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!

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.

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.