Sustainable Public Financial Management

Doug Hadden, VP Products

There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things.

Niccolo Machiavelli

Last year, a gentleman attending my Financial Management Institute presentation on government performance management sat attentively with a rather bemused look on his face. He’d heard it all before. The enthusiasm for some technology-driven change. Some technology adoption, but no change.

I reflected on this a few months ago suggesting that open government isn’t “getting any respect“. As I said about change:

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.

We’ve Got Government 2.0 All Wrong

The Government 2.0 adoption debate centers around assumptions for technology-induced change:

1. Narrow categorization view: we debate about the differences among technologies like Government 2.0, e-Government, and collaboration, so we don’t see the real trends
2. Narrow time view: we debate about cause and effect over very short periods of time, so we don’t register the change effects
3. Narrow technology view: we debate about the technology in isolation of other societal drives, so we don’t see the results in cumulative

Historical Perspective

Government structure, culture and mandates are in constant flux. Harold Innis described how empires were structured and developed based on dominant method of recording and communications whether stone, papyrus or velum. Marshall McLuhan described how the technology medium results in societal change.

Getting Government 2.0 Effects Right

It’s not a question of whether Government 2.0 will or will not be adopted. Or whether it will or will not have a material transformation on government. Government 2.0 is another signpost in government change. So, the question really is: Will Government 2.0 be able to keep up with the change or not?

Technology-Induced Change in Government

• Movable Type/Printing Press: generates rise of the “nation state” as languages become standardized and people begin to identify with ethnic and “national” characteristics
• Radio: generates rise of government dominance in communications from Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” to incendiary propaganda
• Television: increases the scrutiny of government from political debates to war reporting
• Photo-copier, fax, personal computer, mobile technology, blogs: gives individuals publication capabilities to extend discussion creating new pressures for government transparency and accountability. It also enables groups with affinities to self organize. (Also appears to enable the move to supra-national institutions and the devolution of the nation state to accommodate regional, ethnic, religious and language groups.)

The Trends of Change

Transparency has become a meme for government. It’s in almost every political debate and promise.Government 2.0 is one of may technology signposts in the long term change in government to:

• Higher levels of participation in policy and operational government by citizens, whether in participatory budgeting, idea factories or political campaigns.
• Increased focus on outcomes away from inputs and outputs as the main driver for government spending – away from what the money was meant to accomplish to what it really did.
• Collaborative government with multiple government tiers, international organizations and the private sector whether in response to fiscal crisis, trade liberalization or public-private partnerships
• Flattening of organizations to enable more efficient and effective public services whether through one-stop services, on-line services or shared services

Government 2.0 is a vehicle for higher levels of participation through on-line communities. The use of mashups and other techniques enables the focus on outcomes. (This was the main theme of my presentation last year.) Collaboration is enabled through Web 2.0 tools like wikis.

So, in the end, when we look back at this transformation in government, we may call it Government 2.0, or we may call it something else.

Doug Hadden, VP Products

What exactly is “government innovation’? Perhaps, like my presentation last year pointed out about “government performance”, many may see this as an oxymoron. Nada Teofilovic argues against the assumption that  ”bureaucratic administration lacks the prerequisites for innovation, namely creative thinking, idea experimentation and inventiveness.”

Innovation is an underlying theme for my upcoming presentation on Government 2.0.

Ms. Teofilovic describes  innovation using the Government of Canada as a case study:

In response to a range of economic, political and ideological demands, the structures and processes of governance are changing and modernizing. The traditional public service is developing creative ways to address fiscal restraints and citizen demands for efficient service delivery; conventional, process-oriented public administration is giving way to results-focused public management; and federal departments are collaborating and working horizontally to overcome the hegemony of central agencies. In view of these developments, innovation is becoming a reality in government.

Government 2.0 support government as an economic innovation incubator and as services modernization.

Innovation is alive and well in government and will be further transformed thanks to Government 2.0, as described in Steven Johnson’s  Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation

Economic Innovator

Tim O’Reilly of O’Reilly Media, who invented the term “Web 2.0″, is a strong advocate of “government as platform“:

government is, at bottom, a mechanism for collective action. We band together, make laws, pay taxes, and build the institutions of government to manage problems that are too large for us individually and whose solution is in our common interest.

There are many who resist this notion of government as a “technology platform” or that “open data” can generate economic value. These are a bit hard to prove using legacy measurement tools. Nevertheless, there is compelling evidence of “government as platform” in the analogue world – the Internet, GPS, road and rails systems.

As Mr. O’Reilly sees it:

Government 2.0, then, is the use of technology—especially the collaborative technologies at the heart of Web 2.0—to better solve collective problems at a city, state, national, and international level.

Services Modernization

Governments are striving for services innovation. Reform of government to provide a better value to citizens has become a major political theme for the past 3 decades, according to Dr. Elaine Kamarack.

Government 2.0 promises to extend the value of citizen and business services beyond traditional e-government. E-government has focused primarily on computerizing service delivery and supporting transactions. Process-centric services. Structural. Not the services that can be enabled through collaboration, as I’ve described in a white paper about Knowledge Management 2.0 and Government 2.0.

Government 2.0 offers improved effectiveness in internal collaboration that can result in improved services.

Government application categories include:

• Internal: internal by governments
• External: external to government with government involvement
• Structural: follow government structure and mandate
• Social: enable collaboration

Our framework suggests that there are three classes of applications:

• Back-office: operational budget, financial and civil service management-transaction management
• E-Government: exposing government information and transactions
• Government 2.0: social networking whether exclusively internal or collaborating externally

Therefore, Government 2.0 has the potential to extend services innovation from back-office and e-government functions. And, it has the potential to provide innovation separate from structural applications.

Doug Hadden, VP Products

The Government Accountability Office in the United States has published a statement of the use of Web 2.0 by Federal Agencies.  The statement by Gregory C. Wilshusen, Director Information Security Issues, focuses on – well – information security issues. There has been an undercurrent of risk avoidance and general fear of Web 2.0 technologies in government. This statement is fair and balanced (really fair and balanced, not the tag line) with a good assessment of the privacy, access to information and records management limitations of the Government 2.0 state-of-the-art. And, Mr. Wilshusen describes some of the work taken to overcome these concerns.

The audit function in government has transformed in the past few years from compliance – making sure that rules are followed – to performance. Analyzing programs for effectiveness in meeting mandate and achieving value for money. That’s what we need here. Government decision-makers need to understand the benefits – not just the risks. Otherwise, government transformation opportunities slow.

The difficulty with most analysis of Government 2.0 is that there is little distinction made between purely internal collaboration efforts and external public-facing. There’s no question that both types of activities share some elements of benefit and risk. But, as I’ve pointed out in the past, internal Government 2.0 represents a significant opportunity for mission achievement. And, lessons from internal efforts can be used to reduce the risks associated with external Government 2.0 initiatives.

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.

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.

This is section 3.1.6 of a series of blog entries creating a Government IFMIS Technology Evaluation Guide. This includes information to assist in evaluating IFMIS options and the technology requirements for FreeBalance IFMIS implementations. These series will be combined with feedback to produce a comprehensive Technology Evaluation Guide to be published on our web site

This entry summarizes a number of previous posts about Government 2.0 including:

• Proposed Framework for Understanding Government 2.0
• How to Implement Government 2.0
• Government 2.0 Panel Discussion
• Governments Can Be Hip 2.0
• Will Government 2.0 achieve the promise of E-Government?
• Financial Software Must Provide Social Networking Functionality
• How will Government 2.0 transform government?

From E-Government to Government 2.0

E-government was the future. E-Gov was going to transform government. Improve citizen services. Integrate with “life events”. There have been many successful e-government initiatives. Yet government has not yet “transformed”.

Phase 1: Broadcast.  Citizens and businesses have access to information in a more efficient and effective manner than traditional mechanisms. Most governments provide information via the web.

Phase 2: Interact. In the second phase of e-government, businesses and citizens are able to interact with the government. They are able to start a transaction or.  This second phase improves efficiency because businesses and citizens are able to start transactions such as filling out government forms on-line.  Most governments provide interaction capabilities.

Phase 3: Transact. The third phase of e-government supports complete transactions. Citizens and businesses are able to fill out forms, request and pay for services. These “front-office” transactions integrate with “back-office” systems in governments to improve citizen and business services. Some governments support comprehensive transactions.

Phase 4: Transform. The fourth phase of e-government assumed that government services would be magically transformed. The nature of government would change. The relationship between governments and citizens would achieve a new level. But, this did not happen. There was no miracle. There has been some change in government, but not fulfilling the promise of e-government.

Government 2.0 is the logical extension of e-government. Government 2.0 can fulfill the promise of e-government. Many e-government initiatives exposed technology problems. Many governments were unable to integrate the front and back offices.

Phase 4: Single Point. Many experts foresaw the problem of the “single point of contact”. Any life event such as the birth of a child or the creation of a business can require interacting with many government entities across multiple levels. The need to support interaction for these life events is a critical stage. We believe that is the “missing link” to enable government transformation

Phase 5: Internal Collaboration. It is very difficult to transform government to interact and collaborate with citizens and businesses if the government does not collaborate internally. Governments need to collaborate across organizational boundaries. Traditional collaboration tools have not been as successful as Web 2.0 collaboration. We believe that governments need to leverage social networking tools for internal collaboration. This is a relatively low risk. Improving internal collaboration enables governments to move to the next phase.

Phase 6: Transform. Government organizations leveraging social networking for internal collaboration are able to extend externally. Government leaders will understand the power of collaboration and the benefits of exposing data based on the experience of internal collaboration.

Understanding Government 2.0 Effects

Our view is that Government 2.0 represents the technology continuum of e-government. We also see the linkage between Government 2.0 and government back-office technology.

We see government application categories as:

• Internal: internal by governments
• External: external to government with government involvement
• Structural: follow government structure and mandate
• Social: enable collaboration

This framework identifies three classes of applications:

• Back-office: operational budget, financial and civil service management-transaction management
• E-Government: exposing government information and transactions
• Government 2.0: social networking whether exclusively internal or collaborating externally

Relevant Government Trends

There are numerous trends in government that have technology implications. These implications can be mapped against the Government 2.0 framework:

• Collaboration: Use of Web 2.0 tools and metaphors is improving internal government efficiency and moving to external collaboration
• Transparency: Exposing more government information to citizens and businesses is moving from the structural to the social domain
• Accountability: More information from back-office systems is being presented to citizens. That information is being mashed up and analyzed and providing a feedback loop to government
• Performance: Internal social networking and feedback from citizens, businesses and civil society are improving government performance

FreeBalance and Government 2.0

The FreeBalance Accountability Suite was designed with Government 2.0 as core. The underlying architecture is designed to integrate transactions with content and collaboration – to extend the internal structural back-office to enable internal and external social networking. And, the rich application user interface has been designed for simplicity.

Manuel Pietra from FreeBalance moderated a panel about Government 2.0 at the November DC Forum. Panelists Dr. Mark Drapeau and Doug Hadden provided insight into trends and adoption.

Introduction to Government 2.0

Risks vs. Rewards in Government 2.0

Affect of Government 2.0 on the back-office and transactional systems

Government 2.0 and Government stimulus programs

Government 2.0 and Citizen Services

Impact of Government 2.0 and Performance Management

Government 2.0 Adoption Rates

Transparency and misinformation in the era of Government 2.0

Wisdom of crowds and community management

Government 2.0 Applications

Government 2.0 barriers to adoption

The ICGFM experience with Web 2.0 technology

E-government was the future. E-Gov was going to transform government. Improve citizen services. Integrate with “life events”. There have been many successful e-government initiatives. Yet government has not yet “transformed”.

The E-Government Theory

Experts believed that e-government would mature through four phases. (Some analysts presented three phases, some five). The theory was: e-government begins with broadcasting information on web site.

Phase 1: Broadcast.  Citizens and businesses have access to information in a more efficient and effective manner than traditional mechanisms. Most governments provide information via the web.

Phase 2: Interact. In the second phase of e-government, businesses and citizens are able to interact with the government. They are able to start a transaction or request services.  This second phase improves efficiency because businesses and citizens are able to start transactions such as filling out government forms on-line.  Most governments provide interaction capabilities.

Phase 3: Transact. The third phase of e-government supports complete transactions. Citizens and businesses are able to fill out forms, request and pay for services. These “front-office” transactions integrate with “back-office” systems in governments to improve citizen and business services. Some governments support comprehensive transactions.

Phase 4: Transform. The fourth phase of e-government assumed that government services would be magically transformed. The nature of government would change. The relationship between governments and citizens would achieve a new level. But, this did not happen. There was no miracle. There has been some change in government, but not fulfilling the promise of e-government.

Government 2.0

Government 2.0 is the logical extension of e-government. Government 2.0 can fulfill the promise of e-government. Many e-government initiatives exposed technology problems. Many governments were unable to integrate the front and back offices.

Phase 4: Single Point. Many experts foresaw the problem of the “single point of contact”. Any life event such as the birth of a child or the creation of a business can require interacting with many government entities across multiple levels. The need to support interaction for these life events is a critical stage. We believe that is the “missing link” to enable government transformation.

Phase 5: Internal Collaboration. It is very difficult to transform government to interact and collaborate with citizens and businesses if the government does not collaborate internally. Governments need to collaborate across organizational boundaries. Traditional collaboration tools have not been as successful as Web 2.0 collaboration. We believe that governments need to leverage social networking tools for internal collaboration. This is a relatively low risk. Improving internal collaboration enables governments to move to the next phase.

Phase 6: Transform. Government organizations leveraging social networking for internal collaboration are able to extend externally. Government leaders will understand the power of collaboration and the benefits of exposing data based on the experience of internal collaboration.

Is this Government 2.0 or e-government 2.0? It’s both. Successful internal adoption of social networking by governments combined with significant changes in businesses thanks to Enterprise 2.0 points to exciting transformation. Transformation that will improve government services and performance.

We’re providing some “food for thought” ahead of the ICGFM panel discussion about Government 2.0 on November 4th. in Washington.