Sustainable Public Financial Management

How Can U.S. Federal Agencies Use Social Media to Enhance Civic Participation? Yasmin Fodil and Anna York from the Harvard Kennedy School of Goverment is providing Government 2.0 guidance. The report, How Can U.S. Federal Agencies Use Social Media to Enhance Civic Participation? has applicability beyond the United States. There has been a lot of discussion about leveraging social media for citizen engagement. Most of the lessons learned are presented as anecdotes.  This can be very difficult for public servants to make the connection to their context.  This work provides some excellent advice beyond the obvious, in particular the Readiness Assessment and Strategy Planner. It provides an excellent overview of the social networking literature.

Is Open Government the next Rodney Dangerfield?

by Doug Hadden, VP Products

Has “open government” reached the trough of disillusionment? Like the late comedian Rodney Dangerfield, Government 2.0 isn’t getting any respect.  Open Government 7 deadly sins from the blogosphere include:

1. Change: governments have shown no culture change
2. Gauge: governments have not been able to better gauge public opinion
3. Retread: Government 2.0 is nothing new, just a facade on e-government 1.0
4. Misled: open data will result in more confused electorate
5. Illusion: Government 2.0 will never achieve the promise
6. Economic: there is no return on investment for open government
7. Social: government is serious business, not a social activity

It is high time to address these issues. Much of the blogosphere commentary extrapolates specific situations into generalizations. Many commentators in the United States seem to define “open government” entirely within the American government context. Technology change and cultural transformation is affected by unique structures of governments. The incentives and disincentives for the “checks and balances” structure of the American federal government are unique. So many Government 2.0 successes or failures in the United States may not be indicative or wider trends or predictive of future successes or failures.

The broad spectrum of “Government 2.0″ functionality seems to have become hijacked by one aspect: open government. Exposing raw data. A more realistic approach is to put this subset within the entire context of Government 2.0 that includes internal and external collaboration.

1. Change

Premise: There has been no culture change in government from Government 2.0. Politicians and civil servants remain reluctant to embrace transparency.

Reality: Change is not easy for large organizations. We’ve written about the skills necessary to lead Government 2.0 change. And there any many examples of culture change and Government 2.0 adoption.  Change is unevenly adopted.  That’s why we talk about early adopters. There is a culture of expertise in large organizations. Knowledge is power in traditional organizational structures. So, we cannot expect widespread immediate culture change. At the same time, we cannot expect that no change will occur.

2. Gauge

Premise: Government 2.0 and open government is all well and good. But, governments and politicians are not able to better gauge public opinion.

Reality: Many commentators are stuck in the broadcast model of thinking. Where citizens are passive consumers. Government 2.0 is not about gauging the opinion of passive consumers. It’s not about finding ways to influence citizens by opening up new channels of propaganda. Government 2.0 is about regular citizen engagement with government policy. It’s a much deeper relationship than passive consumers who periodically vote.

3. Retread

Premise: Government 2.0 is nothing new. The tools used are variations on what has been available for years. We are kidding ourselves to think that there will be any substantial change in the way governments interact with citizens.

Reality: There are always technological similarities among different generations of software. Collaboration and document management software has been readily available for some time.  Yet, these software applications have not been as widely adopted as Web 2.0 and social networks. There are fundamental differences in Web 2.0/Government 2.0 that will result in wider adoption and new usages. The most important aspect of Government 2.0 is openness: open standards to enable comparison, mashups, and integration. Openness to support adapting software to meet goals rather than forced into the limited processes envisioned by the software vendor.

4. Mislead

Premise: The exposure of raw data and documents will overwhelm the public. Government information requires expertise to understand. Citizens will misunderstand government information and make incorrect conclusions.

Reality: The press do not have a franchise on misunderstanding government data. Specialization has been a skill associated with the 20th Century. Professionals developed deep technical expertise in narrow subjects. The ability to learn and use strong generalization skills to find patterns across multiple disciplines is a characteristic of the 21st Century. Government information needs to be made more accessible – there is no question that jargon can be simplified. Open data can enable more effective methods of visualizing government information through charts or maps.

There also seems to be a focus on documents in open government discussion. Documents are a remnant of the pre-digital age. Documents and reports are the final container of government processes. Documents are vetted and edited. The data within documents are selected for a particular purpose. Open government will open up the process. Citizens will interact with governments before documents become documents. For example, participatory budgeting can be enabled via Government 2.0 tools well before a proposed government budget is produced. And, budget execution information can be made available for mashup and analysis outside the preparation of government documents.

5. Illusion

Premise: E-government did not achieve the promise of transforming government. Disincentives for transformation will persist. We are fooling ourselves to think that Government 2.0 will provide anything but incremental improvement.

Reality: We’ve written about why Government 2.0 will fulfill the promise of e-government.  The fundamental flaw with e-government predictions is that they did not take culture change into account. Change is important – it is the first deadly sin.  Culture change in government requires exercising social muscles. Government organizations are using social tools to interact beyond ministries and agencies. Positive results have encouraged government organizations to open up to the public. And, many civil servants at the forefront of Government 2.0 initiatives have found fast promotion.

6. Economic

Premise: Governments are under increasing budget constraints. Governments sell data. Open government will result in high cost to implement while reducing revenue opportunities. There is a negative ROI for Government 2.0.

Reality: Return on Investment is the wrong measurement for open government. ROI is very much a private sector concept. And, one that assumes a rather narrow set of parameters and effects. (Such as increasing or decreasing the advertising budget for a consumer product.) The effects of government initiatives can cascade across many economic sectors. The appropriate measurement for open government is Economic Value Add.  Releasing government data assists businesses. It enables mashups that provide insight. That improves government and business decision-making. It increases economic stability.

7. Social

Premise: Governments have mandates to fulfill. Governments need to be highly efficient and effective in order to achieve goals. Government 2.0 is about social networks and informal methods of interaction. Governments must be formal. There is no place for toys or social networking in government.

Reality: We’ve written about the “S” word before – how the word “social” implies play rather than work. There seems to be a view that all government functions can be articulated as strict business processes – as if government has no creative function. Civil servants learn from each other. They find solutions to problems. Social networks support knowledge management, creative discussion and problem solving. Nevertheless, there is no question that selling Government 2.0 to decision-makers as “social” or “innovative” or “cool” is probably not the best approach.

by Doug Hadden

VP Products

Andrew McAfee, the originator of the term Enterprise 2.0, suggests that “overuse of the word ‘social’” is not business friendly. Presenting Web 2.0 technology for companies or government as social suggests something other than work.   I commented on the blog article. This is an extension of that comment.

True: “Social” seems to imply ‘not work’. And, we know that work cannot be fun. (Except if you work for a For Profit Social Enterprise). But, social networking and communications is an integral part of business today. This is more than discussions around the water cooler – it’s about the virtual global water cooler. 

Computing solutions have focused on the more structural and procedural aspects of work. Hence, the attraction of “Business Process Management” (BPM) and “Business Process Re-engineering” (BPR). “Structural”, another S word.  Implies hierarchy. We’ve described this notion of structural and social in our Government 2.0 Framework. The diagram implies that structural and social are entirely separate. Structural processes can benefit from collaborative technologies that we call Enterprise 2.0 – such as documenting why a procurement or hiring decision was made. .

Social processes involve creativity, brainstorming, seeking out expertise, outreach to employees amd customers etc. Most pre-Enterprise 2.0 tools to accomplish these functions were structural in context, about ‘command and control’. These have proven somewhat inflexible in driving innovation and improved customer service.  The notion of the Discipline of Market Leaders  recommends three approaches. Operational efficiency is one of those approaches. My interpretation of “operational efficiency” is that all processes need to be defined, standardized and improved. It is difficult to re-engineer innovation or creativity event though these disciplines can form part of a process.

Enterprise 2.0 in Operation: FreeBalance Scenario

There’s a reason why we advocate the use of Web 2.0 and “social networking” to governments. We used these tools in-house. We’ve witnessed the effectiveness of Web 2.0 tools. A case: software requirements management.  Traditional pre-Enterprise 2.0 tools were highly structured. Many were client/server. Most required training on the methodology advocated by the provider of the tool. Larger software development organizations were more likely to adopt these tools.

Product portal includes requriements management, bug tracking, blog, wiki, and forum

FreeBalance uses an ISO-9001certified process for the entire software development lifecycle. This process was designed specifically for the government context. We needed to implement tools that adapted to our process rather than the other way around. We have implemented a number of flexible Web 2.0 tools since mid 2006 that enables the product teams around the world to collaborate. Today, FreeBalance has product managers and business analysts in Guatemala City, Washington, Ottawa, Lisbon, Pristina and Dubai. And, these people travel. Our product development is in Ottawa, Lisbon, Bangelore and Ulaanbaatar. We have project teams in customer sites providing feedback. It’s a 24/7 world that requires the use of traditional and Web 2.0 tools to achieve improved customer support and customer innovation. I can still remember 3 years ago entering some requirements into our Drupal-based system and getting an error because we’d exceeded 100MB of content – in less than 6 months. Today, there are gigabytes of vision cases, market requirements, specifications, project reports, design documents and test cases. We use numerous plug-ins, internal blogs, forums and other tools. We have been able to leverage these tools for discussions among technical and functional experts. We’ve extended this to a customer exchange. We’ve extended the tools to show market research and provide support for our sales group.

FreeBalance  Customer Exchange

My conclusion on “S” words? Social is work that augments structure and extends beyond structure.

“Web 2.0 at Work Inside Government” was the topic of the Association For Federal Information Resources Management (AFFIRM) luncheon earlier today in Washington DC.  “Web 2.0 at Work” is an important distinction. Many wonder whether Government 2.0 will be adopted despite cultural and security issues. Yet, 3 of the 4 speakers were representing in production successful Government 2.0 initiatives.  And, 3 of the 4 speakers were from the security establishment.

We covered the panel discussion on twitter. Government 2.0 is not a question of “if” or “when”. It’s now.

Lessons Learned

The panel confirmed many emerging Government 2.0 best practices:

1. Data security is more a human than technology factor
2. Information security and transparency requires guidelines
3. Internal Government 2.0 collaboration should leverage existing teams and social networks
4. Constant communications and engagement is necessary for widespread adoption
5. Users need to understand how the initiative helps them
6. Continuous beta – need to adapt to needs of the community
7. Leverage the right tools to achieve goals
8. Top-down will hit resistance in middle management
9. Social networking is not a toy – social networking is work outside of the hierarchy
10. Need to balance “wisdom of crowds” with wisdom of experts

Is There a Generation Y Effect?

Stephen O’Keeffe, the moderator and founder of MeriTalk pointed out that younger civil servants are more likely to be using social networking tools, quoting Forrester Researchstudies. The panelists suggested that this might be a myth when applied to work social networks.  Government 2.0 isn’t waiting for the ascendancy of the new generation of public servants. Jack Holt of DoD warned: “don’t underestimate the impact of grumpy old men with something to say.”

Panelists

• Emma Antunes, Center Web Manager and Project Manager, Spacebook, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
• Tina Cariola, Program Manager, IdeaFactory, Transportation Security Administration, Dept. of Homeland Security
• Carolyn Collins, Chief, Army Sexual Harassment / Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) Policy and Program, G-1, Headquarters (HQs), Department of the Army, Pentagon, Virginia
•  Jack Holt, Senior Strategist, Emerging Media, Defense Media Activity, Department of Defense

FreeBalance_Cluster

Our Financial Management Institute of Canada (FMI) Professional Development Week started early with presentations to the FreeBalance Government of Canada Cluster and to our Performance Budgeting for Human Capital (PBHC) customers in Ottawa. FreeBalance has the largest cluster in the Government of Canada – 28 departments, agencies and commissions. And, PBHC has become the gold standard for civil service planning and salary planning. We’re participating in FMI as a sponsor. We’ll be talking about new product releases and describing how government performance management needs Government 2.0 in order to succeed.

The Cluster presentation was a deep dive into the technology of the FreeBalance Accountability Suite. Both presentations ended with invitations to join the on-line FreeBalance Customer Exchange. We started both presentations with a quick business update including mentioning the Uganda Civil Service Management implementation and the reduction of open support cases by 64% over the past 18 months.

This wasn’t your typical roadmap presentation: “this is what you’re going to get, this is when you’re going to get it, this is when you’re going to have to upgrade, if you don’t like it, it’s too bad.” After all, the FreeBalance roadmap is owned by customers. Our goal is to align our roadmap: government customers tell us what we are going to deliver and when we are going to deliver it.

 We described the FreeBalance Accountability Suite original design criteria. We believe that many problems experienced in the implementation of Government Resource Planning (GRP) systems originate with the design. We’ve written and presented our lesson-learned: the typical methods used by software vendors to design, develop and implement software needs to be adjusted to support Public Financial Management (PFM) needs.

Social networking capabilities, often called Government 2.0,  are required for the current generation of pure-web GRP. We showed part of our original vision case from 2005. This original vision included the fundamental integration of transactions, content and collaboration within a single system architecture.

We described:

• Use of software architecture best practices
• Component-based Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)
• Open system and open source support
• Ability to choose open source or commercial middleware
• Support for government-specific requirements
• Configuration and progressive activation approach
• The product commitments and roadmap for the next 18 months
• Support for shared services and cloud computing
• How the FreeBalance Accountability Platform can help develop custom applications

There were many questions that we were able to clarify:

• Version 7 of the FreeBalance Accountability Suite provides comprehensive human resources and payroll functionality – full civil service management
• FreeBalance is testing  software using VMWare
• The technical infrastructure is open – we are prepared to support other operating system environments other than Linux and Windows
• How “custom domains” differs from the typical “additional fields” approach
• How the technology is scalable and the scale of recent implementations
• Exact method for multiple year chart of accounts
• How customers can customize help, documentation and e-learning
• Software deployment

We look forward to more dialog with our Government of Canada customers. We described how customers can participate to help design, adapt and test. Web 2.0 tools provide companies with the ability to support customer disruptive  innovation, as described by Clayton Christensen.  It’s a far cry from the days of “Mad Men” – creating demand when there isn’t any. The management of the Cluster has been enabling more interaction among customers and with FreeBalance. We are working together to leverage tools to enable more peer communications.

In a panel discussion hosted this afternoon by the ICGFM in Washington, DC, Mark Drapeau lamented just how hard it is to define Government 2.0. Or,  determine how governments can take to successfully adopt it.

We’re not quitters, so perhaps we can leverage the wisdom of the crowds?

To paraphrase Wikipedia, Government 2.0 is the integration of Web 2.0tools such as wikis, social networking sites, blogs, RSS, Google Maps (the list goes on) to devise more effective processes for government service delivery to individuals and businesses.

Basically: Government + Web 2.0 = Government 2.0 = Effective service delivery.

There’s more to it, in our opinion, and there’ll be more on that later. But it’s a good starting point, and besides, improvement through collaboration is the whole point of Web 2.0 anyway, right?

Either way, it wasn’t too long ago (and it’s still somewhat true today) that government was thought of as clunky and inaccessible, a flannel-clad mass of nameless and faceless bureaucrats that taxed you in exchange for traffic signals and a vague feeling of security. (Mind you, public servants have names and faces.)

It took the rise of the internet for this conception of government to begin to change. The wonders of the web brought with it talk of fundamentally different interactions between citizen and state. As we detailed earlier, there was much interest and theorizing. But unfortunately, the hopes of e-Government were not realized. Few governments managed to move beyond its elementary phases.

About a decade since, the buzz around Government 2.0 – and there is a lot – resembles the excitement that accompanied the rising spectre of e-Government. But is Government 2.0 really categorically different? And more importantly, what suggests that, unlike e-Government, it won’t be destined for limited success?

The tremendous interest in Government 2.0 generates opinions across the board on these questions. We’d like to hear your opinions, and have offered two points as ‘food for thought’ that might inform the debate.

First – and this is why the Wikipedia definition is lacking – Web 2.0 is fundamentally different because it is multi-dimensional, multi-scalar, and multi-directional. This is an idea developed from Neil Brenner’swritings on political geography and globalization. Conceived of in the context of Government 2.0, it is clear that its benefits are not just to be found in more effective “service delivery to individuals and businesses.” In fact, the essential difference between the early days of internet and its current mashed-up incarnation in Web 2.0 is its multi-directionality. Web 2.0 is social – it is differentiated by offering a medium that allows two-way (or multi-way) interaction and collaboration.

What does this mean for Government 2.0? The Wikipedia definition leaves much to be desired because it implies only one dimension upon which Government 2.0 operates: government services to citizens or businesses. Web 2.0 tools, on the contrary, can be (and to some extent, are being) leveraged by governments for a wider permutation of flows.

A framework developed in a paperby Dr. Mark Drapeau and Dr. Linton Wells II captures this potential perfectly. Governments can use social software on four different dimensions:

1. Inward sharing – sharing information within agencies
2. Outward sharing – sharing information with other relevant agencies
3. Inbound sharing – obtaining input from citizens and other people outside of government
4. Outbound sharing – communicating with and empowering people outside of government

The paper presents excellent examples of how these ‘dimensions’ are already in use in various instances around the world, and is necessary reading.

We’re curious whether sequencing Government 2.0 – implementing it one dimension at a time – will ease the ‘cultural transformation’ that is required of governments to adopt it. For example, if government agencies can begin with increased information collaboration within agencies and with other agencies, this might facilitate future efforts to channel this collaboration outwards. And there certainly is scope for them to step up efforts on all four fronts.

It might seem somewhat pedantic to harp on definitions, but defining what a project entails (yes, Government 2.0 is a project) is an essential first-step towards creating a successful roadmap. We’d like to hear your views on whether sequencing Government 2.0 as outlined above is a feasible mode to proceed on – or whether there is an alternative ‘definition’ that better informs how the challenges of Government 2.0 adoption can be overcome.

Second, when considering what gives Government 2.0 a more favourable shelf-life than e-Government, we run into a paradox that we’d also like your input on. On the one hand, as Mark Drapeau said in today’s panel discussion, government culture (hierarchical, secretive, and closed) and Web 2.0 culture (flat, transparent, and accessible) are diametrically opposed. However, at the same time, we recognize a certain “cultural logic of networking” (to borrow from Jeffrey Juris’ brilliant book on anti-globalization movements) that not only transforms citizens’ expectations of government but also empowers them to make demands for openness and transparency with greater effect. Much has been said of President Obama’s use of social media for his campaign efforts, but consider an alternate view: By using tools that intrinsically espouse an anti-hierarchical culture, President Obama’s campaign was strongly attractive to a generation reared on a diet of collaboration, sharing, and openness. In other words, it wasn’t just the effectiveness of the medium in recruiting grassroots campaigners; the medium itself became the message.

Yes, there are numerous challenges to Government 2.0. But we’re optimistic. There’s the normative idea: Web 2.0 tools applied to government are a leap and a jump ahead of the promise of e-Government and must be advanced.

But there’s also a descriptive side. The tools themselves make it easier for government to adopt Web 2.0, whether by informing and advancing the debate through accessible channels of knowledge-sharing, providing incentives for innovation, or creating a social culture that won’t take no to transparency and openness as an answer. These challenges won’t be overcome overnight, we know, but in the meantime we’ll be on the Wikipedia ‘Edit’ page.