ICTlogy

Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in Public Procurement for Artificial Intelligence
[click to download]

For the last months I have been working analysing the public procurement of artificial intelligence solutions in Public Administration. The results have now been published as a playbook: Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in Public Procurement for Artificial Intelligence. A Mission-Oriented Playbook.

The general goal of the research, fostered and commissioned by ParticipationAI, is whether AI is just a regular technology that can be purchased yet as another commodity, or is it “something else”. Our thesis is that, effectively, it is much more than something else. And that, at least, two crucial aspects should be taken into account:

• Purpose, aimed at the public interest.
• Impact, as it has a high transforming potential.

In both cases, we believe that the meaningful concurrence of a plural diversity of actors is strictly necessary at all stages of the life cycle of AI. Thus, Ai procurement needs quite a different framework from that of traditional procurement:

• Deal with it like the investment in a digital public infrastructure.
• Think of the concurrence of many different actors, and have a strategy on how to best engage them.
• Organise governance of AI procurement as a mission-oriented policy.

Resources:

• Abstract
• Executive summary
• Bibliography
• Downloads

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a general-purpose technology with significant potential for transformation at all levels. The public sector is increasingly adopting it for a range of purposes – from improving public service delivery to designing and implementing policies – including promoting and shaping the technology itself in the public interest.
However, this potential does not come without challenges. The deployment of artificial intelligence has revealed serious issues, notably the quantity and quality of data required, the difficulty in training algorithms and understanding their inner workings, and the need to ensure compliance with administrative procedures and human rights more broadly. Ultimately, there is a persistent struggle to control its entire lifecycle.

As a result, the procurement of AI has diverged significantly from the conventional acquisition of standard technologies, as new complexities emerge in defining its purpose, shaping its delivery, and ensuring the transparency, predictability, accountability, and measurability of its impact.

To gain insight into this shift, we conduct expert interviews and a thorough literature review on the public procurement of artificial intelligence solutions and carry out interviews with key actors directly involved in the process.

Preliminary findings suggest that a comprehensive model is still lacking, although it draws heavily on previous experiences in data governance and digital privacy, particularly in relation to delivery.

However, the road ahead – especially beyond the strictly technical domain, in terms of purpose and impact – has been explored but remains largely uncharted, although there appears to be emerging consensus around the importance of meaningful stakeholder engagement, both quantitatively and qualitatively: the field is too vast and dynamic to be managed solely by public administrations or their contractors, and too complex to be addressed without the involvement of a diverse range of actors and publics, spanning various approaches, frameworks, disciplines, and roles.

In this playbook, we propose a future direction that identifies the key stages at which, and the ways in which, stakeholder engagement can add value to the entire process of public procurement of artificial intelligence solutions

Executive summary

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping economies, institutions, and societies at unprecedented speed and scale. As a general-purpose technology, AI holds significant potential for transformation – yet it also poses complex challenges, particularly in the context of democratic governance and the public sector.
Public administrations are increasingly adopting AI to enhance service delivery, optimise internal operations, and inform public policy. However, the integration of AI into public decision-making processes introduces new risks around transparency, accountability, equity, and public trust, among others. These challenges are particularly pronounced in the procurement and deployment of AI systems within the public sector.

A complex transformation

Unlike traditional technologies, AI systems evolve, interact with large-scale datasets, and often operate as opaque decision-making tools. Public procurement processes – typically designed for static, well-defined goods or services – struggle to accommodate the dynamic, systemic, and high-risk nature of AI systems. Existing procurement guidelines often do not capture the full lifecycle of AI or account for its institutional, ethical, and societal implications.

In addition, the governance of AI in the public sector is frequently confined to technical or legal compliance frameworks. While such frameworks are necessary, they are insufficient on their own to ensure that AI systems align with democratic values and deliver public value. What is needed is a broader governance perspective that includes not only rules and risks but also public purpose, institutional change, and meaningful engagement with affected communities and stakeholders.

Moreover, AI is coming — it’s coming fast, perhaps too fast for existing systems to keep up. Its development spans so many fronts that no single institution or sector can hope to stop it, let alone contain it. The pace and scope of this technological wave exceed the capacities of public administrations acting alone, just as they do those of the private sector. Navigating this complexity requires a collective effort: all actors — governments, industry, academia, and civil society — must come together, coordinate their actions, and share responsibility in shaping an AI future that serves the public good.

Purpose of this playbook

This playbook addresses a key governance gap in current practice: the limited integration of stakeholder engagement into the public procurement of AI. It seeks to support governments in designing more inclusive, anticipatory, and mission-oriented approaches to AI governance.

Its core argument is twofold. First, in the diagnostic dimension, the playbook contends that AI systems deployed by public administrations function as digital public infrastructure (DPI). These systems are not merely technological tools but foundational, enabling structures that underpin the delivery of public services, reorganise institutional workflows, and generate far-reaching societal effects through network externalities and data flows. Second, in terms of governance and solution design, the playbook advances the adoption of a mission-oriented policy approach as the most appropriate framework for steering the development and use of AI as DPI. This approach enables public institutions to define collective objectives, mobilise cross-sectoral resources, and embed public values such as transparency, inclusion, and accountability into AI governance. From this dual perspective, the playbook explores how stakeholder engagement can be systematically integrated across the full lifecycle of AI procurement—from problem framing and needs assessment to deployment, monitoring, and evaluation.

Approach

This playbook builds on:

• A comprehensive review of literature on AI governance, digital public infrastructure, and public procurement in Public Administrations.
• A qualitative analysis of 10 expert interviews with practitioners from public administration, the private sector, international organizations, academia and civil society.
• Conceptual frameworks in the field of public governance, public innovation, policy design and stakeholder engagement.

The report is structured around three interrelated pillars:

• Lifecycle framing of AI procurement, split in two parts: the state of the question of AI procurement according to the experts; and how an optimal, comprehensive approach could be organised into three phases: Purpose, Delivery, and Impact. And the proposition to deal with the procurement of AI solutions as an investment in digital public infrastructure.
• Stakeholder ecosystem mapping, disaggregating roles and functions across government, civil society, academia, and industry.
• Governance tools, applying a mission-oriented policy model, and including canvases and engagement instruments, tailored to support public institutions in implementing mission-oriented AI strategies.

Key insights

• AI in public administration is more than a tool; it is infrastructure.
  Its systemic effects – on internal processes, interdepartmental coordination, and societal norms – require strategic governance beyond standard procurement procedures.
• Current procurement models are not fully aligned with AI’s characteristics.
  Most existing guidelines emphasise legal compliance and cost-efficiency, but fall short to address the public interest, complex environments, evolving risks, ethical trade-offs, or the long-term impacts on institutional capacity and public trust.
• Stakeholder engagement is underdeveloped and inconsistently applied.
  Despite frequent references in strategy documents, engagement practices are often ad hoc, generic, or limited to consultation phases without meaningful influence on decision-making.
• A mission-oriented approach provides a robust governance framework.
  Missions allow public institutions to align AI adoption with long-term societal goals, coordinate actors across sectors, and embed inclusion, transparency, and accountability by design.
• Governments need new instruments to operationalise engagement.
  These include:
  • Actor maps to identify relevant stakeholders and their roles;
  • A toolbox of participatory mechanisms, categorised by degree of institutionalisation and democratic function;
  • Governance canvases for aligning purpose, design, delivery, and evaluation phases with engagement practices.

Policy implications

To ensure that AI serves the public interest and strengthens democratic governance, public institutions are encouraged to:

• Reframe AI procurement as public policy, not just technology acquisition.
  Position AI systems as components of digital public infrastructure with strategic, ethical, and organisational implications.
• Adopt lifecycle-based governance models.
  Move beyond narrow procurement windows and embed oversight, auditability, and stakeholder feedback mechanisms throughout the AI system’s lifespan.
• Invest in stakeholder engagement capabilities.
  Build internal capacity for mapping, involving, and co-creating with diverse actors, including underrepresented communities, domain experts, and civil society organisations.
• Use missions to structure cross-sectoral coordination.
  Apply mission-oriented innovation frameworks to define clear objectives, share responsibilities, and monitor outcomes in an adaptive and participatory manner.
• Develop engagement standards and frameworks.
  Establish benchmarks for inclusive, meaningful, and proportionate stakeholder engagement in AI procurement, drawing on best practices from other environments.

Bibliography

The 157 references used to pen this report/playbook can be found at https://ictlogy.net/bibliography/reports/bibliographies.php?idb=158

Downloads

Full document:
Peña-López, I. (2025). Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in Public Procurement for Artificial Intelligence. A Mission-Oriented Playbook. Barcelona: Participation AI.

Slides of the presentation of the report on 30/06/2025:
Peña-López, I. (2025). Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in Public Procurement for Artificial Intelligence. A Mission-Oriented Playbook. Barcelona: Participation AI.

Click to download the article (PDF)

I here present my communication for the 4th Congress of Economics and Business of Catalonia 2025 organized by the College of Economists of Catalonia. The communication is titled New Public Governance in practice: a toolbox model for public policy in times of networks, uncertainty and complexity and proposes and applied model to transform public Administrations in order to face this new era of complexity, uncertainty and networks.

The theoretical background is that of New Public Governance that has been building momentum for the last 20 years approximately. The intended contribution of my paper is not to build up on theory, but how to bring all this theory into practice, how to provide something public managers can cling on to foster the much needed transformation of public Administrations.

The original paper is in Catalan, but can also be downloaded in English and Spanish — automatically translated, with just some minor revisions, so some errors may remain.

The communication will formally be presented on April 8th, 2025, 18:00h, at the College of Economists of Catalonia.

Abstract

With the decline of the great ideologies of the 20th century and the ongoing revision of the socioeconomic model and social contract in the 21st century, the concept of an entrepreneurial administration has gained significant momentum. This administration is envisioned as one capable of dialogue and engagement with other actors in its ecosystem, asserting its voice in designing a constituent process centred on the general interest, as well as economic, social, and environmental sustainability in an increasingly dynamic, complex, and uncertain environment. Although conceptually framed as “New Public Governance,” this model still faces substantial challenges in practical implementation. These challenges arise both within internal organizational structures—such as procedural inefficiencies, scope of competencies, and relationships between units and different administrations—and in the delivery of public policies and services, including effectiveness, efficiency, and citizen engagement. This article examines the critical factors necessary to implement this model, drawing on a constellation of instruments designed to drive profound transformation. These instruments aim for systemic impact beyond immediate results, recognizing the inherent difficulties in establishing clear causal relationships, reaching unanimous diagnoses, and charting stable paths of action. Our analysis is structured around six key levers of change: governance, organization, talent, processes, quality in management, and democratic quality. The findings point toward an administration that focuses less on direct execution and more on enabling: acting as a platform that facilitates, articulates, energizes, and structures ecosystems of actors to achieve broadly shared objectives and impacts. Ultimately, this approach seeks to open the public system to greater collaboration with the civic, economic, political, and social ecosystems.

Downloads

English:
Peña-López, I. (2025). New Public Governance in practice: a toolbox model for public policy in times of networks, uncertainty and complexity. 4th Congress of Economics and Business of Catalonia 2025. Barcelona: Col·legi d’Economistes de Catalunya.

Català (original):
Peña-López, I. (2025). Nova Governança Pública aplicada: un model de caixa d’eines per a la política pública en temps d’incertesa i complexitat. 4rt Congrés d’Economia i Empresa de Catalunya 2025. Barcelona: Col·legi d’Economistes de Catalunya.

Castellano:
Peña-López, I. (2025). Nueva Gobernanza Pública aplicada: un modelo de caja de herramientas para la política pública en tiempos de incertidumbre y complejidad. 4º Congreso de Economía y Empresa de Catalunya 2025. Barcelona: Col·legi d’Economistes de Catalunya.

Bibliography

With the crisis of the major ideologies of the 20th century and the current revision of the socioeconomic model and the social contract in the 21st century, the concept of an entrepreneurial Administration is gaining strength. This is an Administration capable of engaging in dialogue and articulating the other actors within its ecosystem, asserting its voice in the design of a constituent process centered on the public interest, and fostering economic, social, and environmental sustainability in a changing, complex, and uncertain environment. Although this model has been conceptually referred to as New Public Governance, there are still challenges in translating it both to internal organization —procedures, spheres of competence, relationships between units and among Administrations— and to the provision of policies and public services —effectiveness, efficiency, and citizen engagement.

Below, I present a framework outlining the key considerations for implementing this model in practice, leveraging a constellation of tools already aiming to initiate deeply transformative policies oriented toward systemic impact beyond mere outcomes. These tools acknowledge the difficulties of establishing clear causal relationships, unanimous diagnoses, and stable courses of action.

The framework is structured around six levers of change —governance, organization, talent, processes, quality in management, and democratic quality— which, in my view, constitute the backbone of any organization, but especially of the Administration. In general, the framework shifts us toward an Administration that does less and enables more, becoming a platform that facilitates, articulates, fosters, and connects ecosystems of actors toward widely shared goals and impacts. In short, it opens the public system to the civic, economic, political, and social ecosystem.

This framework is part of a broader analysis that has been submitted for consideration at the 4th Congress of Economics and Business of Catalonia 2025. It incorporates a review of the theory on the paradigm shift in Administration over the past two decades, as well as a compilation of new applied initiatives which, taken together, form what I believe is already a new model of public management. At the end of this post, I have included the bibliography I used in my research.

On a more personal note, this framework represents the convergence of my academic profile with my experience as a public manager over the past six years (particularly the last three), first as Director General of Citizen Participation and Electoral Processes at the Generalitat de Catalunya and later as Director of the School of Public Administration of Catalonia. It also serves as a kind of work plan for the coming years. My aim is to continue advancing its theoretical development, to be able to implement the model in practice, and to evaluate its validity as an application of a new paradigm of public management. In this regard, I am open to collaborations both in academia and with public administrations to explore its potential, support its implementation, and assess its performance.

New Public Governance in practice: a toolbox for
public policy in times of networks, uncertainty and complexity
[click to enlarge]

Bibliography

When considering sustainability, scalability and the transformative impact of citizen participation, it becomes strategic the promotion and articulation of a global participation ecosystem that shares the same values, vision and objectives. This model of participation, in addition to being shared, must be effective and efficient, which is why one would consider necessary that it also has a globally shared set of infrastructures in the field of participation. These infrastructures are, among others, an Administration coordinated at all levels so that it can optimize the available resources, a business sector that shares the participation model and collaborates in its improvement, consensus methodologies, technologies that incorporate these values ??in their design and methodologies and, finally, a network of training actors that share frameworks of skills, concepts and learning resources.

Public facilities network within an ecosystem of citizen participation

The Administration (taken as a whole) has several networks of public facilities —telecentres, libraries, civic centers, centers for young and old people, etc. An ecosystem of citizen participation can collaborate with the Administration’s networks of public facilities by superimposing a (new) layer of democratic innovation on the existing equipment networks. It is, then, not about creating a new network of facilities, but rather offering the existing ones a portfolio of services related to citizen participation, democratic quality and social innovation in politics and democracy, so that they enrich and complement what they currently offer to the citizen.

At the same time, it is about contributing to the transformation of public facilities that has already begun: from facilities that provide services to facilities that become citizen infrastructure.

The entry into the Information Society, as well as the advances in all areas of the social sciences, mean that the mission and organization of these facilities are in the process of being redefined. Among others, there are some aspects of this redefinition process that we want to highlight:

• The evolution towards more citizen-centered models, where assistance and accompaniment also give way to empowerment strategies.
• The equipment governance model as an important factor in achieving its mission, the organizational design and the services it offers.
• The inclusion of elements of social innovation for the co-design and co-management of the centers.
• The incorporation of ethical and integrity codes, as well as democratic quality both in the operation and in the intrinsic values ??of the services.

We here propose a set of strategic and operational goals that could lead the development of a network of public facilities within an ecosystem of citizen participation.

Goals of the network of public facilities within an ecosystem of citizen participation

Strategic goals

• Convert civic facilities into reference spaces in the municipality in terms of citizen participation.
• Raise citizens’ awareness about democratic quality, citizen participation and innovation in political and democratic processes.
• Support local administrations in projects of citizen participation and social innovation in political and democratic processes.
• Support citizens in citizen participation processes, increase their participation and open up the sociodemographic range of the participants.
• Promote social innovation projects in the field of civic action, politics and democracy.

Operational goals: participation processes

• Train the facilitators of public facilities in Open Government: transparency, open data and participation.
• Creation of a digital mediation protocol on citizen participation for public facilities in the Administration, with the aim of supporting citizens with less digital competence in online participation processes.
• Support citizens who have more difficulties to participate in citizen participation processes on digital platforms.
• Involve citizens who are experts in digital participation platforms to support citizens who are less knowledgeable about the platforms or who have greater difficulties using them.

Operational goals: social innovation in politics and democracy

• Train the facilitators of public facilities to be agents promoting the creation of democratic innovation projects.
• Help citizens define, pilot, replicate and scale social innovation projects in the field of civic action, politics and democracy.
• Promote and support the development of democratic innovation projects within the logic of social innovation.
• Articulate networks of social innovation in democracy at the local level.
• Standardize and enable replicability and scalability of democratic innovation pilots.

We are in the middle of an interesting perfect storm. Firstly, citizen participation is clearly on the rise, with more citizens demanding being listened to, and more public (and also private) institutions responding to these demands. Secondly, a call for that citizen participation to be accessible, flexible and inclusive, which is boosting online citizen participation as a complement to traditional participation channels and methodologies, thus enabling not only other means different than face-to-face, but also disclosing informal spaces for participation. Thirdly, the appearance or improvement of different kinds of technologies that come to enable or strengthen online communication (P2P networks, distributed ID systems, decentralized ledger technologies, etc.).

In this perfect storm, notwithstanding, we still often see “solutions looking for a problem”. That is, technologies that appear to fill a demand for more participation and more online participation, but that sometimes do not seem to fix the real problems that the online participation arena is having.

On a recent talk about the possibilities of Blockchain I came up not with what could Blockchain do for participation, but what were the main challenges that citizen participation in general, and online participation in particular was facing. And then ask whether technologies could be of any help in the list of challenges.

I here present these challenges by following what in marketing is called a customer journey. I draw an imaginary complete cycle of citizen participation, along which I present the different challenges that this citizen or the whole process finds in its way.

A citizen

A citizen wants to have their say on a given issue. But, who are they? A clear identity of this citizen may be necessary to know whether they belong to a given demos. It is true that some participation processes, especially those based on deliberation —provide as much insights as we can, regardless of representativeness—, may not require identity. But we can also look at identity from the other point of view: not as in “who am I” but no “where do I belong to”, “where do my rights lay” or “who grants me citizen rights”. Identity, thus, is not about voting or paying taxes (only) but about knowing whether I am a citizen with full citizenship.

With some interests

A citizen does not necessary need to be interested in absolutely everything. It may just seem right not to invite him to participate in absolutely everything —some decisions we may think are of their interest despite their own preferences or tastes, like electing representatives: voting is even compulsory in some places—.

Knowing what are someone’s interests, and linking them to their identity may be useful either to explicitly invite a given collective to speak out their opinion, or for a given citizen to filter out what are the options available to speak out.

Individual or Collective

This citizen with some interests, is acting as an individual or as a collective? Is she a single person, or is it an organization? This question is not related with whether a citizen represents someone, but about what different legal frameworks allow to do to e.g. natural persons or to legal persons.

Knowing this difference —not a trivial issue— may be crucial to be able to participate in a given process. People may participate personally within an association, but most of the times only legal persons may be able to participate in a federation of associations.

But, of course, legal persons cannot perform actions, physically speaking: someone, a flesh and bones individual has to perform for them: has to represent them.

And sometimes different people can perform different actions in representation of a collective. That is, the collective can grant different powers to different people. For instance, many can give an opinion, but only one of them can cast a vote or make a binding decision.

So, knowing one’s identity is not enough: we may need to know whether they are representing a collective and, if they are, what can they do on its behalf.

In relationship with someone

This citizen, now that we can tell whether they are an individual or a collective, and which are their interests, it may be useful to know what are their relationships with other citizens.

A first approach to this is whether they are affiliated, formally or informally, to some other collectives, and what of affiliation or relationship they have with them. Besides the aforementioned issue of representation, the degree or intensity of relationships may be interesting to tell whether a citizen is a leader in their respective sector, and thus consider their participation in a different way.

A second approach, and most relevant here, is whether this relationship is with the Administration: that is, we want to record what kind of exchanges or transactions a given citizen has had with public bodies. This is important at many levels, among them treating the citizen consistently, recording their potential impact on public policies, identify valid interlocutors, publicise these relationships, etc.

Says or does something

Now that we know who the citizen is, what are their interests, whether they are a person or a collective, what kind of powers to represent this collective they have and what have been their relationships with other collectives (especially the Administration), now citizens want to say or do something.

In face-to-face participation — and most especially in formal meetings— minutes are taken or there are at least records of what is being said or done. Same should happen online. This is nevertheless much more complex in the online world: not only, as we have been saying, identity, etc. is more blurry and/or fluid, but there are also different degrees of formality and informality, usually a high diversity of channels which have to be coordinated or at least be made coherent and consistent and provide a comprehensive explanation of what is going on.

What is being said and done online has to be accompanied by the context in which it is being said and done, in the same way as in formal channels, where conversations and performances already follow a given protocol. This means not, of course, having to approve a formal protocol for everything happening online: hence the difficulty of this issue.

Delegates or is endorsed

When saying or doing these things, are citizens acting on their own? Or are they being endorsed by someone? Are they being delegated some other’s opinions or votes? How should we be taking into account this acting individually or collectivelly? Mind that this is a little bit different to representing someone or having been granted some powers. Representation and powers is more about the legal aspects of being empowered to do something. That is: who are you and what can you do on the behalf of someone else. By delegation or endorsement we look at the phenomenon from the other end: how should I, Administration, take into account this acting on behalf of someone? e.g. Representation is how you choose your elected representatives; delegation is how you will take into account their votes at the Parliament. It is a slight difference, but and important one.

But, beyond how you take it into account, we want to know whether this representation is permanent or temporary. Liquid democracy or proxy voting, changes in representation are much more easy in the online world but need being cleverly articulated. There is an increasing way to solve this technologically, but we are far from the best system —if there is such a thing.

Delegating one’s vote will involve identity, what powers am I granting and to say or do what.

In multiple instances and levels

Things that citizens can or want to do or say things. And they want to do or say things to the Administration (or to any other kind of collective), so that they are taken into account and public policies are put to work.

But quite often —and this is especially true with Public Administrations— collectives of people follow a hierarchy: e.g. your municipality’s health system depends on your region’s health system that depends on your state’s health system.

Or, depending on your interests (e.g. the environment and Global Warming), you may want to do or say things on Global Warming to your city council, to your regional government and to your national government. Different things, at different levels, but on a similar issue.

Or. As a public body, you may want to infer the macro policy from the micro policies put at work or suggested at lower Administration levels. For instance, the local strategy on urban mobility will necessarily shape —or will be determined— by the national strategy on mobility.

Can we, by means of technology, make easy the granularization of macro-level policies into micro-level ones? Can we, by means of technology, make easy the inference of micro-level policies into macro-level ones?

This will, in part, depend on who you are and what can you do (powers) at different Administration levels. That is, what are your citizen rights depending on your citizenship considering different demos belong to or different governments that rule your life.

With different weights

We have considered, so far, “one individual, one vote”. But in many cases there this rule could be changed and, instead, grant the citizen with more “votes”, that is, that their voice or decisions or actions have more influence, more weight than de voices or decisions or actions than other citizens’.

The evident application of this differential weighting is, of course, representation and delegation. It may be just common sense that someone representing a organization can have an influence proportional to the people that they are representing, that is, the people that delegated their voice or vote to their representative. Thus, two people representing a huge and a tiny collective, respectively, would have a higher or lesser influence when they participate e.g. in a public consultation.

But we can go one step further. We may want to grant different power of influence to different actors. Some people are directly affected by public decisions while others are only indirectly or partially affected, or even not affected at all. E.g. when considering issuing a new regulation on diabetes, citizens with diabetes will surely be more affected than citizens with no diabetes: weighting their decisions might be taken into consideration.

Or we might even want to weight citizens’ opinions depending on their position in society (e.g. a renowned scholar in the field), what they have done and said before, what people have thought of what they have done or said before, etc. Technologies can not only be helpful in the mere weighting, but in calculating the most appropriate weights.

Revisits or checks actions

So, citizens do or say things, depending on many factors, etc. Once it is done or said, and time goes by, can people, citizens or Administrations, go back and see who said what and why? Can they trace and see the relationships between all the transactions (interactions, exchanges, etc.) done in the past?

Being able to follow the steps being taken is crucial for assessment and evaluation. Policy footprints are important, but they become essential, when complexity increases. And we are not talking here about the complexity of the issue, but about the complexity of the solution and, more specifically, the complexity with which the policy instrument was designed —in our case, with a plurality and diversity of actors, contributions and channels.

And checks how it fits within the overall plan

Even more, can this traceability be put in context and see what was the impact (not the mere aggregated result) of one single contribution? Can one make this inference from the micro to the macro level?

This aspect is, in my opinion, much more than —I insist— a mere aggregation of individual wills and says.

Checking how each and every piece of opinion, issued in formal or informal ways, scattered across a great diversity of channels and formats, is about finding where are the critical masses what, what are the behavioural patterns are which are the main trends. Which is not a minor thing.

By identifying critical masses, behavioural patterns and main trends we are able to both focus and forecast. By focusing and forecasting, we can become more effective and become more efficient.

Checks for accountability

Beyond fitness in the overall plan, we want to know: what happens afterwards? Can citizens and Administrations follow-up and monitor what use is being made by the ones taking into account (or not) their acts and voices? Can one see the evolution of the progressive triage, acceptance or rejection of proposals, adoption, transformation or improvement, etc. that end up in a final decision or policy? Who ended up doing what? Who took responsibilities?

Accountability brings us back to assessment and evaluation. In this case, not only about how the policy instrument was designed, but how was implemented and put into practice. And, most important, what results did it have and which were the impacts of such results.

Accountability closes the cycle of policy-making, and we can begin again with the diagnosis of the issue or the situation, which brings us back to the who, and back to identity, here taken as a target: who did we impact with our policy and how.

Summing up: current challenges of online citizen participation

As it can be seen, all these issues are very deeply related among them. In my believe, one should not address a single issue (e.g. identity) without addressing the whole journey of a citizen participation process. Identity is defined, also, by representation or delegation, and representation implies taking into consideration weighting or accuntability. An so on.

Thus, the question Will [fill with the name of a technology] contribute or solve the problem of citizen participation? may not be the correct approach. It may be more useful to ask what specific issues of the process can it contribute to improve and within what mix of other tecnologies. And how will they be merged and inter-operate among them. Which may be the question.

Figure 1: A Theory of Change of citizen participation (v1.0)

Click to enlarge

In June 2018 I was appointed Director General of Citizen Participation and Electoral Processes at the Catalan Government. The directorate general had been just created. There had been a previous Directorate General of Citizen Participation which had lasted from 2003 to 2010, when it was reduced to a subsidiary internal service lacking all kind of political attributions. The work done in those years had been formidable, but too many things had passed since, especially the 15M Spanish Indignados Movement, the raise of technopolitics… and the raise of populism and fascism all across Europe.

We urgently needed a theoretical framework in which to substantiate our political strategy, so I came up with a Theory of Change of citizen participation which defined four expected impacts of our political action:

1. Efficiency, efficacy and legitimacy of public decisions improves.
2. Populism has decreased in institutions and the public sphere.
3. Citizens understand the complexity of public decision-making.
4. Citizen participation and political engagement clearly shifts towards a technopolitical paradigm.

These impacts were expected to be achieved after some outcomes resulting from some outputs grouped in five programmes:

1. Programme of citizen participation.
2. Programme of internal participation.
3. Programme of collaboration.
4. Programme of intermediaries, facilitators and infomediaries.
5. Programme of e-participation, e-voting and technopolitics.

20 months after, the Theory of Change of Citizen Participation has worked quite well. But it does have some limitations, especially at the operational level —which is what the whole thing was about, to help in putting some order in our daily work.

• The first limitation deals with the fact that Electoral Processes / Representative Democracy was left outside, as it was always thought as an only “logistic” matter. It is not. Even if at the Directorate General there are two different sub-directorates —Citizen Participation, and Electoral Processes— and they are really different on the way both units work and the kind of service they have to provide, there also are some similarities and even synergies. This becomes very relevant in the field of awareness raising, dissemination and, in general, in helping people understand democracy at large. So, we should think in democratic institutions as a whole, no matter how different they may seem or work.
• Another limitation was thinking that we can transpose citizen participation instruments into the Administration just like this. We called that “Internal participation”. It simply does not work. If we want to transform internal practices, we have to (1) adapt to how the Administration works and, more important, (2) be utterly explicit about our purposes: we want to transform the Administration, not just encourage internal participation.
• The idea to approach new intermediaries is still valid. But if we address it as something in itself, it becomes detached with the rest of policies… and one ends up failing to draw a specific approach for new intermediaries, facilitators and infomediaries. It took me a full year to define what are these new intermediaries in citizen engagement, and we’ve yet to define a specific policy for them. Hence, we need to consider the whole set of actors, and address them as a collective while keeping their individual/categorical specificities.

• Same applies to e-participation, e-voting and technopolitics. Although it worked to identify some priority areas, it was also sometimes difficult not to acknowledge that everything is connected, that it all conforms a citizen participation ecosystem where all infrastructures are connected.

So, we came up with a reviewed Theory of Change of Citizen Participation (v4.2):

A Theory of Change of citizen participation: an update (v4.2)
[click to enlarge]

The main changes between v1.0 and v4.2 (yes, there were some attempts in between) can be inferred from the limitations that we listed above:

• First thing, include Electoral Participation in the theory of change. We kept it separate from other citizen participation processes (direct democracy, deliberative processes, government crowdsourcing, citizen assemblies, etc.) mainly for organizational reasons (which is a good reason, by the way), but being now within the same scheme makes some things more clear, especially the link between e-voting and e-participation, or everything related with awareness raising and understanding democratic institutions.
• The second big change is that Transformation of the Administration is now a core issue, and a very much explicit one. This has been crucial for improving the focus on knowledge management, quality issues and assessment, better alignment of training with programming, etc.
• The third and last big change is considering everything else —that is, everything but citizens and the national Administration— as an ecosystem where everything is related: municipalities, the professional sector, the informal side of citizen participation, instruments, methodologies, technologies, spaces (physical and virtual), etc. Some big, strategic programmes fit now much better and have been much better defined with this idea of ecosystem.

Briefly put, we now focus on three areas which are very well defined:

• encourage citizens participate and help them to understand;
• encourage the Administration to let itself be participated and hence transform its own organization;
• look after the ecosystem that enables citizens participation by progressively transforming the role of the Administration in it.

We believe the new scheme is easier to understand and, more important, makes it easier to work in a very focused way.