided parameters to select a service area (e.g. water supply) for a
new RTI request without having the need to decipher the public authority for it
 Maintain a trail of all communication under a request
 Make online payments
 View status of their request and the public authority or public information officer it
is pending with
 View other RTI requests and their responses, sort, search and filter them
 View the RTI performance and pendency of any public authority
For a public authority too, the system would allow creation of a personalized page (format and parameters which are specific to the authority) within defined boundaries. It would allow the public information officer to:
 Respond to RTI requests that appear on their system-generated work-list
 View existing requests and their responses for precedence
 Refer a previous RTI request and its response for a new similar request  Receive alerts for pending requests
 Forward a request to another public authority when necessary
 Analyze recurring requests to highlight the need of more proactive disclosures
 Analyze recurring requests to highlight the need for further internal automation
The public authority and information commission could have visibility of the audit trail of any RTI request. The request, its response and information rendered would be available in the system and hence to the authority in case of an appeal, and to the commission when a complaint is lodged. Officials of public authorities and information commissions would have role-based access to data and processes that come under their jurisdiction. In effect, the entire operation of public authorities and information commission could become paper-less.
At a macro level the system would provide the following features:
 Business rules to map an RTI request to one or more public authority depending upon the nature of the request (e.g. RTI request to seek information on quality of a road will be mapped to the right department or municipality, and to the revenue department also if required)
 Data repository of all state RTI requests and responses; segregation and consolidation of RTI request data by public authority, period, governance area, appeals, complaints, and so on
 Analytics to draw metrics, and plot trends and forecasts
 Analytics to show governance areas with frequent or increasing number of RTI
requests
In summary, the state government could have a single instance of RTI for all its citizens, public authorities and the state information commission. Data confidentiality and data sharing could be managed through appropriate access controls for each stakeholder as required.
Improving Governance
When a citizen files an RTI request, it indicates either an existing grievance or an investigative step to build a case of grievance. In the case of common citizens, an RTI request would typically relate to the quality of government services that affect them. On the other hand, civil society activists may file a request in their endeavor to unearth the government's inefficiencies, sub-optimal work or financial irregularities. The former relates more to the quality of output delivered, while the latter relates to the transparency of the process followed. There is however a point where both converge (output and the process followed to produce it).
Common citizens would typically file an RTI request when they are personally aggrieved. For them, filing an RTI request is akin to challenging the administration, which they would do only as the last resort when other mediums of grievance redress have not worked.
Keeping civil society activism aside, since it may result in a matter of impropriety or crime which would be dealt with separately as per law anyway; requests filed by common citizens could be viewed as indirect feedback to the government about areas concerning them. The concern may be either due to opaqueness in governance or an issue with the services rendered. Therefore, when a certain type of RTI request is received from a large number of people, it may be an indication of mass discontentment.
As an example, there is no way today to accurately know the performance of any public authority or information commission in RTI. It is only the sensational RTI cases that get highlighted in the media. Therefore, if for instance the largest number of RTI requests in a particular district is related to basic citizen needs (e.g. education, power supply or public transport), they will not get the visibility they deserve. Even the local and state administration may not have knowledge of it. Similarly, there is also no method to determine the quality of RTI requests filed by citizens.
Figure 4: Governance Improvement Cycle
Knowledge Repository
As the fulcrum of citizen feedback, the RTI system could be used to churn and analyze RTI requests for the purpose of improvement in governance. Not all RTI requests need to be analyzed here, but those which indicate possible grievances of a large section of the society.
The above figure is a high level depiction of how metrics can be defined in the RTI system to System Analysis be used as inputs for analysis, resulting in considered decision-making by public authorities and the government. Sophisticated analytics, with changing trends and forecast for different time periods and governance areas, could be built as part of the system. The analysis willalso highlight the areas attracting a large number of RTI requests. This will clearly indicate METRICS the necessity of additional suo motu disclosures by the concerned public authority as well as the need of further automation.
Investigation
Decision-making
RTI as a Service
Changes Improvements
PA / gAovltehrnomuegnht it may be argued that RTI is an administrative overhead for public authorities, since they already have enough routine departmental functions to perform, it is a fact that this overhead is bound to increase with every passing day as the volume of RTI requests goes up. That technology could bring about a radical change in their efficiency is somewhat ignored, or perhaps not actively pursued, because RTI will always remain a non-core activity for them. As a result, they will seldom allocate any budget or priority to it.
On the other hand, if the "RTI system" for end-to-end service request management was provided to them for use as a service, something they could subscribe to without having to build and maintain it themselves, they could focus their resources on internal automation (supply side). They could also use this system as one of the entry gates for determining internal automation areas.
At a state level, RTI service request management should be implemented as one system for all state public authorities and the state information commission. Since no single public authority would have the charter to undertake this on behalf of others, the state should provide this platform to all public authorities and other RTI stakeholders in the state. This model of "RTI as a service" would bring about higher efficiency, improved cost management, best practices, appropriate use of technology and a bigger overall impact. It would result in:
 Consistent interpretation of the Act
 Optimized processes available to all users
 Flexibility to make changes for all users immediately
 Centralized technology management, leveraged costs and best practices
 Creation of an information and knowledge repository for the state
 Ability to scale up as volumes grow
 Ability to create several citizen interface channels and grow them in future
 Periodic training and hand-holding for all users
Similar to a state level implementation of the system that has been described here, the model would work equally well for the central government public authorities also. The central government could play the role of a common implementation entity and all central government public authorities could subscribe to the system deployed.
The G2C Value Proposition
Where public confidence in governance is at an all time low due to the numerous cases of graft that have surfaced recently, corrective measures to regain the confidence need priority. RTI, as the government's value proposition to its citizens towards this, could not have come at a more opportune time. The choice however is with the government if it wishes to make RTI its strength or continue to perceive it as an irritant. Irrespective of the government's stance, the larger ambit of RTI – transparency – is bound to continuously grow both in decibels and demand.
Today, the most effective and sustainable method for electoral performance is development. Lack of transparency and cases of impropriety are seen as direct roadblocks in this path. The government's demonstration of transparency through an effective RTI implementation could build tremendous faith with the masses. First, implementing RTI with transparency will create the foundation of trust. Thereafter, the government's initiatives for ongoing change and improvements based on RTI requests would cement it. The government-to-citizen bond thus created could go a long way in ensuring popular support and electoral advantage.
Conclusion
Hypothetically speaking, if there was a mass civil movement today in which every citizen filed one RTI request each day, the government machinery would paralyze. It is naïve to underestimate the empowerment of people under RTI and the social and political environment that continues to push it forward. Thanks to the RTI Act, transparency has already been transformed from an aspiration to a democratic right in the minds of the people.
Notwithstanding the relevance of RTI today, action is needed to make the RTI process efficient. It will be unfortunate to have backlogs in RTI also. Not only will it drain the country's resources, it will also lead to discontentment of the people. The approach of self mutation must change to planned and fast action now. If RTI service request management (demand side) is not made efficient through automation, it will make the RTI process opaque; on the other hand, if RTI service delivery management (supply side) is not speeded up with process automation in governance, public authorities will not be able to cope with RTI.
RTI is an opportunity for the government to change lanes and be one with the people. What has been perceived as a bane so far, could become a blessing. RTI could be used as a tool to improve not only transparency but governance too.
No comments:
Post a Comment