What does Shirky mean for the Public Sector?

This is really a continuation of my earlier post on HCE by Clay Shirky, but this time I will try to focus on the public sector implications. For me, the starting point has got to be ridiculously easy group-formation and I can certainly see many ways that the public sector can tap in to this new opportunity. Firstly, I think there is a lot to be done in promoting the opportunities for group formation as a form of social capital. So I love http://www.groupsnearyou.com/ and think all local authorities should be trying to flag up online groups in their area and trying to help them flourish.

The next and perhaps harder step is to tap into the power of these groups - apart from simply the value of bringing people together, what role can online groups have in generating public value? http://www.fixmystreet.com/ tries to involve citizens in highlighting problems on their street, but should local authorities seek to partner with connectivity-empowered local groups and give them a greater role in sorting out the problems on their streets? Public value creation might be through group involvement in the delivery of services that have a public value (as can happen in the exceptional circumstances of a major catastrophe such as Hurricane Catrina) or through group self-help that replaces what might otherwise be a public service (e.g. what Participle are trying to do in Southwark). But like Shirky I think we need to be realistic on this. He mentions three levels - sharing, collaborating, and collective action - and notes that they are successively more demanding. Sharing ideas/views (what you like/don't like) is easy; devising a realistic and workable solution is harder; but actually delivering the solution is really quite a challenge.

Perhaps the most obviously applicable implication from Shirky is a new approach to the treatment of information. In a world where processing information was costly, the appropriate model was "Filter then Publish" with professionals doing the filtering; in a connected world it makes more sense to publish everything and then filter socially (through behaviour or recommendation). So rather than someone deciding what information is important or what information people really want (and in what form); the public sector should make as much information as possible available in as easy to use a form as possible (which is exactly what my colleague Richard Allan is trying to do in the UK's Power of Information taskforce).

The other important aspect of Shirky is the zero cost of production and therefore zero cost of failure for unorganised groups. Poor photos on FlickR, stupid blogs and ill-informed Wikipedia entries do not detract from the ability of these platforms to produce value because there is no real limit to the number of each of these things that can be created and the good will quite naturally drive out or marginalise the bad. As Shirky notes, this really supports innovation, since the group can pursue any and all ideas rather than focus (as a conventional organisation must) on what looks like a reasonable bet from the start. I am not sure, however, how to apply this insight in the public sector (except in fairly superficial ways). Of course, public sector organisations need to maximise the input of ideas they receive, but since their primary focus is rarely the generation of ideas or the creative arts, it is hard to see how they can unleash the power of unorganised organisations. Ironically, the most obvious application is the public spirited data crunching in response to major catastrophes mentioned earlier.

So not as inspiring a set of implications as I would have liked! Can anyone do a bit better?