Great video Adriel,
I was reading this Deloitt report addressing 2.0 and in it they make some great points. One thing that grabbed me is the table they provided showing a paradigm change: …the following section contrasts the difference between Government 1.0 and 2.0 across four dimensions:
Operating Model
Government 1.0 – Hierarchical, Rigid
Government 2.0 – Networked, Collaborative, Flexible
New Models of Service Delivery
Government 1.0 – One-size-fits-all, Monopoly, Single channel
Government 2.0 – Personalized, Choice-based, Multi-channel
Performance Driven
Government 1.0 – Input-oriented, Closed
Government 2.0 – Outcome-driven, Transparent
Decision Making
Government 1.0 – Spectator
Government 2.0 – Participative
In later blogs, the authors address some of the difficulties in 2.0 adoption, Not the least being that the scope of the change prevents adoption. Too much change too fast.
And a comment was attached in a later blog on the same subject. To summarize the comment: Local champions are needed to inform and to communicate the value of 2.0.
I agree. Local champions like you Adriel, change the world. Thanks for the message. Everyone wants progress, it’s the changing that is so awful.
I knew you’d love that four dimensions bit as well. Be safe
MD
Mark, this is great. Champions like Adriel ARE necessary, because local govt is so driven by what-do-our-constituants-want. The four dimensions are helpful, too, and I appreciate the link – being able to show the differences to decision makers is a powerful tool to help them see the benefits of tools that they aren’t familiar with.
Thanks for the summary and the note, Mark! I’m also wanting to dig more into the research that IBM has been doing. I also agree with a lot of the marketing folks on this – the best way to learn/understand 2.0 is to do 2.0.
Stephen Collins (@trib) suggested the term “community builder” to describe this sort of activity. I like it. I’m active in my church, my town and the world. 2.0 just allows me to be in more places at once.