What Is Government 2.0?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Andrea Di Maio on November 21, 2009 at 3:20pm

Let me offer Gartner's definition of Government 2.0 as the use of IT to socialize and commoditize government services, processes and data (more at http://bit.ly/2aLLtx)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ed Pastore on November 22, 2009 at 5:08pm

This Gartner definition exemplifies what I find to be a real disconnect between people currently involved in government and other citizens. (I.e., "Inside vs. outside the Beltway.")

When people in government or government-related industries hear the word "government" they think of the set of institutions and services which collectively form the bureaucracy of government.

When citizens hear the word "government," they are often prone to think of the legislature and chief executive.

And that's where this definition lets down the citizens. It talks about government as having services, processes and data... all functions of the bureaucracy.

But what about decision-making? The tasks performed by legislators and the President/Governor/Mayor, etc. are the place most lacking in citizen involvement. Sure, citizens can go to a townhall meeting and scream at our Representative (or other less dramatic but equally ineffective forms of "involvement"), but we now have the technology to open up the actual decision-making process to citizens, without relying on the filter of what is, in almost everything but name, a feudalistic lord.

To me, Government 2.0 means building systems that enable the members of any community to fully participate in the governance of that community. (And no, that does not mean majority-rule referenda on hot-button issues, but rather sophisticated web applications for creating genuine collaborative governance.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kim Patrick Kobza on November 30, 2009 at 12:55pm

I agree with you Ed. The goal of Gov 2.0 is to use technology to enable government to leverage social production to make better decisions and to deliver government services more efficiently. Social production in this sense (as described by Benkler) means using citizen engagement to discover more solution possibilities.

There are two universal dimensions to government 2.0. The first is public outreach. Public outreach takes place in 5 areas of focus: (1) projects (2) issues (3) events (4) rules, and (5) legislation. These 5 areas of outreach span all agencies for federal, state and local government. Using a network perspective, they may involve external networks, discrete exchanges (public comment) and/or social collaboration.

The second dimension is the business of government. Gov 2.0 in this sense touches every government process that delivers services to citizens. As in the private sector the range of applications can include for instance, human resource networks, networks that enable alignment of services and citizen priorities, product and service improvement, and citizen (customer) satisfaction. Forms of networks can include internal networks, external citizen facing networks, and often involve some form of social collaboration.

The Gartner definition is strong in socialization. I would de-emphasize commoditization through the application of technology because commoditization most appropriately applies to transactional business processes-though we have to admit that transactional processes too are an important part of Gov 2.0 evolution. We just wouldn't put them as high in our priority for transformation of the government/citizen relationship. Gov 2.0 is a communications driven paradigm and success is highly dependent on behavioral understanding.

In our experience with the World Trade Center (Imagine New York), Flight 93 memorial (NPS) the Statue of Liberty global community (NPS), National Healthcare Study (DHHS) and others, we have found that success in citizen engagement measured by participation rates, inclusiveness, and inputs leading to outcomes, is highly dependent on not only the taxonomies created by technology combinations, but also, intelligent and thoughtful integration with business processes that underlie public participation.

Most public processes by definition involve complex networks. One defining characteristic of complex networks is that small changes make a very big difference in outcomes. That is why simply pushing technology and tools rarely, if ever works.

These characteristics are universal to every level of government, federal, state and local and virtually every agency which should be the defining attribute of a universal definition.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark D. Drapeau on November 21, 2009 at 3:22pm

That's a very broad sentence, but I think it would be helpful to put things into the above framework, breaking down the usage of Gov 2.0 into tech advances, policy advances, general strategy, etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrea Di Maio on November 22, 2009 at 12:59am

It is intentionally broad, because gov 2.0 is mostly about blurring boundaries (technologies, policies levels, etc). In particular I disagree with determining levels, since in most cases it will cut across levels (and it already does)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark D. Drapeau on November 22, 2009 at 1:47am

Saying that something is too broad to define, or break up into understandable pieces (even if they overlap), is not very useful for understanding a system.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Whisenant on November 30, 2009 at 7:27pm

Agreed here. I have to say, I think it is incredibly useful to start breaking down the definition of Gov 2.0, because right now we have a giant matrix of ideas and concepts that pollutes the conversation.

Gov 2.0 is about bringing the tools of Web 2.0 to government, in that we use social networks and tools (wikis, etc) to invite new participants into the conversation at a far lower cost. Next, we break down the imperatives for the government agency. I think they are:

• First and foremost, structure government Web sites to facilitate useful dialogue form the public about issues facing the agency. Solicit policy ideas. Ask people to identify areas of waste. The tools exist to moderate these forums, and to expedite quality feedback. Add other services after that, but by all means, still add them eventually. As Clay Shirky would say, "convene, but not control, the conversation."
• Second, start grouping agency data into buckets. As a starting point, they could classify it into: 1) data that is available as a raw feed; 2) data that is not downloadable, but available through an API; and 3) data that is not shared, period.
• Third, get to work creating the raw data feed as identified above and get it online.
• And finally, start creating the API with input — and probably coding assistance — from the public.

The guiding imperative here is to optimize systems to collect (and make useful) input from the general public. Only build a storefront of additional services once the agency has maximized its ability to leverage the goodwill of interested experts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shivraj Asthana on November 21, 2009 at 4:24pm

Government is about policy formulation + implementation + the feedback loop. I guess G2.0 would stand for replacing opaque walls with transparent ceilings on the first two, and accelerating the last one. Identifying policy interventions to allow technology to bring about the desired changes will probably a key area.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GovLoop on November 21, 2009 at 6:13pm

I think Gov 2.0 is still a little gray and undefined. And I think that's good and there will be a few streams that come out of it.

To me Gov 2.0 is about finding new, more effective, cheaper ways of solving problems.

I'll add to your bullets:

2 - Culture - Net-Gen (recruiting the best/brightest into solving gov't problems), Creating a Culture of Innovation and Risk-Taking
3 - Levels - international as well -
4 - Technologies - SaaS, Lower cost - pay as you go, outside the firewall
5 - Policies - acquisition reform...how can we buy in different ways. Bring in not just small business but more tech startups that are small
6 - Cabinets -

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua joseph on November 21, 2009 at 11:33pm

Wow, a lot to noodle...just a few thoughts that may be helpful.

Under culture would suggest "trust," which transparency helps foster. More trust would be a good end but it's also a means and is needed within and across the various levels you ID. It's a little bit chicken and egg, but think a focus on trust-building will encourage the uptake of technologies, support policy initiatives and help facilitate culture change.

Somewhere...maybe also under culture...would suggest adding "strategies for learning/improvement." Can't take for granted that people will want to learn the new technologies or see the value in changing. I think there has to be a special focus on how to move people along the Gov 2.0 learning curve when they start out several steps removed from where the core community is now. When people are in the Gov 2.0 mix, it's easy to forget how far removed other people (and even colleagues) may be from getting it.

Which brings up one more thought: "engagement." This probably has a lot of overlap with what you mean by participation and collaboration. Engagement is also a chicken and egg thing. I know sometimes, I can just start participating in something, even if I don't care about it initially, and get engaged through the exposure. In other cases, though, something has to grab my interest first. Finding ways to engage people at all levels first, can be important in facilitating the culture changes, making the policy pieces meaningful and so on.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark D. Drapeau on November 22, 2009 at 10:05am

Joshua, thanks for pointing out "strategies for learning/improvement" - there is a feedback loop that goes from "end" back to "start" in the entire process; there's iteration.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nathanael Boehm on November 29, 2009 at 9:20pm

As a user experience designer and social media consultant my perspective on Government 2.0 is applying the UX body of knowledge to citizen-centric service delivery ... and that covers both the macro level of individual programs and the user research, consultation, iterative design and field testing that's part of UX but also at a higher level ... asking the questions about strategy and structure, seeking input on direction from those who are affected by what government does or doesn't do.

So as far as my practical involvement in Government 2.0 that's my angle, that's where I add value.

I also delivered this presentation to my Department's group a few months ago:

http://www.slideshare.net/NathanaelB/introduction-to-government-20

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page