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.

The Government Program Investment Conundrum

At the Government 2.0 BarCamp (session 1 Room 116), I participated in a discussion titled, “What happens when a government social software solution fails.”

The conversation wondered a little off topic at times, but altogether we had a great conversation around the topic. The issue that resonated most with me was the classic programmatic conundrum that every taxpayer steward seems to encounter.

After a technical initiative has been deployed and there is ample evidence that it has failed, what should a program manager do?

The typical response has been the throw good money after bad. The logic goes, “The initiative is failing, we should invest more in it to see if we can save it.” Or “With a few more resources, we could deliver the capabilities that our customers really want!” In truth, all the metrics of success point toward failure and even with massive reinvestment the project can not be saved.

Graphic notetaking from Diane Cline

The Value of Keeping Score

I suppose there’s a wisdom in the axiom “winners never quit.” But at some point, you have to look at the scoreboard and rationally evaluate your chances with a 47 point deficit and 2 minutes to play. The difficulty for most managers is knowing to and actively keeping score.

Any program can spend money. Highly effective programs spend money and tie those expenditures to credible, valuable results. I’m not just talking about “metrics.” I’m talking about results that are measured in customer satisfaction stories, surveys, testimonials, sources of additional funding outside of your organization, and some other basic performance measurements. These are all necessary, but not sufficient.

Changing the Game

The most important practice for a government executive to adopt is a posture of honesty. Not necessarily transparency . . . but honesty. Some programs need a degree of privacy from the workforce. For example, a payroll and accounting system build should not be 100% transparent. These examples are few, but they do exist so we should make allowances for those special circumstances. However, even with highly sensitive technical implementations, opacity is not an excuse for dishonesty. The leaders I admire most are the ones who readily admit when they make mistakes and seek remedies. “Being honest” means to supply metrics either on request or through regular posting. It means telling customers that their suggestions will or will not be taken forward (a reason is nice, but not always warranted). It means not arguing for more resources when you really don’t need them. It means keeping your peers honest when they try to hide failed programs. It means acknowledging failure, terminating reinvestment and/or restructuring the program within the existing budget.

This will continue to be a tough mindset shift for many government executives. It’s our job to help them see the wisdom in such an approach.

Once again, great session. I hope to have more on day 2!

Managing Our Expectations on Obama

My family and I after voting

I’ll just come out and say it . . . Barack Obama can’t live up to our expectations.

This blog epitomizes my concern about our perceptions of Obama and how he can change the way our government operates. The Web 2.0 community, in particular, believes that this administration can just wave a wand and all sorts of sexy technology will appear. Those of us who have pushed for government Enterprise 2.0 solutions for years, know the sad reality. There are serious bureaucratic, regulatory and legal barriers that need to be addressed.

If you’re looking for a nice summary of all the issues and recommended solutions for applying social media in government, check out this link.

First To Say It

(I know I’m going to pay for this later, but . . .) Lewis Shepherd got it right with his latest blog, even the President must adhere to rules and laws established years (sometimes hundreds of years) before. It’s not like he doesn’t want to change, there are just some history attached to the present state of the White House’s IT environment. Past White Houses (the outgoing one being an exception) have also been cognizant of making the ivory tower more ivory. Underinvestment and sensible purchases pre-occupy the minds of those on Pennsylvania Avenue. Why? Because their lives are under a microscope and all a Congress person or Senator needs to do is say “The President disregarded the law . . .” and heads roll.

The Legacy of Dick Cheney

Let’s talk about two dominating forces that dominate government procurements.

Prohibition of Accepting Free Services: The Federal Government is prohibited from accepting free services from the private sector. If you have a problem with this, please take it up with your elected representatives. This makes the importation of open source solutions rather difficult. According to the law, you must pay for software services in some way shape or form. I have seen government clients get around this cleverly by justifying/authorizing/using their existing beltway bandit IT staff to install the solution.

Sole Sourcing: Under very special circumstances, the Federal government can evaluate and determine that a particular company has a solution that no one else in the free market has or other circumstances make it necessary to pre-select a vendor. Microsoft enjoys such a status because it has the only operating system for PCs. Linux doesn’t count because its free (see above). This is called a sole source procurement or an “Other Than Full and Open Competition” contract action. Thank you, very much Dick Cheney, for ruining sole source procurements for the rest of us. Due to the controversy surrounding the obscenely large dollar value of Haliburton sole source contracts in Iraq, many government agencies have imposed restrictions on letting sole source contracts.

What We Can Expect

Its not all doom and gloom. If other areas of the Executive Branch have been able to bring in Web 2.0 solutions, then there is hope for the White House. Battleships turn, but turn slowly. The most important thing we can do as citizens is participate in the debate and make the Congress and the Federal bureaucracy defend stupid. That being said, we also need to be the most informed on the topic. We need to understand the constraints and offer workable solutions. It is not sufficient to criticize, we need to innovate and act.