TeamStation AI System Report LATAM IT Salaries 2024
Young.kwak
1. Open Government Maturity Model: Harnessing Social Media for Increased Public Engagement Young Hoon Kwak, Ph.D. Associate Professor School of Business The George Washington University February 23, 2011
2.
3.
4. Two Types of Social Media (Source: Kotler et al., 2010) Expressive Social Media Collaborative Social Media
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13. Open Government Maturity Model (OGMM) Source: Gwanhoo Lee & Younghoon Kwak, 2010 Initial Conditions Data Transparency Open Participation Open Collaboration Ubiquitous Engagement Open government maturity Public engagement Value/benefits Technical/managerial complexity Challenges/risks 1 2 3 4 5
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19. Open Government Maturity Model Focus Capabilities/Processes Outcomes Level 1 Broadcasting One-way, static communication No or little public engagement Level 2 Data accessibility and quality Government data is published and shared online High-value, high-impact data Increased public awareness and knowledge of government data, process, and policy Increased government accountability Level 3 Public feedback, conversation, and ideation Pervasive use of social media for interactive, on-going conversations, story-telling, and communications Voting, polling, feedback, ideation Real-time, instant, diverse feedback from the public On-going, community-based conversation Level 4 Co-creating value-added services Inter-agency/public collaboration on complex projects and decision-making The public is engaged through complex projects/tasks Level 5 Ubiquitous, continuous, integrated engagement Expanding the scope and depth of engagement Integrated ecosystem for public engagement Virtuous cycles for sustaining and improving public engagement
20.
21.
22.
23.
24. Cases of Open Government Initiatives in Public Healthcare Administration Initiative Capabilities/Outcomes Issues CMS Dashboard (Level 2) Visualizing Medicare spending by state, by Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRG), by hospitals, and by public policy goals Increased visibility, transparency Budgeting issues Data accuracy Timely update of data No dedicated staffer HHS OG Portal (Level 3) A portal to all HHS open government applications, capabilities, and data Blogs by CTO, widgets and RSS tools Public feedback and comments on the HHS OG plan and CTO blogs Timely and consistent responses to public comments Time commitment from top executives to posting blogs and responding to public comments Community Health Data Initiative (Level 4) A public-private effort that helps Americans understand health care performance in their communities Spark and facilitate action Interactive health maps, social networking, idea contests, games Sharing best practices Attracting a critical mass of data/applications suppliers and consumers Creating effective public-private working relations
On his first day in office, President Obama issued a call for increased openness in government. Subsequently, on December 8, 2009, the White House issued the federal government’s Open Government Directive (OGD) which emphasizes transparency, participation, and collaboration. In response to the Directive, each federal agency developed its own open government plan in April 2010. Many factors like political, technological, demographic, socio-economic factors appear to push government toward increased openness and transparency. Among others, the emergence of social media and Web 2.0 tools changed the public’s expectations about the way government should work. Generation Y (born after 1981), or the Millennial Generation, especially came to expect government agencies to interact with them in the same way that commercial companies interact with them through social media sites (Pew Research Center 2010; NASA 2008; Tapscott 2009). As a result, government not only has a right or need to engage the public, but a responsibility to do so. As of July 2010, 22 of 24 major federal agencies had a presence on Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2010). Many new initiatives such as data.gov aimed to increase openness and transparency In terms of leadership, President Obama created new positions such as federal CTO (Aneesh Chopra) and federal CIO (Vivek Kundra) to facilitate the adoption of ICT in government agencies.
BTW, what do we mean by social media? You could define it narrowly or you could define it broadly. I tend to define it broadly enough to embrace a variety of powerful interactive web tools that are emerging. Simply put, social media connects people and allow them to socialize and collaborate in online space . But, it appears that there are two different types of social media. These two types of social media tend to be used for different purposes and goals. First, expressive social media enables people to express themselves by sharing with others text, picture, video, and music. Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Youtube, and Flickr fall into this type of social media. Second, collaborative social media enables people to work together to achieve common goals. Although people are connected to others through these tools, the main purpose is to work together to achieve something bigger than one person could possibly achieve . Wikis and Google Docs are great examples of this type of social media.
Although some agencies created positions like Director of Social Media (or New Media), there is a lack of understanding and knowledge about social media on the part of government agencies.
Page While there is a high hope and aspiration for increased openness in government, government managers and employees face tough challenges in implementing open government initiatives. Anecdotes – several secretaries of US federal departments started blogs, then could not maintain that efforts due to huge time commitment they had to make, which they did not realize when they started blogs -- Some social media sites run by US government are almost abandoned by the public and have no or little traffic -- Government’s slow response to public comments
Interviewees included Chief Technology Officer of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Chief Knowledge Architect of Federal Aviation Administration Director of New Media at Federal Communications Commission, and Project managers of government contractors Focus group discussion Took place in American University in Washington D.C. , USA Fourteen participants included members of social media/new media teams from Department of Commerce, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Dept. of Homeland Security, Dept. of the Interior, Dept. of State, Dept. of Transportation, Federal Communications Commission, General Services Administration, and National Weather Service.
Page We used case studies including field interviews and document analysis to understand the status of technology-enabled open government and to identify problems and issues, and to develop a stage model that helps government agencies effectively implement open government initiatives. We developed the Open Government Maturity Model primarily based on case studies including multiple field interviews with federal government executives, managers, and contractors. The interviewees included Chief Technology Officer of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Chief Knowledge Architect of Federal Aviation Administration, Director of New Media at Federal Communications Commission, and a project manager of a government contractor. Each interview was semi-structured with guiding questions and lasted about one hour and a half. The interviewees spoke about their agency’s open government plans, current status of open government initiatives, challenges, risks, benefits, best practices, and metrics. All the interviews were transcribed for data analysis. In addition, we reviewed and analyzed a wide range of government memorandums, strategic plans, reports, white papers, websites, blogs, and government-run social media sites. Content analysis of those data produced useful insights. To validate our proposed maturity model, we first revisited two previous interviewees to review the Maturity Model. We then hosted a focus group discussion with social media specialists and managers from federal agencies. The focus group discussion took place in a university in Washington D.C. with which the first author is affiliated. The fourteen participants in the focus group included members of social media/new media teams from several federal agencies. They discussed the applicability of the model and provided useful feedback and insights that we used to refine and revise it. Finally, we followed up with the several cases in Healthcare Administration to further validate the model. These data demonstrate that our maturity model accurately reflects best practices and helps federal agencies evaluate and improve their open government initiatives.
As I mentioned earlier, U.S. federal agencies are under pressure to realize the vision of open government (transparency, participation, and collaboration) in a short period. As a result, agencies are tempted to launch too many projects simultaneously which their limited resources and capabilities cannot adequately support. As a result, they end up stretching themselves too thin and the performance of their open government initiatives comes short of their initial expectations. What is more challenging is to maintain and sustain their OG initiatives.
Page I argue that there is a logical sequence for advancing open government and that, by following this sequence, agencies can minimize risk and effectively harness the power of social media in order to engage the public. I propose an Open Government Maturity Model (OGMM) that government agencies can use as a reference model to assess their current open government capabilities and to effectively implement their open government initiatives. One important thesis of the OGMM is that government agency should follow the sequence of each maturity level from the lowest to highest maturity, instead of implementing all maturity levels at once. Establish data transparency effective way to get the public to start engaging in government work public trust on government open participation allows government to interact with the public for a simple task collaboration takes on complex tasks As the maturity level goes up, we expect the public to engage increasingly more in government work, thus producing greater value and benefits for both government and the public. However, as the maturity level goes up, the technical and managerial complexity of the open government initiatives will also increase. Therefore, agencies should expect to face greater challenges and risks.
Level 2 –Transparency Agencies at this level focus on increasing transparency of government processes and performance by publishing relevant data online and sharing it with the public. The two most important tasks at this level are (1) identifying high-value, high-impact data for the public and (2) improving and assuring data quality in terms of accuracy, consistency, and timeliness. However, the use of social media to foster open government is limited in this level because conventional Web applications can often provide adequate capabilities required to increase data transparency.
Level 3 –Open Participation Agencies at this level focus on improving open participation of the public in government work. Open participation welcomes and utilizes the input of the public. Agencies strive to bring anecdotes, stories, conversations, ideas, and comments from the public to everyone’s attention. To do so, the agencies turn to social media and Web 2.0 tools, including web dialogues, blogs, microblogging, social networking, photo/video sharing, social bookmarking/tagging, and ideation tools.
Level 4 –Open Collaboration Participation refers to public engagement in relatively simple interactive communications such as blogging, microblogging, social networking, social bookmarking/tagging, photo/video sharing, and ideation. It relies primarily on expressive social media to connect people and help share their idea. Collaboration refers to pubic engagement in complex tasks or projects that aim to produce specific outputs and co-create value-added services. Such tasks include group writing and editing of documents, Wiki applications development, open source software development, organizing events, etc. Collaboration relies on collaborative social media such as Wiki, Google Docs, and Jive. Agencies at this stage strive to collaborate not only with other agencies but also with the public and the private sector. Applications of open collaboration include group writing and editing of documents, Wiki applications development, open source software development, organizing events, policy/rule making, public response to national emergencies/natural disasters, and innovation of products and services. Collaboration relies on collaborative social media such as Wiki, Google Docs, and Jive.
Level 5 – Total Public Engagement Agencies at this stage take transparency, participation, and collaboration to the next level of public engagement. The agencies improve and fine-tune existing open government initiatives to maximize their benefits. Furthermore, they expand their portfolio of open government initiatives to further benefit the public. Agencies strive to achieve two important goals. First, public engagement becomes easier and more accessible through mobile and ubiquitous computing devices and applications . Second, various public engagement methods, tools, and services are seamlessly integrated within and across government agencies so that the public can easily navigate and engage in various activities without having to jump around different applications or keep logging in and off.
Page Engagement is defined as a person’s investment of her physical, cognitive, and emotional energy in a task. Level 1 – Initial Conditions Level 1 of the OGMM refers to an initial stage where no or few open government capabilities exist and no or little social media is being used. Social media can be classified into two different groups depending on its main purpose (Kotler et al. 2010)(Kotler et al. 2010)(Kotler, Kartajaya, and Setiawan 2010). One group is expressive social media, which enables people to express themselves by sharing with others text, picture, video, and music. Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Youtube, Flickr, and Foursquare fall into this category of social media. The other group is collaborative social media, which enables people to work together to achieve common goals through interactive and social processes. Wiki and Google Docs are great examples of this type of social media. In this article, we define social media broadly to include both expressive and collaborative social media tools. The Level 1 government agency focuses primarily on broadcasting information to the public. It lacks interactive communication capabilities such as social media and Web 2.0 tools and relies on one-way, static communication methods. A typical Level 1 agency would have a website that provides the public with general information about the agency. However, the public does not engage in the agency’s governing process in a meaningful way. The Level 1 agency does not publish much data and only limited data is made available to the public. The agency uses few or no metrics to assess its website performance or public engagement. Due to the static nature of the agency’s online capabilities, the public does not return to the website frequently and takes a passive role without much meaningful engagement. As a result, the work of the Level 1 government agency is often viewed by the public as a black box. Level 2 – Data Transparency Level 2 represents the first step towards open government. Increasing data transparency should be the first step towards open government as it is relatively easy and quick to implement. However, the use of social media to foster open government is still relatively limited in Level 2. As the amount of data is exploding in the Digital Economy, the Level 2 agency focuses on increasing transparency of government processes and performance by publishing relevant data online and sharing it with the public (Meijer and Thaens 2009). Data.gov is a great example for increasing data transparency. The two most important tasks at this level we find are (1) identifying high-value, high-impact data for the public and (2) improving and assuring data quality in terms of accuracy, consistency, and timeliness. The Level 2 agency should not try to publish all the data it owns, because doing so is not only impractical, but also ineffective. As the 80/20 Rule suggests, the agency should focus on its data that would most benefit the public. To do so, the agency needs to put in place an effective governance structure and process to formally identify relevant data, assure its quality, and publish it in a timely manner. Data quality is extremely critical as low quality data may misinform and mislead the public. Once bad data is published and shared, it is very difficult to recall the information without causing damage to the agency’s reputation and to the public’s trust on the agency. Government agencies’ vast amounts of data are an important national resource which can be utilized to help the public understand what the government does and how well they do it, and to hold them accountable for any wrongdoings. This data can also help to increase public awareness of government work and to generate insights into how to improve government performance. Therefore, increased data transparency provides the basis for the public to participate in and to collaborate on government work in order to mobilize action, create value-adding services, and facilitate innovation (French 2011). Agencies must seek feedback from the public on the usefulness and accessibility of their data for continuous improvement. However, in Level 2, the use of social media is still very limited and most online communications are done by conventional methods such as websites or emails. The Level 2 agency tends to use process-centric metrics rather than outcome-centric metrics to evaluate the performance of data transparency and public engagement. Whereas process-centric metrics focus on measuring quantitative performance of public engagement processes, outcome-centric metrics focus on measuring the impact and value of public engagement both quantitatively and qualitatively. Some of the process-centric metrics in Level 2 include number of data sets published, number of data downloads, and number of visitors. Level 3 – Open Participation Level 3 focuses on increasing open participation of the public in government work and decision. Open participation enhances policy decisions and government services by welcoming and utilizing the input of the public. While Level 2 opens up government data to the public, Level 3 opens the government to the public’s ideas and knowledge. The Level 3 agency strives to bring anecdotes, stories, conversations, ideas, and comments from the public to everyone’s attention. To do so, the agency turns to social media and Web 2.0 tools, including web dialogues, blogs, microblogging, social networking, photo/video sharing, social bookmarking/tagging, and ideation tools. Contrary to the conventional feedback methods such as surveys and questionnaires, social media allows the public to engage in informal, flexible, spontaneous, conversational interactions with government. The Level 3 agency strives to crowdsource the public’s ideas, knowledge, expertise, and experience through social media tools (Howe 2008). This collective intelligence, based on a large number of individuals from diverse backgrounds, helps government agencies to make informed, reliable decisions in nearly real time(Bonabeau 2009). While there are many current and emergent social media tools, the agency would do best to start with most widely available and used tools, such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Flickr. Through informal, on-going interactions with the public, Level 3 government agencies get momentum to nurture the open government culture and practice. It is important for a Level 3 agency to build the capability to respond to the public’s feedback timely and consistently. This capability requires formal processes, coordination mechanisms, and dedicated government employees responding to public comments. Level 4 – Open Collaboration Once government agencies reach the maturity of open participation, the next step is to foster open collaboration among government agencies, the public, and the private sector. Open collaboration refers to pubic engagement in complex tasks or projects that aim to co-produce specific outputs (Bovaird 2007). Such tasks include group writing and editing of documents, Wiki applications development, open source software development, organizing events, etc. It uses collaborative social media such as Wiki, Google Docs, Yammer, and Jive Social Business Software. We found that some agencies focus mostly on interagency collaboration. However, we argue that open collaboration should go beyond interagency collaboration and reach out not only to the public but also to the private sector to realize the full potential of open collaboration. The Level 4 agency collaborates with other agencies by utilizing government data and public inputs and feedback and co-creates value-added government services to the public and the private sector. Some other applications of open collaboration include policy/rule making and public response to national emergencies/natural disasters. Process-centric metrics are still being used dominantly in Level 4. However, the Level 4 agency starts to use some meaningful outcome-centric metrics such as cost and time savings and rate of innovation. Open collaboration produces synergistic effects of multiple collaborating parties and results in time/cost savings, higher quality, and more innovation for government services and policy/rule making. The 80/20 Rule applies not only to Level 2 but also to Levels 3 and 4. Government agencies in Levels 2 to 4 should not implement everything all at once; they should only select high-value, high-impact initiatives and focus on strengthening what is working rather than worrying too much about what is not working. Level 5 – Ubiquitous Engagement Built upon Levels 2 to 4, the Level 5 government agency takes transparency, participation, and collaboration to the optimal level of public engagement. The agency improves and fine-tunes existing open government initiatives to maximize their benefits. Furthermore, it expands its portfolio of open government initiatives to further benefit the public. Level 5 is characterized by two important attributes. First, public engagement becomes easier and more accessible through mobile and ubiquitous devices and applications. The public accesses government data and participates and collaborates effortlessly. Relevant government websites and social media sites are optimized for various platforms. Second, public engagement methods, tools, and services are seamlessly integrated within and across government agencies so that the public can easily navigate and engage in various government activities without having to jump around different applications or keep logging in and off. The Level 5 agency puts an effective governance structure and process in place to enable continuous improvement and innovation of public engagement programs. Furthermore, agencies, the public, the private sector, and other stakeholders form and nurture a sustainable ecosystem and a virtuous cycle for effective public engagement. In Level 5, agencies focus more on outcome-centric metrics than process-centric metrics. Outcome-centric metrics measure the tangible and intangible outcomes. They measure not only financial performance but also non-financial performance such as innovation and learning. Openness becomes a norm for government culture and the public engages in government throughout their entire lifetime. As a result, the vision and promises of the Open Government Directive are fully realized in Level 5.
Compared to traditional paper-based methods, data publication time lag has improved from 18 to 3 months Minimal interactions with citizens No budget was available for this project. Federal budgeting cycle is 18 months. So, they had to reallocate resources from other projects
Proactive disclosure of information through videos, pictures, and texts Use of multiple communication channels including social media sites
Page We discuss three cases of open government initiatives in the area of healthcare administration. The main objectives of presenting these cases are to analyze real-world open government initiatives from the Maturity Model’s viewpoint and to inductively identify key capabilities, outcomes, opportunities, challenges, and issues for open government initiatives. We selected the open government portal of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and two flagship initiatives of the Department Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Dashboard Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) keeps track of extensive data associated with Medicare services. In the past, m uch of this data was available to the public in the forms of scattered hard copy and electronic publications. Analysis of the data required retrieval of it from disparate sources and users had to have its own computer programmer and an in-house Medicare expert to pull it together. Further, the publication lag time of the data was up to 18 months. Due to the inconvenience of data retrieval and the long time lag of data availability, Medicare data traditionally has not been highly utilized by the public. To eliminate such barriers to access Medicare data, CMS launched the CMS Dashboard ( www.cms.gov/Dashboard ) on CMS’s website in April 2010. The main objective of the Dashboard is to allow the public to visualize and analyze Medicare spending with ease and transparency. Therefore, this initiative helps CMS to achieve the Level 2 of the Maturity Model. The current Dashboard allows the public to track Medicare inpatient hospital spending from 2006 to the current year over time by state, by the top 25 diagnosis-related groups, and by top 10 hospitals for each state and diagnosis-related group. Furthermore, the public can see how much Medicare is spending to support important public policy goals, such as the provision of medical education and additional payments to rural hospitals. The data publication lag time has been reduced to less than 3 months, a big improvement compared to the previous 18-month lag time. The Dashboard provides the public, researchers, policymakers, and health care providers with important information about Medicare services, which will generate useful insights for improving the health care system. HHS Open Government Portal website HHS launched its open government portal website ( www.hhs.gov/open ) in February 2010. The portal website provides links to nearly all of the important HHS open government resources. These resources include data sets, tools, and online discussion forums, to name a few. Two types of data sets are currently available. Downloadable data sets are open-format data sets presented in generic file formats such as csv or xml. Interactive data sets are the data sets that can be manipulated on the website by users. The portal provides two types of tools: widgets and RSS. Widgets are code-bearing graphic elements that allow users to add HHS content or functionality to users’ Web product. RSS are syndication feeds that allow users to automatically import HHS content into users’ Web product. There are also several discussion forums. One discussion forum allows the public to submit their comments and suggestions on the HHS Open Government Plan and rate the content on a five-star scale. Since this portal website strives to actively engage the public in feedback, comment, and discussion, it enables HHS to enter the Level 3 of the Maturity Model. However, real-time interaction between the public and the agency is not quite possible yet as public comments go through the agency’s review before they get posted. Community Health Data Initiative HHS and the Institute of Medicine have launched a national initiative to help consumers and communities get more value out of the Nation’s wealth of health-related data. This initiative, named the Community Health Data Initiative, is a major new public-private effort that aims to help the public understand health and health care performance in their communities and to help spark and facilitate action to improve performance. The goal of the initiative is to create a network of health data suppliers and “data appliers” so that the data could be used to create applications to raise awareness of community health performance, increase pressure on decision-makers to improve performance, and facilitate action to improve performance. Some of the potential applications include (1) interactive online health maps that help the public understand health performance in their geographic area versus in other areas, (2) social networking applications that allow health improvement leaders to connect with each other, compare performance, share best practices, and challenge each other, (3) viral online games that help to educate people about community health, and (4) integration of community health-related data into new value-added services, such as real estate websites. As the Community Health Data Initiative is working to leverage the power of transparency, participation, and collaboration to improve community health, it enables the agency achieve the Level 4 of the Maturity Model.
Based on my literature review and field interviews with several federal agencies, I identified the following challenges associated with open government implementation 1. Federal Budget Cycle Realities and Lack of Resources The current government budgeting cycle is about 18 months, and it is simply too long to timely fund open government initiatives that require quick decisions and actions. As a result, government agencies lack financial resources and human resources required to implement the initiatives. It is easy for one to make a wrong assumption that social medial and open government implementation do not require many resources. However, we find that social media/open government implementations do require non-trivial investment and time commitment. 2. Information Technology Infrastructure I have visited a few federal agencies for field interviews and I know their network is not super fast. Sometimes, accessing email or simple websites can take long time. Given the inadequate network infrastructure, some agencies are not ready to deploy social media applications that require accessing and posting large video, audio, and picture files. 5. Policies and Rules Incompatible with Use of Social Media The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), The Privacy Act of 1974, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act 6. Data Quality Once data is posted online, it is hard to take it back. Government agencies must ensure the accuracy, consistency, timeliness, usability, and usefulness of the data that they publish online. When organizations implemented ERP systems in late 1990s, one of the biggest challenges was to clean up data before integrating them. Similarly, data quality will be an important challenge in implementing open government 8. Balance between Autonomy and Control It is possible for public conversations to get out of control and create negative impacts on agencies. Therefore, agencies need to keep monitoring what is being said and take effective interventions to mitigate the risk. However, if agencies try to control public comments too strictly, public participation is likely to decline over time. Therefore, keeping the right balance between control and autonomy in public engagement is an important challenge.
Based on my observations and field studies, I made the following recommendations for OG implementation Establish Governance Mechanisms for Data Sharing Government agencies should establish effective governance mechanisms for data posting and sharing. HHS Data Council, HHS CIO Council, and Data.Gov Working Groups are some of the examples of governing bodies that advise senior leadership on data transparency strategies, policies and processes (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2010). Principles for data posting and sharing also need to be put in place. Further, agencies should develop a formal process for the identification, prioritization, publication, and monitoring of data release as well as handling of public feedback.
Develop Communities of Practice Public engagement using social media is new not only for government employees but also for the public. Therefore, both government agencies and the public will inevitably go through a steep learning curve as open government initiatives progress. It is critical to develop and nurture communities of practice for knowledge sharing and learning. Learning should take place not only within an agency but also across agencies. For example, HHS has established its Community of Practice (CoP) at the HHS University ( www.learning.hhs.gov ). In addition to the lateral learning, vertical learning should take place as well among federal government, state government, and local government. For example, FDA-TRACK is a federal-level adaptation of a successful state/local government performance management program. Institutionalize Incentives Agencies should institutionalize incentive systems for government employees to engage the public. Although OMB emphasizes the importance of prizes, awards, and incentives to increase public engagement, most agencies are still in early stages in terms of putting formal incentive systems in place. Senior leaders of agencies should devise and implement systematic and aggressive incentives. Senior leaders should recognize, celebrate, and advertise success stories of public engagement. Establish Commitment of Senior Leaders Senior leaders of government agencies have demanding workload and schedule. Therefore, securing their genuine and sustained commitment on open government is not an easy task to accomplish. Nevertheless, just as any organization-wide initiative, open government initiatives need strong and sustainable support and commitment from senior leaders. I have seen cases where senior leaders of federal agencies got excited about blogging and twitter and then over time they lost interest and passion and almost abandoned them altogether.
![The U.S. Open Government Imperative ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()