Government 2.0 #Win?

Last week, we convened a gathering of the Government 2.0 #fail crowd.

The purpose of the meeting was to:

(a) Determine the format of the event,
(b) Identify the target audience, and
(c) Start to craft the topics that would bring forward some of the most pressing issues in government; let alone Government 2.0.

Emma Attunes, Maxine Teller, Steve Lunceford, Justin Franks, Dan Mintz, Steve Guagliardo, and myself were in attendance. Steve Radick, Mark Drapeau, Lewis Shepherd, and Lena Trudeau were not able to make it because they were at conferences, on travel, or some combination of the two.

It was probably one of the most productive meetings I have ever been in. It’s great to work with people who are both smart and equally committed to the cause. One of my action items was to close inform all interested parties on what decisions were made and where we are going from here.

We arrived at decisions in four areas – Audience, Attendance Management, Format, and Title

Target Audience

We are looking for government workers (Federal, state, local, tribal, international, . . .) who:

(a) Are skeptical of the value of social software in government
(b) Have problems that involve bringing together large numbers of people or have sizable datasets that need to be organized, rationalized, and/or shared
(c) Think they have a problem that can be solved with social software, but are not sure
(d) Are responsible for (or have some degree of responsibility for) the problem

As you read this list, may think that you (or someone you know) only fit into one of the criteria above. That’s ok. We want to meet you or your friends even if only one component of the criteria applies.

Semi-Invitational Event

Encouraging people to talk about complex and important issues like risk, agency objectives, and real/imagined obstacles is a central objective of this workshop. The audience and speaker composition involves people who have been involved in multiple aspects of a Government 2.0 implementation or solution. This audience and speaker set would include detractors that often do not wish to spend time attending “another Web 2.0 conference.”

Our approach to getting the people we want in the room is to make this an invitation-focused event. To this end, we will be sending out invitations to a limited number of people. This list may be expanded with an invitation-by request process. Certainly, we will want the invitees to suggest others people they know that might be good speakers or participants at the event.

I recognize that this may seem a little exclusionary. I further recognize that this approach runs counter to our collective ethos of transparency and openness. However, I think that we are demanding a lot from people who are on the fence of adoption. My personal opinion is that we need to give a little to get a little. In this case, we need to make the event more private so that those who are not comfortable sharing publicly today, may share publicly tomorrow.

Format and Progression of the Day

We will be using a one-day “round-robin” format I’ve written about in a previous blog. Each attendee will select a track or interest area. The agenda structure will look something like this:

08:30 – Welcome and Introduction
09:00 – Introductory Speaker
09:30 – Workshop Track 1 (Room A)
Workshop Track 2 (Room B)
Workshop Track 3 (Room C)
11:00 – Lunch
12:30 – Formidable Opponent Debate: Celebrity Guest Appearance by Steven Colbert (ok just kidding – But we will have 2 experts in web security intellectually duke it out)
12:30 – Rotate
12:45 – Workshop Track 1 (Room B)
Workshop Track 2 (Room C)
Workshop Track 3 (Room A)
14:30 – Rotate
14:45 – Workshop Track 1 (Room C)
Workshop Track 2 (Room A)
Workshop Track 3 (Room B)
16:15 – Keynote speaker
17:00 – Close

Finally . . . The Title

After brainstorming a wide cast of titles and themes we settled on:

Mapping Success: Can Government 2.0 Work for You?

We selected this title because it balanced out our desire to state the challenge space in a positive way, but also express the potential for strategic, technical, and implementation #fails.

Next Steps

We have scoped enough of the workshop’s details to proceed with defining the agenda, tracks, and budget. I’ve already received some very excellent ideas through e-mail and from comments on this and related blogs. Thank you soooooo much for those.

We’ll be iterating on those ideas and others over the next two weeks and we’ll get an agenda out to everyone as soon as we can line-up the presenters and speakers. We are shooting for an February date for the workshop.

Thanks for reading and we’ll see you in February!

Government 2.0 #FAIL

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

Inspiring the Intra-Government 2.0 Movement

It was a thrill to participate in the Gov2.0 Expo and Summit this past week. Tim and his staff did an outstanding job. The venues were top notch. The sponsors were helpful and insightful. Best of all the crowd of attendees was truly unique and I had a lot of very interesting conversations over the three days. The evening networking opportunities were perhaps the most productive use of my time.

What Was Lacking

There were a few areas where I felt the conference just didn’t quite hit the mark. First was the whole “Government as a Platform” theme. I found myself agreeing more and more with Andrea DiMaio on the idea that government is quite the opposite. At several points during the conference I just felt that the analogy wasn’t exactly a fit. I don’t think this issue was as damaging as I feared. I was glad to see the volume on this dial tone turned down.

The second issue I had was with the focus on citizen participation. Clearly the focus of the Summit was on showing government executives the value of citizen developers. “Just open the data up!” was the transmission and our receivers were on. I felt like this focus often left out those of us working inside of government and do not have a way/responsibility/reason to liberate data.

Third, and finally, was the composition of some of the panels and speakers. Aside from the issue of gender and racial representation at both the Expo and the Summit, I felt that some of the content just didn’t resonate with the mundane, but important elements of working for the government.

What I Was Hoping For . . .

I was hoping for more speakers and sessions that:
Inspired the audience (Thanks, Clay! Awesome stuff)

Challenged the audience

Engaged the audience

Shared obstacle defeat strategies

Tapped into the collective creativity of our tribe

Focused on behaviors first and technology last

Doing Something About It

I spoke with a number of people during and after the conference. In particular, I spoke with Emma Antunes, Steve Radick, and Lena Trudeau about having a Government 2.0 practitioner-focused event. My vision is to have the same type of vibe and enthusiasm of the Summit, but focus the sessions around Enterprise 2.0 deployments and/or the internal difficulties of liberating data. While I also really enjoyed the Government 2.0 BarCamp, I think I would like to take a page out of Tim’s playbook and target an audience of people having with real, non-technical deployment problems.

Atmospherics Count

What made the “over spill” at the Summit the place to be was the more relaxed atmosphere it fostered. So, at this event we will have no theater-like presentations. Round tables; no rows of seats. Face-to-face interactions for sure. Staring at the back of a stranger’s head? Not so much. Intimacy first, distance last. Jokes? Yes. Passion? Absolutely. Work products? For a change – YES! Think fireside chat, but with computers and WiFi.

Next Steps

In the coming weeks, Lena, Steve, Emma, myself, and anyone else who wants to join up, will be meeting to discuss logistics, agendas, speakers, and the like. An event like this will probably take some time to pull together. I’m thinking that we’ll probably hold it in the Spring (at the latest). I’m looking forward to getting my hands dirty and helping out some executives in need. I hope you’ll join us.

Submit to Us

I have been given the honor to be on the planning committee for the Gov 2.0 Expo. O’Reilly Media is co-producing this event with a wide collection of Enterprise 2.0 vendors. This will be the first time that O’Reilly Media has applied its Expo model to showcase government services. The goal of the Expo is to highlight the projects that are leading the way in government innovation, leveraging the web as a platform, driving transparency, participation and collaboration, and reducing costs while increasing value.

What Does This Have to Do With Me?

We are seeking submissions to the Expo. The deadline is 30 June 2009. Don’t worry, there’s still plenty of time. The form is simple and direct:
Proposal title

Description: Brief overview for marketing purposes, max. length 400 characters—about 65 words

Topics (select the most relevant to your proposal):

- Process
- Provider
- Partner
- Protector
- Peacemaker

Session type: 5 minute presentation (no other option)

Abstract: Self-explanatory

Project Environment: Describe the government environment in which your project exists.

Challenges: Describe the situation before your project was implemented. What problems were you trying to solve or the question you were trying to answer? What were the impediments?

Results: How did your initiative change the situation? What were the outcomes? How did you overcome the barriers?

External Links: Are there urls we should reference for additional information? These include project sites, blogs, twitter feeds, etc.

About the Presenter: Tell us about the presenter and and why you/they took on this project.

So What’s In It For Me?

The top four projects in each category will be presented at Gov 2.0 Expo Showcase. O’Reilly Media will bestow a Gov 2.0 Award on the top six projects, chosen the day of the conference.

If you are interested, please submit a proposal through the site here.

Build It and They Won’t Come

If you build it, Joe Jackson will probably not show-up and thank you

There’s a prevalent myth out there about technical and physical collaboration projects. It might be a symptom of unbridled optimism, but I have heard this phrase far too often: “Well, if we just build it [or do it], people will come.” I have rarely seen things thrown together that “just work.” What is astounding to me is that I’ve been in meetings where smart people know that throwing it together won’t work, but do it anyway. It’s like they turn into Kevin Costner and start hearing whispered voices.

You’re Either the Michael Jordan of Collaboration Or . . .

I don’t care what you might hear/read from others, collaboration is a lot of hard work (Randy Nelson is a very cool guy BTW). Does it make your job easier, faster, cheaper, and better? I think it does. But like anything worth doing, its a difficult path to victory. There are some people out there that make it look easy, but even then they will tell you it has been a challenge to get to that level of professional implementation. Even those folks will tell you that getting people to work collaboratively is a grinding, ceaseless battle.

. . . You’re Crazy

I think there are many reasons that people fall into the “just build it” mentality. One reason is the very human (American?) desire to show immediate results. You may have been tasked with creating a collaborative experience or environment, but if there is a disconnect between the organization’s goals and the task then its activity at the expense of progress.

Another reason stems from standing up the technical solution first and then getting business practices to align. Sometimes it is necessary to make this compromise to get the collaborative inertia going. This can not be, however, your only approach. Thinking about collaboration as a multi-faceted business process change problem is much more productive then landing on a technical solution before knowing what the adoption picture looks like (there are some smart guys over there at Wikipatterns.com).

The final reason, I think, has roots in social science community’s theories on psychological dissociation. Clinically speaking, I do not think that just saying “build it” means that people are dissociative (“The unexpected partial or complete disruption of the normal integration of a person’s conscious or psychological functioning that cannot be easily explained by the person”). However, when we pair the entertainment industry’s notion of “suspending disbelief” and clinical dissociation, I think there is something compelling to explore. When faced with a very serious challenge, the human brain can become overtaxed and people are unable to make decisions. As the severity of the consequences rises for the individual, so does their inability to effectively make decisions. This was a highly contentious point of discussion in the nuclear warfighting literature during the Cold War. In the context of collaboration, you’re not making a life-or-death decision, but the enormity of the task might overwhelm your senses and mental logic processes. Given the enormity of a collaboration task, you may be more willing to suspend your sense of disbelief or pessimism in favor of a more favorable projected outcome. The logic trail might go something like this:

Thought A: This is a really big problem
Thought B: We don’t have enough time to figure it all out and build a solution
Thought C: Well, we could just start building it and figure it out later
Thought D: Besides if we build it, people might just start showing up and that would be good

The pain of giving in to the voices comes later when either (a) your customers scream and complain about the solution you selected or (b) don’t show up.

What to Do: Thinking Beyond the Technical

I’m certainly guilty of focusing on technical solutions prior to thinking about the problem. What keeps me on the straight and narrow is asking two simple questions:
1. What is the objective of the activity?
2. Who are the customers?

Be it a conference, brainstorming session, or technology implementation, these questions are important framing devices for any collaborative effort.

Just remember three things: planning, more planning, and executing. Have an idea of what you want to do and what you want to get out of it. Engage early with the customer of your effort to find out how they can help you get what you want and what they want. Finally, be prepared to follow-though on what your customers have asked for. If your budget or other constraints won’t allow you to accommodate all their needs, then you can choose to manage customer expectations or pick the best amongst the ideas to move forward. Just remember if you start hearing whispered voices, please seek professional help.