Government 2.0 Club is an informal organization focused on convening the tribe of technologists and thinkers focused on applying social technologies to the governments worldwide.
What is the definition of “Gov 2.0”?
March 27, 2010 at 4:34 pm #96045
- Gov 2.0 embraces the use of new and old tools, changes of employee and contractor culture, and improvements in processes that make government more transparent, collaborative, and participatory–enabling citizens and others to gain more efficient and timely access to data, information, and services through the sharing and distribution of information within and throughout the government.
- Government 2.0 is the socialization and commoditization of government processes, services and data.
- “Socialization” means that people (public servants, citizens and other interested takeholders) use a blend of traditional (i.e. face-to-face, physical delivery modes) and innovative collaboration tools (web-based, mobile, etc.) to communicate and collaborate more effectively from any device or location.
- “Commodotization” indicates a shift from the decentralized delivery of services and information by government to the empowerment of citizens and others (business, academia, non-profits) to access, share and re-purpose data for the benefit of the common good and commercial enterprise.
Other Ideas and Commentary
We may need 2 definitions: one for the General Public and one for us Gov Freaks.Very cool working definition. Just a few notes. The word socialization may need to be substituted. People are always up in arms and they may just think we’re trying to socialize government. Sounds crazy, but many people would make that assumption and that’s the last thing Gov 2.0 needs. Also, is there a way to leave open the door for tech that doesn’t exist yet.I would add to the end of the first bullet: “…from any device or location.” I think the mobility aspect is important enough to state it very explicitly, rather than allude to it.I would argue that although short and sweet, the added definitions required to even begin to understand it, leaves too much to misinterpret. With the added definitions it is way to long…and still a pill to understand your goals.
- Gov 2.0 is transforming government through the use of – and/or in response to societal changes from – emerging web technologies.
[also number 1, above] Gov 2.0 embraces the use of new and old tools, changes of employee and contractor culture, and improvements in processes that make government more transparent, collaborative, and participatory–enabling citizens and others to gain more efficient access to data, information, and services through the sharing and distribution of information within and throughout the government.
[‘Embrace’ is a great thought, because Gov’t can’t mandate or enforce the necessary change. Recommend dropping ‘and others’ because they are either Gov’t employees or non-citizens (e.g. from another country) and while they may well have the best ideas, there is no basis for a Government to provide them with either collaboritive or participatory service. This moves into treaties and complicated aspects of international law.] — with respect to “and others” — as a Fed contractor I’ve been repeatedly admonished for refering to our key stakeholders as “citizens” because there are a vast number of individulas within the US and outside its borders who are also stakeholders — everything from permenent residents (non-citizens) to foreign nationals who work inside the US (for example, truckers from Canada who transport hazardous materials conforming to highway, hazmat, and other regulations in order to visit and work across shared borders). Let’s not forget legal non-citizenry frequently need services of the US government for perfectly legitimate reasons… including how to become citizens.
[Gov 2.0 is about a change in government culture – being more transparent, collaborative and participatory – that enables citizens to gain more efficient access to data, information and services.(I like this definition, but would tweak it: “Gov 2.0 embraces change in tools, employee culture, and processes that make government more transparent, collaborative, and participatory–enabling citizens and others to gain more efficient access to data, information, and services.” ) Employee culture change yes, but include the sharing and distribution of information.] I would add to “…that enables citizens to gain more efficient access to data, informatin and serviced AND ENABLES CITIZENS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROCESS.”[“collaborative, and participatory–enabeling citizens…” seems to cover “citizens contributing to the process”]
I would add the text in bold: …enabling citizens and others to gain more efficient and timelyaccess to data, information, and services.”
(I would think that Gov 2.0 embraces the tools, not the change in tools. Also, this doesn’t address why transparency, collaboration, and participation matter. Those are conditions that are necessary (but not sufficient) to shift power.) — again, the people have the power if they exercise it. The goal is better information, services, and data. “Power” is way more nebulous than those concrete goals. Tansparent, collaborative and participatory is directly explained as agents of more efficient access to data, info, and services. Shifting of power is unecessary, creating better access to data is the goal.
Gov 2.0 is interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration online and face-to-face in governance (not just government), including in and between all sectors of society having a role in governance.
(to what end? Why should we spend our money or time on this? With no goals, you can have at best only squishy metrics and you’ll never really know what success looks like.) Good point. Metrics are absolutely necessary. However, we need the desired goals first, then we can pick the proper metrics. Goal #1: collaboration. Metric for collaboration: number of collaborative documents created; number of collaborative users involved in document creation; number of documents distributed; Goal #2: Suggest something???
Gov 2.0 describes initiatives that use digital access to data, analytical tools, and government services to shift power from governments, corporations, and organizations to individual citizens.
Shifting power to people is great, but it is power they already have, they just need to exercise it. By having easier access to information they use the power more. If information is power, then it is a byproduct of the activities anyway.
July 29, 2010 at 8:19 pm #96055
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.Participant
I like your definition, except that it is not quite complete. How about this (changes in caps):
Gov 2.0 embraces the use of new and old tools, changes of employee and contractor culture, and improvements in processes that make government more transparent, collaborative, and participatory–enabling ALL citizens TO VOTE ONLINE, AS WELL AS to gain more efficient and timely access to data, information, and services through the sharing and distribution of information within and throughout the government.
Also, how about:
Government 2.0 is the DEMOCRATIZATION of government processes, services and data.
I agree that “socialization” would needlessly invite Tea Party attacks, and what is worse, “commoditization” is too close to the Marxist term “commodification.”
August 1, 2010 at 5:09 am #96053
Chris L. LatendresseParticipant
The eGovernment maturity models that date back to as early as 2000 (Hillier and Belanger, Moon) indicate the highest level or final stage of e-Government maturity is e-Democracy which includes e-Participation, e-Voting, e-Petition, e-Referendum, and other applications or forms of online civic engagement. Are the use of social technologies that facilitate open government (i.e. transparency, accountability), collaboration, participation, and direct or deliberative democracy really e-Democracy? Are we talking the same thing, is “Government 2.0” really the final stage of eGovernment as first predicted?
August 1, 2010 at 5:14 am #96051
Chris L. LatendresseParticipant
“Socialization” is a word widely embraced in Canada and carries positive connotations because it is one of the tenents of our Communitarian values.
I’m surprised the Tea Party would take issue with this term, particularly because they affiliate with the conservative right…which itself is closely tied to the religious Christian right…which should, you would think, be widely embraced given it was a core value of Jesus Christ (sacrifice, take care of the sick and poor, share)….just saying.
August 1, 2010 at 1:46 pm #96049
I wonder if putting a requirement for “enabling ALL citizens TO VOTE ONLINE” into the defintion of Gov 2.0 is a good thing. I’m for voting on line but it doesn’t seem definitional at this point and might be too focused an agenda to get broad support before Gov 2.0 becomes mature enough to understand the practical implications of bring about voting on line to citizens.
So I see it as a lofty goal but more of an exampe of what it MIGHT enable should that be decided down the road.
November 27, 2010 at 1:22 am #96047
Could it be useful to revisit this definition now that another 8 months have passed?
I’d expand on Wayne Burke’s recent definition and write that “Gov 2.0 = the application of participatory, inter-operable, open source, or user-centric tech in government.”
Also, are there any differences between Gov 2.0 and open government? I think there are, but the definition at the top of this page sounds very similar to how many people might define “open gov”. I started this discussion on GovLoop to explore the differences. All thoughts are welcome!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.