Draft Whitepaper on Government 2.0

The diagonal look at the paper might have let me miss a reference to President elect Obamas vision and promise to use technology for intensive, transparent interaction between the future US federal government and the citizens.

posted 7 months ago

We talk alot about web2.0 from the forefront, about interaction between consumer and government, inter-consumer and intergovernment on discussions, collaboration and sharing knowledge but to what extent does this happen internally? 

In other words, how is the web2.0 agenda addressed within a government department/organisation ie are they aligning the new interaction with the electorate with the technology and capabilities internally to make that happen?  Do budgets for 'web2.0' activities, sometimes within separate departments and sub-departments, enable the company to strategically access the wider infrastructure requirements to make web 2.0 work effectively oe is it a silo approach?

Perhaps this is a separate conversation or the next level, where we wish to address the organisational needs to ensure effective web2.0 within government?

posted 7 months ago

Hi Paul, nice work on the paper, the intro bits especially are a very simple and useful overview of Web 2.0 etc. I have been thinking about why government might not embrace Web 2.0, I'm not sure whether it is part of the "Objections" section, but, in essence it is that government might stuff it up i.e. a government department will dip a toe in the water with good intentions, say, with online engagement, but they wont tap the full potential of social media. They will talk but not listen and when the conversation gets heated and the public says things they dont want to hear the department will shut down the engagement activity. This then becomes poison elsewhere in government - 'Dont try that social media stuff, remember what happened to...' I think the technology is the easy bit - it shifting peoples' mindsets and organisational cultures which are critical, and which can only partly be done through policy frameworks. Just some thoughts.  

posted 7 months ago

Hi Paul -- A very creative and engaging paper.  Much to think about.  Some thoughts --

First, I think we're really on the verge of Web 2.0 and just peeking at its potential.  To use an analogy, the Huns believed that they couldn't cross the swamp of Lake Maeotis until they watched a deer go across.  Then, they followed the path and conquered one tribe after another until they had taken over most of Europe.  I think that with respect to Government use of Web 2.0 we're still watching a few deers cross the swamp, but the potential is limitless!

Moving from "impersonal pronouncements" to more personal interaction with government will have significant privacy and security implications that government will need to manage.  In social networks people reveal a lot.  It's not like the traditional eGovenment site where someone buys something or conducts a transaction after being vetted.  Managing this more open framework while maintaing its dynamic nature will call for creative solutions to protect personal privacy.

Some of the government uses of Web 2.0 to date are PR and entertainment (see www.whitehouse.gov/barney if you want to know what Tony Blair is spending his time) but that is often the door to more experimentation and more business uses. 

Your comment about the UK PM twittering is interesting.  I think that it not only changes the relationship between the leader and the led, it also changes the role of the leader from that of a issuer of public pronouncements to that of an engaged listener.  A pretty good role model for public leaders.

Finally, regarding the question that you pose about what "a new approach to collaboration in the public sector would ... mean," I think that the results could be truly transformative.  It can collapse hierarchy and allow government leaders to get directly to important groups of constituents before problems grow and tensions rise.  It can allow for substantial intenal uses where employees can share their skills and interests with one another and with management and organizations do a much better job of aligning skills with work.  Finally, it has the potential to change the process of citizen complaints to elected representatives who in turn contact the executive for redress.  The executive can get much more direct and personal information earlier and can bring systemic solutions to the elected representatives with accompanying anecdotes and examples.  This can give the people more control over their government and make government more responsive to them.

posted 7 months ago

Hi Paul,

interesting paper and the fact i found it is a great big tick for Twitter. I joined last week and (I have no idea how) but i found myself following "GovDelivery" which pointed to your post. So hooray for web 2.0 I say.

If you check my profile you will find that I run a small Australian based company providing an online community engagement service for (mostly) public sector organisations. The business has been running for around 12 months and at its heart is an independently moderated forum. The promise to the public is that they will not be censored, the promise to our clients is that the forum will not get out of control - we delete anyting offensive, defamatory or spammy.

Stop advertising I hear you say... Why is this relevant? Because we have learnt some interesting lessons along the way that I thought might be of interest.

1. We are at the very leading edge of the bell curve in terms of adoption of web 2.0 by the public sector. Our clients (read the CEOs) have lower risk profiles (i.e. they worry less about the downside risks and think more about the upside opportunities) than the average CEO.
2. They are leaders within their industry, not just of their organisation.
3. They use web 2.0 as a cultural change driver - they understand that it encourages governance transparency and want to challenge their staff and elected officials.
4. They are persistent and understand that it will take time for their community of interest to get used to using web tools to regularly engage.
5. They appreciate that web 2.0 opens up the discursive space and challenges the regular letter writers to put up or shut up. We have found that the noisy minority are very frequently drowned out by the constructive majority.
6. They "get" that the web is here to stay and that if they don't create a constructive space for conversing with their community then someone else will more than likely create an uncontrollable and quite possibly desctructive space to hurl criticism.
7. They acknowledge that their traditional methods for engaging are time hungry and inconvenient for the vast majority of the population - we have found that 70% of people will make a comment about a project during business hours; they take 10-15 minutes out of their working day to engage in public policy debate about the place where they live - I love it!

posted 7 months ago