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.
Poll of the Week
Could your inbox use a little more awesome?
Sign up to get a daily dose of awesome gov-focused resources, trainings, blogs and articles to help you do you job better.