Evolving a conversation we started back in September, I think are quickly arriving at a solution to the nagging feeling that we need to take the Intra-Government 2.0 movement to the next level.
The Goverati are a small group of committed individuals. It’s not new news that the conversation has become an echo chamber. As a result, I opened a dialogue with Steve Radick, Steve Lunceford, and Lena Trudeau at the very end of the Gov2.0 Summit about how we can get more people, enthusiasm, and get some tough issues on the table.
This is by no means a reflection on the quality of the Gov2.0 Summit or the Expo. Both events, for the first time, drew out some new faces and new questions. The one group we continue to not hear from are the detractors or skeptics of social software.
Deep and Complicated Issues Are Emerging
Larry Lessig wrote a spectacular piece for The New Republic entitled “Against Transparency.” Larry supplies a very cogent argument against the disclosure of too much data from Congressional members. He wraps together several threads and arguments that the government transparency movement advances and dissects the second and third order impacts. For instance, the dangers of drawing conclusions from data (like campaign donation amounts) in the absence of context may have the opposite effect desired. Another example, the richness of some data betrays how poor it actually is because it requires deep analysis to understand it. Lastly, my favorite argument from Larry is the increasingly prevalent phenomenon of the public’s short attention span. We have so many mandatory reports that Congress members need to complete, but very few people in the public at-large are (a) willing to go through it all and (b) no one has the patience to listen to why it matters.
Lessig’s perspective is entirely undervalued in the Government 2.0 community. We need to hear from more people with similar perspectives and ideas.
Voices in the Wilderness of Failure
In addition to the slim number of public, cogent arguments against Government 2.0, our own discussions about failures are truncated. I’m noticing our Government 2.0 conferences either trumpet the achievements of the few or recast a failure as a success.
We all learn something valuable from failed projects. I think, however, that the presence of politics changes the equation. Gene Krantz’s immortal quote, “Failure is not an option,” is the mantra of many Federal executives, Congressional overseers, and taxpayers. And budget dollars are getting more scarce.
As a result, few people in this political environment wish to speak-out about their failures or their agency’s/department’s failures. Yet again, we are robbed of a unique point of view that should be shared, but no one feels insulated/comfortable enough to share it.
Reaching the Unconverted
The problem, in summary, is that the richness and depth of our conversation around Gov2.0 needs to be enhanced. So, in early 2010, our small federation of planners will be hosting a workshop on The Shortfalls of Government 2.0. We want to draw together the informed detractors and advocates who have been hinting at strategies and solutions that are helpful to everyone. We seek a dialogue that informs each side and allows us to advance mission objectives.
The Environment
Intimate settings, NO ATTRIBUTION– In order to hear from those who are the most afraid of embarrassment or political blow-back, we are shrinking the size of each break-out and building it around close conversations. While the number of people coming may be quite large, we will have enough break-out sessions so the there is topical variety and small gatherings.
The Format
Round-Robin Break-outs– One of the chief complaints of participants is that they never get to see everything they wanted to see. We will be working against that problem by having repeating topical sessions. So if you didn’t catch the session on “The Security Vulnerabilities of Web 2.0 Technologies” at 10:00 . . . don’t worry . . . the same talk will be held at 12:00 and 3:00.
Less Talk At You– I find that I learn more by talking to others. In a departure from past conferences and more in line with the Government 2.0 BarCamp, we will be having a conversation-centric format. Facilitators will expect questions from participants. Participants should expect answers from facilitators (and participants).
The Speakers
Detractors and Strategists– We want a morning that is heavy with the dangers and issues around Government 2.0 implementations. This will be a combination of speaker keynotes, debates, and perspectives on the issues around social software. Buttressed against these sessions will be a cadre of strategic thinkers and battle-scarred veterans who can answer your questions and address each issue as it is raised.
What We Need
You. We need participants, presenters, and assistants to build the agenda. Our small planning committee have a few topics we want to address like: Smart Procurement Strategies, Policy, the Law, and the Difference, Detailed Case Examples (what worked, what didn’t), etc.
If you have a topic you think should be covered, submit it to this blog or e-mail me at: bdrake@deloitte.com
[...] Government 2.0 #FAIL « The Green Dotted Line briandrake.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/government-2-0-fail – view page – cached Evolving a conversation we started back in September, I think are quickly arriving at a solution to the nagging feeling that we need to take the Intra-Government 2.0 movement to the next level. — From the page [...]
Great post Brian, and I totally agree with your statement that we need more detractors, more discussions about failures, and more skeptics. I, too, am tired of the echo chamber that Gov 2.0 has become – no one wants to talk about what’s NOT working in Gov 2.0 and get to the heart of why it’s not working. In fact, this discussion has been going on a lot longer than just September. Immediately after last year’s Gov 2.0 Camp, I blogged (http://steveradick.com/2009/04/01/government-20-camp-what-i-loved-and-what-id-like-to-see-next-year/) that we needed more skeptics challenging us, challenging our ideas, and challenging our business cases for Gov 2.0.
The real world of Gov 2.0 isn’t all just tweeting, awards, keynotes, and stories in FCW. It’s filled with risk-taking, reprimands, arguments, debates, justification briefings, and failed initiatives (that we can learn from if we’d just talk about them). I’m excited for this event because we’ll hopefully get the CIO in the room who has steadfastly blocked all social media for years. I’d like to get his voice heard among our Gov 2.0 community not only so that we can learn his rationale for blocking social media, but also so that we can have a conversation with him explaining the benefits of social media and hopefully, come to some sort of resolution in the middle.
How can we address the challenges of Gov 2.0 unless we meet them head on? Let’s apply our own principles of transparency and authenticity to ourselves, and have a transparent, authentic conversation with our detractors just as we do with our evangelists.
You are exactly right, Steve. We lost track of the improvements we wanted to see in the Gov 2.0 BarCamp. This is certainly an opportunity to revisit those ideas. You make another excellent point that the “dark side” of Gov2.0/E2.0 implementations is where we have not expended enough energy. Those backroom brawls over issues that may seem unimportant at the time are critically important when it comes time to deploy the solution. Not tackling those issues upfront can often result in frustrations and failures. This is precisely where we need to drive the discussion. Great stuff. Thanks, again, for signing-up.
I think the problem is that the people who should go to these Gov 2.0 events, don’t attend. The true believers show up, the ones who are really interested in making government more responsive and modern. However, the IT security folks and the public affairs officers, who frequently block social media and innovation, aren’t interested in attending.
The solution to this problem is to translate the goals of Gov 2.0 in terms that IT security and public officers can understand and accept. This is an almost impossible task because the values of Gov 2.0 (openness, transparency) conflict with their vocations. IT security exists to lock systems down; public affairs is around to manage communication.
The alternative (and better, IMHO) solution is to make an appeal based upon public need. Taxpayers pay for government services and should be able to access them openly and without intermediaries.
I completely agree with this. It’s very hard to get certain demographics to events. And then, naturally, the people that do show up dominant the agenda and the questions and the conversations and the stories.
The trick is providing true incentives for people “negative” on Gov 2.0 to actually attend and participate. I don’t blame the cheerleaders one bit – they’re actually pulling their weight in a transparent way. But the balance is hard to achieve in practice.
I would suggest a component of the Gov 2.0 / Web 2.0 is Social Media; which has received substantial attention via media. Unfortunately this success is partially at the expense of the much larger diversity of what Gov 2.0 and Gov 3.0 is and those huge potentials. Please refer to “What is Gov 2.0? What could be Gov 5.0?” at http://web2maps.wordpress.com/
Cheers
[...] “Larry supplies a very cogent argument against the disclosure of too much data from Congressional members.” (Brian Drake) [...]
My main frustration is with the “it’s complicated” relationships between contractors, their corporations, and their clients. I’m both frustrated and impressed that it’s taking Deloitte and Booze Allen dudes to initiate these conversations. Consider this MPRI chick involved – even if I’ve been told that I can neither represent MPRI nor Army.mil (the contract I work on).
“Complicated” is a good way of putting it
I don’t want to speak for Brian here, but I suspect he feels the same way – when we’re talking about events like this, I don’t think of myself as a “Booz” dude as much as I think of myself as a Gov. 2.0 dude. Sure, I work for Booz and he works at Deloite, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t work together for the good of everyone. I think this is the attitude that’s become pretty prevalent among guvvie Gov 2.0 people and that’s extended out to the contractor world too. So yes, we’d love to have an MPRI chick involved too!
Steve has gone and spoken for me again. Next thing you know, he’ll write a blog on the same topic . . . (hint, hint)
The challenge is that while you guys feel like “gov20ies,” contracting law, ethicists, and others still think of you as “contractors.” And there are very, very strict rules about gov’t employees consorting with you.
It’s just complicated.
I recently read another post highly relevant to yours, talking about the Government 2.0 Hype Curve, which may be part of the reason for what is happending (not enough heard from skeptics, detractors, implementaion failures/challenges etc).
http://eaves.ca/2009/09/28/mapping-government-2-0-against-the-hype-curve/
Cheers,
@Lissansky
[...] with the Gov 2.0 movement. This week’s conference was no different. Between this week and Brian Drake’s excellent blog post, I realized that we (the “Goverati”) are still very much in the honeymoon stage of Gov [...]
Great thoughts, Brian. My hunch is that the same folks will actually physically show up at a common location as we have been doing (including me!). What if we brought the conversation to the agencies? For instance, identify the agencies that have NOT adopted, then contact the CIO to find out the reasons. If they appear to be strongly resistant, then they’re a perfect candidate to host an event at their agency…including folks located in regional offices across the country (and even some global participants?).
We could have several groups/events staged on the same day, then have report outs from the various groups via Adobe Connect or another webinar tool. Quick idea for the day’s outline:
60 min Round Robin
30 min Report Prep
60 min Virtual Report Out from all Locations (10-15 mins per group)
We could have folks at each event tweeting results, live blogging or even live video stream the various locations (where people are open to attribution). Assemble the overall thoughts into a crowd-sourced report with recommendations, possibly staging some of this on GovLoop as well for build up and reports/recommendations.
Just a brainstorm here – you may already have the structure nailed down. I really like the concept and agree with the need to hear from those folks who aren’t adopting much less showing up at events.
I love this idea in general. You simply MUST involve gov’t people, though. Otherwise it just becomes an anti-social media echo chamber. It’s gov’t people who are going to implement gov20, not outsiders. We need more good thinking all around, including from outside gov’t. But without the doers inside the gov’t, it’s just talk.
I’d also encourage you to not only identify stumbling blocks, but people who have gotten past them. Maybe I missed that and you’re already including it.
Anyway, great thinking!
Ok, I did miss it. I volunteer to either be one of the battle-scarred veterans or get you some to speak. (Provided this event is free or nearly so. I’m done helping people rake in huge sums from gov’t folks listening to gov’t folks speak.) Topics could include getting permission to have random employees blog, transparently showing sr. mgt. schedules, the challenges of coordinating social media in a coherent, interactive way, and experiences talking social media to sr. gov’t managers.
Jeffrey – THANK YOU for all your efforts to date, and for your support of this initiative. You’re absolutely right that we NEED government people involved here, and we hope that more people with your experiences do get involved. Looking forward to hearing more about those experiences so that others can learn from them!
I’m actually working on an event called Echo Chamber 2.0, we’re going to hold it on the House floor when they’re out of session. Stay tuned…
[...] Be sure to read every link he provides, too. In particular, read this bit of strategic thinking from Chris Brogan and this concept for an event focusing on The Shortfalls of Government 2.0. [...]
I challenge O’Reilly, Potomac Forum, OGI, and their ilk to hold the next LARGE gov summit outside of the DC beltway. And not San Francisco, New York, Atlanta, or Chicago either.
Is this possible? Or, if nothing else, a simulcasted/syndicated event in other communities at the same time as DC?
It’s sad that I live in and around Boston, which it is not a stretch to call the national hub of higher education, health care, and government repositories–yet how come the DC thinkers never make it up here other than to attend an event at Harvard’s Kennedy School or Berkman Center?
Heck, forget Boston if you must. Look at Oklahoma City (notorious for the FBI building terrorism or Denver for its mint or Albany for the New York most New Yorkers never visit.
You want change? You want to reach the unconverted? Get out of the nation’s capital. Focus less on the federal government and start looking at state and local government, those arenas of wilderness employing more collective souls than the feds.
Or don’t. But then the failure continues.
Ari: There is a track at the upcoming Gov 2.0 Expo (call for proposals now open) *specifically* about “small government experiments” in local, state government and small nations. Submit something, and encourage your colleagues to do so to.
The problem with your argument, by the way, is that every major city can argue something similar. Why not San Francisco with it’s tech base? Why not Austin with its startup community? Why not New York, the capital of life on earth? Well, the center of gravity and mass of people tend to be in DC. Thus.
Thanks, Steve, Brian and Jeffrey for your “it’s complicated” encouragement! I agree that helping the government is much larger and more important than our individual companies and contracts.
Ari, everyone’s going to be disappointed that some conference is not local to them. Simulcast/syndicated is a great idea to parallel the awesomeness of federalism.
A series of satellite events around the country would be better than one large gathering, and hopefully that’s how the movement will evolve. Given the number of localities just now using social media, we might be a year or three away from this model. I think of National Writers Day. It’s probably dead now, with the suffering of newspapers, but when I was a reporter there were several daylong workshops about journalism and writing that were scattered around the country within a short frame of days so reporters, who often paid their own way, could get to them, and speakers could travel a circuit.
It’s going to be uphill to meet anywhere other than DC Ari because feds can bury their budgets. If I as a Washington state city councilman used tax dollars to get to one of these, I’d be pilloried by my constituents for taking one of them fancy out of town junkets. I’m pretty sure fed employees don’t have to worry about scathing publicity for going to one of these (but fed employees have plenty of other things to worry about, including a lot less autonomy, so please don’t take that as a condemnation, just a statement of how publicity about travel expenses stack up) It won’t be realistic to expect local government people to travel across country for something, wherever you hold it, unless it’s the National League of Cities (and then a gathering there would leave out state and county govts…)
[...] retired career fed Stephen Buckley and collaboration consultant Brian Drake. Drake is planning the Government 2.0 #FAIL workshop, while Buckley, who in the ’90s managed a 1,000 member “Reinventing [...]
[...] retired career fed Stephen Buckley and collaboration consultant Brian Drake. Drake is planning the Government 2.0 #FAIL workshop, while Buckley, who in the ’90s managed a 1,000 member “Reinventing [...]