Risk & Results in Increasingly Transparent Government 2.0 World
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
6 likes•10,285 views
This document discusses the risks and opportunities of adopting Government 2.0 approaches in an increasingly transparent world. It notes that traditional government approaches to IT risk can be too risk-averse and hinder innovation. Government 2.0 adoption rates vary across studies but social media and collaboration tools are growing. Transparency changes many assumptions and can create unintended consequences. Risks of Government 2.0 include security concerns, lack of technical skills and cultural barriers. Benefits include improved services, citizen participation, and collaboration if these challenges are addressed.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Risk & Results in Increasingly Transparent Government 2.0 World
Similar to Risk & Results in Increasingly Transparent Government 2.0 World (20)
More from FreeBalance
More from FreeBalance (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Risk & Results in Increasingly Transparent Government 2.0 World
- 1. The Emperor has no Clothes Risk & Results in Increasingly Transparent Government 2.0 World www.fmi.ca Professional Development Week November 2010
- 2. There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things. Niccolo Machiavelli
- 5. With apologies to Hans Christian Andersen, Brothers Grimm, Aesop, Mother Goose…
- 6. …and all the technology companies with fairy tail justification for your money.
- 7. evangelical descriptions of the Government 2.0 examples presented during the event. However, there was an under-emphasis on subjects such as process change, adaptable methodology, and cultural dynamics. Steve Guengerich
- 8. Government 2.0 Governance in Context Scope EnterpriseProject Social Transactional Focus
- 9. Government 2.0 Governance in Context Scope ExternalInternal Social Transactional Focus
- 10. The future ain’t what it used to be Yogi Berra
- 12. Facts vs. Deduction (the “white paper”) vs. Urban Myth (the “case study”)
- 13. What “should” work vs. What “actually” works
- 14. Truthiness
- 15. Drivers for Innovative Approaches globalization transparency technology governance crisis knowledge introduction
- 16. Premise • Traditional approaches to IT risk not fully effective • Less so in Government 2.0 era • Exposing: risk adverse = high risk highly predictable = failure • New approach to risk required • Change in governance mechanisms introduction
- 17. Agenda • Risk & government IT innovation • Government IT risk approaches • Government 2.0 adoption • Transparency changes (mostly) everything? • Risk 2.0 • Value 2.0 • Governance 2.0 • Government 2.0 good practices introduction
- 18. Most of our assumptions have outlived their uselessness. Marshall McLuhan
- 19. TLAs • GRC – (Governance, Risk & Compliance) • ERM – (Enterprise Risk Management) risk & innovation
- 20. Risk is good
- 21. Risk has Reward Upside
- 23. Governments tend to be risk- averse, including in their acquisition of technology. What is not clear is if government would be innovative in its use of technology were it not for the fact that its processes at mitigating risk often also kill innovation. 2003-04-16 Gartner Managing Risk in Public-Sector Procurement
- 24. What is government innovation? • Lacks the prerequisites for innovation? – Creative thinking – Idea experimentation – Inventiveness • Economic incubator – “Government as Platform” • Services modernization – improved citizen and business services risk & innovation
- 25. Agenda • Risk & government IT innovation • Government IT risk approaches • Government 2.0 adoption • Transparency changes (mostly) everything? • Risk 2.0 • Value 2.0 • Governance 2.0 • Government 2.0 good practices gov IT risk
- 26. Risk can be more about fear than risk
- 27. Approaches to IT Risk What can go wrong? • The FUD Factor – Anecdotes – Urban myths – Edge cases • Risk factors – Political – Contractual – Programmatic What can go right? • Absolute certainty – Facts – Scientific studies – Proven elsewhere • Risk factors – Innovation gov IT risk
- 28. Typical Government IT Project Concerns Policy Operational Political Will project be completed within the current Government mandate? Will project be on time? Contractual Will vendors complain about unfair practices? Will the right solution / best value be acquired? Programmatic Did the expected outcomes occur? Will project be on budget? based on Gartner framework
- 29. Interpretation of Government IT Failure Policy Operational Political Proves policy ineffectiveness Civil servants did not have competence to execute policy Contractual Proves policy was too expensive to have benefits Civil servants unable to choose most effective solution Programmatic Proves policy was too difficult to have benefits Civil servants were not able to manage the project on time & on budget based on Gartner framework
- 30. Focusing so much energy on avoiding political embarrassment leaves too little energy, or interest, to mitigate the challenges of programmatic risks, thus threatening the project's success. 2003-04-16 Gartner Managing Risk in Public-Sector Procurement
- 31. Success & Upside of Government IT Risk Policy Operational Political Government is committed to effective policy. Low cost with high benefits thanks to effective project management Contractual Efficient, effective, competitive and cost effective. Low cost with high benefits thanks to effective contract management Programmatic Efficient, effective, competitive and cost effective. Low cost with high benefits thanks to effective project management Innovation Government is world leader in innovation. Low cost with high benefits thanks to leveraging innovative solutions. based on Gartner framework
- 32. The New Normal • Same depth of analysis on what can go right, what can go wrong needed • Risk identified to mitigate • Room for experimentation with chance of failure • Risk of not doing it • Risk of rogue Web 2 gov IT risk
- 33. Agenda • Risk & government IT innovation • Government IT risk approaches • Government 2.0 adoption • Transparency changes (mostly) everything? • Risk 2.0 • Value 2.0 • Governance 2.0 • Government 2.0 good practices gov 2.0 adoption
- 34. Government 2.0 Adoption: Lies, damn lies and statistics?
- 35. Forrester 2007: Value of Web 2.0 in Enterprise 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RSS Podcasting Wikis Social networking Blogs Substantial Value Moderate Value Limited Value No value Don't Know gov 2.0 adoption e 2.0
- 36. Forrester 2010: Web 2.0 adoption in business plans 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Microblogs Idea generation tools Social networking tools Blogs Discussion forums Wikis Implemented, not expanding New or expanded deployments No plans Don't know gov 2.0 adoption e 2.0
- 37. ZEW/Creditreform 2009: Web 2.0 In-house usage 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Exchanges of information Knowledge management Communication Contacts management Innovation/suggestions gov 2.0 adoption e 2.0
- 38. ZEW/Creditreform 2009: Web 2.0 External usage 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Customer and supplier relations External communication Work on joint projects Marketing gov 2.0 adoption e 2.0
- 39. IDC 2009: Leadership Use of Web 2.0 Technologies 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 RSS Blogs YouTube Wikis Twitter Livecasti ng Facebook Virtual World % Deploying Technology Government Non-Government gov 2.0 adoption
- 40. IDC 2009 : Using Web 2.0 for Information Delivery 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Education Recruitment Co-Develop Content Response to Feedback Customer Alerts Program Info (%) % Deploying Technology gov 2.0 adoption
- 41. HP 2010: US Federal Government Survey on Government 2.0 Usage 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Social Networks General Blogs Video & Muiltimedia sharing Social Networks Government Specific Podcasting Wikis Collaboration Suite Syndicated web feeds Virtual worlds gov 2.0 adoption
- 42. Gartner 2009 Recommendations Benefit Less than 2 Years 2 to 5 Years 5 to 10 Years More than 10 Years Transformational • Web 2.0 • Cloud Computing High • Green IT • Social Software Suites • Shared Services Moderate • Corporate Blogging • Micro-blogging • Wikis Low From Gartner: Emerging Technologies & Government Transformation Hype Cycles
- 43. Benefits from IT-Enabled Connected Government Internal To Provider Agencies and Governments External To Consumer Citizens and Businesses 1. Avoidance of duplication 1. Faster service delivery 2. Reduction in transaction costs 2. Greater efficacy 3. Simplified bureaucratic procedures 3. Increased flexibility of service use 4. Greater efficiencies 4. Innovation in service delivery 5. Richer communications & coordination 5. Greater participation and inclusion 6. Enhanced transparency 6. Greater citizen empowerment 7. Greater information sharing 7. Greater openness and transparency 8. Secure information management Source: Dr. Pallab Saha
- 44. Agenda • Risk & government IT innovation • Government IT risk approaches • Government 2.0 adoption • Transparency changes (mostly) everything? • Risk 2.0 • Value 2.0 • Governance 2.0 • Government 2.0 good practices transparency
- 45. Unintended transparency might not be every public sector manager’s dream. Tommy Dejbjerg Pedersen
- 46. Transparency means you can’t put your reputation back together again
- 47. Citizens are Watching You value 2.0
- 48. Reputational Risks • Beyond your network • No control over your “message” • Not engaging social networks – huge reputational risk transparency
- 50. Unintended consequences • False positive: – Measurements show success, but impact is negative • False negative: – Measurements show failure, but impact is positive • Why? – No objective measurement like profit Measured Outcomes Outcomes not measured transparency
- 52. Web 1 Era • Push business models • Commercial software • Customer service • Bestseller products • Traditional media • 1 to 1 Customer relationships • Centralized product development Web 2 Era • Pull business models • Open source software • Customer self-service • The Long Tail • Social Media • Customer community management • Decentralized product development institutions communities of individuals shift of control unpredictability variety volume central production peer production transparency Source: Dion Hinchcliffe ZDNet
- 53. Digital Age Democracy A New Era of Digital Governance Industrial Era Digital Era Democracy Representative Participatory Citizens Passive Consumers Active Partners Politics Broadcast, Mass, Polarized One-to-One States National, Monocultural Global, Local, Virtual, MulticulturalSource: Mills Davis, Microsoft
- 54. Agenda • Risk & government IT innovation • Government IT risk approaches • Government 2.0 adoption • Transparency changes (mostly) everything? • Risk 2.0 • Value 2.0 • Governance 2.0 • Government 2.0 good practices risk 2.0
- 55. I’m the “NO” guy in your organization and most likely the person to bring your enterprise 2.0 or web 2.0 project to a grinding halt. People in my position do not want to hear about being social. I don’t care what you had for lunch or what your kids did last night. I don’t want to endanger the multi-million dollar value of this company so that you can play with Facebook inside the office. Now get out of my office before I sic my flying monkeys on you. Doug Cornelius, Compliance Building blog
- 56. IDC 2009 : Top Challenges Your Organization Faces in Deploying Web 2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Budget Technical Expertise HR Constraints Security (%) Government Non-Government risk 2.0
- 57. HP 2009: Main Barrier to Government 2.0 Adoption, US Federal Government 40% 21% 14% 9% 8% 9% Security Concerns Lack of Budget Technical expertise/ability Uncertainty regarding what resources are available Lack of compelling need or reason None risk 2.0
- 58. Deloitte 2009: Move to more collaborative model of government requires re-organizing traditional work structures 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree risk 2.0
- 59. Deloitte 2009: Biggest barrier to effective Web 2.0 implementation 31% 18% 25% 5% 18% 2% Culture of hierarchy doesn't fit flattening of organization Potential loss of control over messaging Limited awareness of Web 2.0 technologies Concerns that Web 2.0 initiatives may increase workload Concerns that privacy and security can't be managed sufficiently Don't know risk 2.0
- 60. Deloitte 2009: Mitigating the downsides of a flattened organization, such as the potential disenfranchisement of middle management, presents a: 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Significant challenge Moderate challenge Little challenge No challenge risk 2.0
- 61. Deloitte 2009: Managing the generational divide in an organization introducing collaborative technologies into the work environment presents a 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Significant challenge Moderate challenge Little challenge No challenge risk 2.0
- 62. Deloitte 2009: Developing a compelling case for Web 2.0 presents a: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Significant challenge Moderate challenge Little challenge No challenge risk 2.0
- 63. Fear around the security of data is a real issue and the risk can never be entirely eliminated Jessica Hawkins, Ovum
- 64. Models of Government Data Publish Social Media Purpose You know how data will be used You do not know how data will be used Container Documents Machine readable Quality Vetted, edited, approved Community Vetted Deployed Slow Rapid
- 65. Web 2.0 does uncomfortable things: it releases assets into the wild, it empowers users to speak their mind, it asks people to share and collaborate in a way which has been unprecedented in the past. Mike Ellis-Science Museum UK, Brian Kelly-University of Bath
- 66. Constraints 1. Legacy systems 2. Organizational risk aversion 3. Personal risk aversion 4. Policy limitations 5. Internal view of the “public” & expertise risk 2.0 Sources: Alexandra Samuel. Ariel Waldman
- 67. Government 2 Risk and Perceived Risk Risk Perceived Risk risk 2.0
- 68. Agenda • Risk & government IT innovation • Government IT risk approaches • Government 2.0 adoption • Transparency changes (mostly) everything? • Risk 2.0 • Value 2.0 • Governance 2.0 • Government 2.0 good practices value 2.0
- 69. Government 2.0 Value Proposition • Public Value – Better/fairer decisions • Increased Capacity – Solving “wicked” problems • Support – Increased legitimacy of public decisions • Government Value Add value 2.0 Source: Yasmin Fodil, Anna York
- 70. HP 2010: Top Benefit to Adopt Government 2.0 in US Federal Government 33% 20% 20% 18% 5% 3% Improved services to the public Citizen participation in government Collaboration between agencies Government transparency Innovation by government Government 2.0 offers no benefits value 2.0
- 71. Deloitte 2009: Where will Web 2.0 have greatest impact for government? 9% 32% 28% 23% 9% Enhance resources for resource management Improve collaborative policy development Remove layers between line workers and leadership Enhance innovation Facilitate access to information requests value 2.0
- 72. Will it Be Used? 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 Paid subscription Documents published Open data value 2.0 Source: Government of Australia
- 73. Deloitte 2009: Collaborative technologies • Biggest impact • Hardest to implement 10% 13% 11% 23% 18% 26% Generate policy ideas Refine and prioritize the best ideas Apply networked approaches to societal challenges Feedback/evaluation Change daily operations Information sharing & more effective use of government information 14% 8% 25% 3% 44% 5% value 2.0
- 74. Out of Network value 2.0 Source: INgage Networks
- 75. Government 2.0 Footprint social Government 2.0 structural “back office” e-government internal external Focus
- 76. Out of Network vs. In Network value 2.0 Source: INgage Networks
- 77. Network Effect network node Number of Nodes 8 Potential Maximum Value (by power law) Metcalfe’s Law – 60 Odlyzko & Tilly Law – 16.6 Reed’s Law -257 value 2.0 Source: http://web2.wsj/com
- 78. Deloitte 2009: User-driven citizen feedback will have the greatest impact on 13% 52% 5% 30% Programs/services are developed Programs/services are delivered Policy is developed Policy is refined
- 79. ROI is a delectable option that has unexpected risk
- 80. Return on Investment Model Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Cost Revenue Return value 2.0
- 81. It is the framework which changes with each new technology and not just the picture within the frame. Marshall McLuhan
- 82. ROI – Traditional Model for Value • Poor analytical framework for social media • Deals with internal revenue and costs • Silo – only the value of the data set in isolation • Network? value 2.0 node
- 83. Economic Value Add - EVA • Incremental cost to make data open and machine readable • Value to private sector • In aggregate value 2.0 network node
- 84. Agenda • Risk & government IT innovation • Government IT risk approaches • Government 2.0 adoption • Transparency changes (mostly) everything? • Risk 2.0 • Value 2.0 • Governance 2.0 • Government 2.0 good practices governance 2.0
- 85. 55% of IT mgrs believe #ITGovernance is effective, but just 40% of business unit mgrs do Cutter Consortium Tweet
- 86. Deloitte 2009: Governance solutions that will have greatest impact on government 18% 14% 14% 17% 21% 16% Develop implementation toolkit Present Web 2.0 at CXO councils Presidential directive Reverse mentoring Create e-people/e-democracy organization Desination of collaboration champion for cross-boundry collaboration governance 2.0
- 87. Deloitte 2009: Business case solutions that will have the most transformational impact on government 34% 13% 8% 28% 17% Develop government-wide business case Reduce costs of travel Focus groups Redefine business case to focus on effectiveness Reduce costs through duplication governance 2.0
- 88. In the IDC survey, only 18% of government responders indicate their agency measures the success of Web 2.0 technology in meeting mission objectives, 14% for industry Adelaide O’Brien IDC 2009
- 89. Architectural Maturity Stages & IT Value Business Silos Standardized Technology Optimized Core Business Modularity Locally Optimized Business Solutions Enterprise-Wide Technology Standards Standard Enterprise Processes, Data Standard Interfaces & Business Strategic Business Value Local Flexibility Source: Jeanne W. Ross
- 90. Risk of Failure = More Rapidly Finding Solution
- 91. You can’t manage IT the same way you’ve always managed it and empower flexibility. James Staten, Forrester Research
- 92. Web 2.0 vs. Traditional Viewpoint Chaos Control 1. People will use the tools anyway 1. Not on work time 2. Internal and external social networking 2. Company confidential information 3. Free expression of ideas 3. Privacy concerns 4. Individualization of information context 4. Regulatory compliance & e- discovery 5. Expertise vs. opinion 5. Control over content & opinion 6. Non standard tools 6. Process to codify knowledge 7. Burden on infrastructure 7. Return on investment? 8. Secure information management Source: Nick Semple
- 93. Governance processes are often overweight, take too long to develop and suffer from slow implementation. Dr. R. Cherinka, Dr. R. Miller, J. Prezzama and C. Smith, Mitre Corporation
- 94. Change and Governance 1.0 2.0 What never works What no longer works What worked governance 2.0
- 95. Simplified & Effective Risk Management in 2.0 World governance 2.0 Source: Victoria Government
- 96. How do we let the Government 2.0 genie out of the bottle?
- 97. Comparing Conventional and Systems Thinking Conventional (Open-Loop) Thinking Systems (Closed-Loop) Thinking Static thinking Focusing on particular events Dynamic thinking Framing a problem in terms a pattern of behaviour over time Systems-as-effect Viewing behaviour generated by a system as driven by external forces. System-as-cause Placing responsibility for a behaviour on internal factors and actors. Fragmented Believing that really knowing something means focusing on the details Holistic Believing that to know something requires understanding the context of relationships. Factors thinking Listing factors that influence or correlate with some results. Operational thinking Concentrating on causality and understanding how a behaviour is generated. Straight-line thinking Viewing causality as running in one direction, ignoring the independence and interaction between and among Loop thinking Viewing causality as an ongoing process, with effect feeding back to influence the causes and the causes Source: Dr. Pallab Saha
- 98. High Level Relationship of Government Enterprise Architecture (EA) and E- Government Maturity E-Government Maturity Stages Government EA Maturity Stages Business Silos Standardized Technology Rationalized Data & Applications Business Modularity 1. Web Presence 2. Interaction 3. Transaction 4. Transformation Source: Dr. Pallab Saha
- 99. • Mashups of service and content through intermediaries, web service • Citizen/business engagement to enhance trust and loyalty • Service provision at citizens’ location • Virtual world experimentation • Employee & constituent feedback on info, service, forums • Tagging and social bookmarketing of gov’t content • Wikis to support interaction, citizen engagement • Social network sites and blogs • Virtual world interactions • Institutional vs external oriented blogs • Enterprise social networks • Podcasts & vlogs • Wikis • RSS Service Focused Interaction Focused Communications Focused Framework for Government Use of Web 2.0 Internally focused (employee and other agencies) vs. externally focused (citizens & business) Source: Ai-Mei Chang, P.K. Kannan
- 100. Government 2.0 Risk Register Low Medium High • Information Quality* • Costs (existing data) • Human Resource capabilities • Technical capabilities • Information Quality* • Costs (new data) • Mandate & Mission • Legal Liability • Intellectual Property • Security • Privacy Source: Linda Cureton, Brian Drake, Dr. Mark Drapeau, Steve Radick, Michael J. Russell
- 101. Government IT Governance Structures Bottom-Up Mandate, Governance & Control Top-Down Mandate & Bottom-Up Governance & Control Top-Down Mandate & Control, Bottom- Up Governance Top-Down Mandate, Control, Governance • Projects • Government 2.0 i.e. Collaboration • Shared services • Government 2.0 i.e. Wiki • Budget process • Government 2.0 i.e. Ideation • Access to Information • E-Government i.e. transactions
- 102. Software Governance Structures Bottom-Up Mandate, Governance & Control Top-Down Mandate & Bottom-Up Governance & Control Top-Down Mandate & Control, Bottom-Up Governance Central Control • Real identity • Wiki • Moderated discussion, forum, blog • Document management & traditional collaborative tools
- 103. Government 2.0 Risk FactorsProjectFocus Internal Silo Internal Cross Agency Across Government Tiers External to expert community External open Activity Support Programmatic Support Mission Policy Support Policy Development Modest Size Big Bang Broadcast Broadcast+ Interactive Communication Focused Interaction Focused Service Focused Experimental Early Stage Roll-out Business function ownership Leadership ownership IT ownership Managed user identity Peer governance Moderated Open Technology Footprint Enterprise Architecture Rationalized data and applications Standardized technologies Silos, No Standards Open Source internally hosted Commercial internally hosted Open Source internally hosted & adapted Commercial internally hosted & adapted External Social Network Custom Developed Low Moderate Medium Medium- High High
- 104. Government 2.0 Governance Matrix Risk Register HighMediumLow
- 105. Agenda • Risk & government IT innovation • Government IT risk approaches • Government 2.0 adoption • Transparency changes (mostly) everything? • Risk 2.0 • Value 2.0 • Governance 2.0 • Government 2.0 good practices good practices
- 106. As technology advances, it reverses the characteristics of every situation again and again. The age of automation is going to be the age of “do it yourself.” Marshall McLuhan
- 107. McKinsey 2009: Measures to Successfully implement Web 2.0 Tools 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Integrating into employees' day-to-day work activites Senior leaders role modeling/championing use of technology Providing informal incentives Allowing nonwork uses Providing formal incentives good practices
- 108. Internet Evolution to 2020 Increasingknowledge connectivity Increasing social connectivity 1.0 The Web: Connects Information 2.0 The Social Web: Connects People 3.0 The Semantic Web: Connects Knowledge 4.0 The Ubiquitous Web: Connects Knowledge Source: Mills Davis
- 109. Government 2.0 Sequence Good Practices Scope ExternalInternal Departmental Transformational Focus 1. Follow before Lead 2. Small internal low cost projects with chance of failure 3. Focus on small wins 4. Iterate 5. Governance Level 2
- 110. Value of Small Projects
- 111. Government 2.0 Governance Experimentation Stage Operational Stage Build Capacity Follow before Lead Build tech & social capacity Develop Gov 2 Mission Strawman mission Develop engagement goals Design for Outcomes Strawman metrics Align to mission Create an Implementation Strategy Tools follow goals Tools follow goals Gov 2 Policies Code of Conduct Code of Conduct Identify Stakeholders Identify enthusiasts, champions Cross-functional teams Develop Governance Strategy Small projects Program management Value Motivation Economic value add Extend/Consult IT standards Consider draft changes IT Governance Iterate Develop feedback mechanisms Project specifications Clearly defined Focus Internal Internal & External
- 112. Presentation + More Details: www.freebalance.com/blog Follow: @freebalance Join: www.freebalancecustomerexchange.com
Editor's Notes
- This is what I plan to talk about.
- Should governance structures used for enterprise-level transaction processing, such as back office, be applied to social networking initiatives?
- And, should these governance structures differ when considering internal vs. external Government 2?
- Software and consulting companies have done a good job in creating cost justification
- This becomes more acute when there is market change – because there is always a large library of cost justification for legacy technology, but little for the new technology.
- FreeBalance is a provider of Government Resource Planning systems. We’re not strictly a Government 2.0 vendor, but we know where the market is going. We also understand the risk and governance problems with transformation because we deal with this every day as we develop our latest software products. This presentation is sharing research and experience.Information technology has been changing. Despite this change, in the words of Black and Gregerson – there is a “pull of past proficiencies” so that IT governance has not kept up with technologyEspecially when considering Government 2.0The result? The use of risk adverse methods exposing government to high risk. And, the need for predictability in IT projects using older techniques will result in highly predictability failure to meet objectivesSo, a new approach is needed for risk managementAnd IT governanceSourcesJ. Stewart Black, Hal. B. GregersenStarts with One, It: Changing Individuals Changes Organizationshttp://www.amazon.com/Starts-One-Changing-Individuals-Organizations/dp/0132319845/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1289919624&sr=1-12009-06-24_Baumgarten_Chui_E-government_2.0http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/publicsector/pdf/TG_MoG_Issue4_egov.pdfComplex governance processes present a fundamental obstacle to success.
- I’m going to talk about the linkage of risk and innovationProvide a critique of the current state-of-the-art in government IT risk managementDescribe how Gov 2 is being adopted on one handAnd how technology-enabled transparency is a game changerThen provide a overview of where risk management needs to adapt to the new realityAnd how value calculations need to changeResulting in some framework ideas for how IT governance should change
- As you probably know, there are numerous risk and governance categories of three letter acronyms, that I’m not going to talk about.
- There can be an enormous upside to taking risk
- Low risk initiatives often have low reward footprintsWhile high risk initiatives can have a huge upsideThe trick is risk mitigation – but not to the point where the risk is mitigated to a tiny reward
- Which begs the question.Steven Johnson suggests that innovation comes from the experimentation and combination of ideas. Nada Teofilovic asks whether ”bureaucratic administration lacks the prerequisites for innovation, namely creative thinking, idea experimentation and inventiveness.” This is kind of a stereotypeAs Tim O’Reilly has pointed out, government acts as a platform for economic development from building railroads and highways to the development of GPS and the Internet. O’Reilly suggests that government data is the next frontier for incubationServices modernization is another opportunity for government innovationSourcesStevenJohnson. Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovationhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594487715/downandoutint-202010-11-16_Hadden_Government_2.0_and_Innovationhttp://www.freebalance.com/blog/?p=12452002-12-12_Teofilovic_The_Reality_of_Innovation_in_GovernmentTeofilovic, Nada. The Reality of Innovation in Government.http://www.innovation.cc/peer-reviewed/reality.pdf“In response to a range of economic, political and ideological demands, the structures and processes of governance are changing and modernizing. The traditional public service is developing creative ways to address fiscal restraints and citizen demands for efficient service delivery; conventional, process-oriented public administration is giving way to results-focused public management; and federal departments are collaborating and working horizontally to overcome the hegemony of central agencies. In view of these developments, innovation is becoming a reality in government.”O’Reilly_Government_As_a_PlatformO’Reilly, Tim. Government As a Platform.http://opengovernment.labs.oreilly.com/ch01.htmlBTW: this is a very interesting use of Web 2, using “open feedback publishing”
- 10
- Institutionalized risk management can often be considered enterprise fear management
- The focus for IT risk management is: “what can go wrong”. Often, the litmus test for a risk is any anecdotes or edge case. The Gartner Group suggest that IT risk in government can be political, contractual or programmatic.There seems to be less research on “what can go right”In my view, there is often a need for close to absolute certainty to consider moving forward with new technology although the litmus test for risk factors need to only have a casual relationship with factsAny focus on “what can go right” introduces the risk of not falling behind, creating an innovation gap
- We can extend the Gartner framework to look at typical risk concerns by policy and operational themes. Source[for basic framework, I’ve split policy and operations]Kost, John. Managing Risk in Public-Sector Procurementhttp://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=114353
- When the project fails to deliver, the policy or execution can be blamed. It can get rather muddled – does the high cost for the gun registry prove the policy is at fault or the project governance was at fault? It’s very easy to see how operational issues can easily percolate to political.Source[for basic framework, I’ve split policy and operations]Kost, John. Managing Risk in Public-Sector Procurementhttp://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=114353
- Of course, the upside of a well-executedproject can have a high political upside.Source[for basic framework, I’ve split policy, operations and innovation]Kost, John. Managing Risk in Public-Sector Procurementhttp://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=114353
- The “new normal” is a fundamental shift in economics. For governments, this means “do even more with even less”.This new environments means that we can’t ignore the efficiency gains from government 2.0 and other technologies, we need to have depth of analysisAnd see risk as something that needs to be mitigated,Through experimentation.And, we need to be concerned about the risk associated with not proceedingAnd, what can happen if Web 2 gets implemented without our knowledge and without governance mechanisms at allSourcesDavis, Ian. The new normalhttp://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/The_new_normal_2326“It is increasingly clear that the current downturn is fundamentally different from recessions of recent decades. We are experiencing not merely another turn of the business cycle, but a restructuring of the economic order.“Wailgum, Thomas. Why the New Normal Could Kill IT.http://www.cio.com/article/575563/Why_the_New_Normal_Could_Kill_IT“However, the latest shock—the global financial meltdown—is like the recent 8.8 earthquake that shook Chile and knocked the earth off its axis. And for IT leaders today, it's important to realize that the aftershocks are still coming…So how are ERP software suites viewed today? With about as much love as Toyota execs have for "unintended acceleration." In a recent survey, 214 business executives stated the inability to easily modify their ERP system deployments is disrupting their businesses by delaying product launches, slowing decision making, and delaying acquisitions and other activities that ultimately cost some up to $500 million in lost opportunities.”
- 14
- I have a number of slides that show the adoption of Web 2.0 in companies – Enterprise 2.0, and Web 2.0 in government – Government 2.0
- Companies have found some value in using Web 2.0 technologiesSourceDeutsche Bank. How companies are tapping the benefits of Web 2.0http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000262287.pdf
- That form part of business plansSourceDeutsche Bank. How companies are tapping the benefits of Web 2.0http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000262287.pdf
- With substantial in-house useSourceDeutsche Bank. How companies are tapping the benefits of Web 2.0http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000262287.pdf
- When comparedto external useSourceDeutsche Bank. How companies are tapping the benefits of Web 2.0http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000262287.pdf
- Government organizations are generally behind the private sector in using Web 2
- Even for service delivery – except for getting feedbackSourceO’Brien, Adelaide. IDC Government Insights Open Government Initiative Surveyhttp://www.slideshare.net/ariherzog/ids-government-insights-open-government-initiative-survey
- This relates even in the US where there has been an acceleration of Gov 2 adoptionSourceHP. Government IT Professionals, Online Survey Results.http://www.slideshare.net/govloop/hp-government-it-survey-report-government-20
- Despite analysts suggesting that some of the technology provides significant benefit and lower risks than technology trends in government today such as shared servicesSources:Fenn, Jackie. Prepare for Disruptive Emerging Technologies Through 2020http://www.gartner.com/it/content/1321800/1321829/april_15_disruptive_emerging_tech_jfenn.pdfGootzit.Web 2.0 and Government – Moving Beyond Web 2.0 101http://doit.maryland.gov/WebCom/Documents/Web2.0_Government_Moving_Beyond_101.pdf
- This seems to be a fairly standard view on e-government and government 2.0 benefits. I would argue that some of these are advantages rather than benefits and that many are so generic that they can cover almost any use of technology. This is one of the hurdles that government hits: what in Government 2.0 can be distinguished from general e-government or any other form of IT used in government?SourceSaha, Dr. Pallab. Enterprise Architecture as Platform for Connected Governmenthttp://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/unpan/unpan041801.pdf
- 18
- We were once afraid of how the press might misinterpret – now it’s about citizens blogging, tweeting, taking videos. Technology is now in the hands of citizens. It’s like having millions of untrained auditors.
- Authoritarian governments cannot prevent information getting out – citizens and civil society operate outside your networkGovernment has lost control over the messageSo, deciding not to engage social networks prevents you from telling your story, from being seen as responsive or honest – with something to hideSourceDeutsche Bank. How companies are tapping the benefits of Web 2.0http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000262287.pdf“Reputational risks get a new meaning Communication about a company, its products and services are to be found on Web 2.0 also beyond a company’s own platforms or pages in social networks. Customers and the public at large gather information on consumer platforms or price comparison pages about the products and their prices as well as about a company’s quality and service record. From the company’s standpoint, it is important to be familiar with these opinions. They can be informative about a company’s image, about possible shortcomings regarding its products and/or services, about inadequacies in processes involving customers and about how its advertising campaigns are perceived. Particular reputational risks emerge in the Web 2.0 world if criticism of products, processes or campaigns takes root on the internet and is rapidly spread through viral effects. In some cases, unmindful comments made by employees on Web 2.0 platforms have triggered reputational crises. As countless case studies show, these negative campaigns are frequently picked up by the conventional media and this helps to spread them further. In the past, numerous companies have been too slow to recognise smouldering criticism of their products or corporate image in the Web 2.0 world because they had failed to implement any sort of systematic monitoring of the new media. From the viewpoint of the Web 2.0 community, the companies compounded the problem by responding unprofessionally in that they sought legal recourse to stop the spread of the information over the internet. Therefore, it is highly important for companies to integrate the Web 2.0 world into their system of managing reputational risks. This includes, firstly, the pillar of prevention, i.e. training employees how to handle Web 2.0 tools and adapting internal rules and regulations. Secondly, the risk management structures need to be adapted. To do so it is necessary to co ntinually monitor o ne’s own brand o n the internet in order to keep an eye on the online community’s assessment of the company as well as its products and activities. This, of course, has to be done in compliance with all legal conditions surrounding data protection and personal rights. Finally, the public relations department and risk management have to be schooled so these teams can deal with developing reputational crises in keeping with the rules of Web 2.0. Our publications can be accessed, free of charge, on our website” www.dbresearch.com
- So, no matter whether we like it or not. Or agree with it. It’s happening. The shift of control.Bartoski, Martha. Hadden, Doug. Embracing Government 2.0: Leading transformative change in the public sectorhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/28091182/Embracing-Government-2-0-Leading-Trans-Formative-Change-in-the-Public-SectorHinchcliffe, Dion. Flickr-technical and Web 2.0 diagrams.http://www.flickr.com/photos/dionh/
- The implication of this shift of control is significant to the future of government. For all the risk in this new era: there is an upside: good buzzDavis, Mills. What is the Role of Cloud Computing, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. Semantic Technologies in an Era of Connected Governancehttp://www.slideshare.net/Mills/what-is-the-role-of-cloud-computing-web-20-and-web-30-semantic-technologies-in-the-coming-era-of-transparent-collaborative-connected-egovernanceMicrosoft. Social Media Survival for U.S. Public Sector Professionalsdownload.microsoft.com/.../PublicSectorSocialMediaSurvivalGuide.pdf
- 23
- So, it’s no surprise that security and budget availability is seen as the top challenges to Government 2.0SourceO’Brien, Adelaide. IDC Government Insights Open Government Initiative Surveyhttp://www.slideshare.net/ariherzog/ids-government-insights-open-government-initiative-survey
- More of the sameSourceHP. Government IT Professionals, Online Survey Results.http://www.slideshare.net/govloop/hp-government-it-survey-report-government-20
- But, the underlying risk seems to be organizational and culture. Perhaps “security” is a temporary and convenient crutch. As, possibly is “budget”, because of the relatively low cost for Web 2 compared to traditional IT.SourceDeloitte. National Issues Dialogues. Web 2.0: The future of collaborative governmenthttp://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_ps_web20government_March2009.PDF
- Government 2.0 implies transformation in organizational culture,SourceDeloitte. National Issues Dialogues. Web 2.0: The future of collaborative governmenthttp://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_ps_web20government_March2009.PDF
- organizational structure,SourceDeloitte. National Issues Dialogues. Web 2.0: The future of collaborative governmenthttp://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_ps_web20government_March2009.PDF
- generationaldivideSourceDeloitte. National Issues Dialogues. Web 2.0: The future of collaborative governmenthttp://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_ps_web20government_March2009.PDF
- Resulting in real challenges. It’s not about the technology, it’s about the change required to leverage the technology. SourceDeloitte. National Issues Dialogues. Web 2.0: The future of collaborative governmenthttp://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_ps_web20government_March2009.PDF
- Open data and social media is far more dynamic than the traditional model
- This is a good summary of the constraints in government. Technical limitations to adoption include legacy systems. There are clearly policy limitations restricting government organizations from leveraging social media. The interesting constraint is this culture of expertise in government – the so-called “technocrat” who has many years of education and training. There is a conceptual separation with the public.SourcesAlexandra, Samuel. So Long to Embrace Social Media?In:Gøtze, John. Bering Pedersen , Christian. State of the Union: Government 2.0 and Onwardshttp://21gov.net/wp-content/uploads/e-book.pdf“1. Legacy systems: Many government agencies rely on an aging IT infrastructure, coupled with budget restrictions and priorities that impede upgrades. That infrastructure often does not support Web 2.0 technologies, or can only do so with a substantial software or programming investment.2. Organizational risk aversion: Effective social media engagement demands that the sponsoring organization relinquish a large degree of control over the content and nature of the conversation – an approach directly at odds with the risk minimizing culture typical of bureaucracies (public and, to be clear, private alike).3. Personal risk aversion: Advocating the use of resources for an unproven approach carries a double risk for public servants: wasting time and energy on an unsuccessful proposal, or gaining approval for the proposal and then seeing it fail publicly. That’s especially true in the restricted fiscal environment where most governments have spent the past two decades.4. Policy limitations: Public agencies must often work within the boundaries of inflexible constraints governing such areas as design standards (often expressed as a “common look and feel”) and content approval. Those constraints inhibit innovation and dampen the free flow of conversation necessary for successful engagement.”Waldman, Aria. 3 Reasons Government isn’t Ready for 2.0 YetIn:Gøtze, John. Bering Pedersen , Christian. State of the Union: Government 2.0 and Onwardshttp://21gov.net/wp-content/uploads/e-book.pdf‘Eliminate “the public” The mindset of people in government is deeply rooted in using the term “the public” when referring to anyone who doesn’t also work in government.’Ellis, Mike. Kelly, Brian.How to Stop Thinking andStartDoing:AddressingOrganisationalBarriershttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35035/Web-20-How-to-Stop-Thinking-and-Start-Doing-Addressing-Organisational-Barriers“Will public understand?”Samuel, Alexandra. Waiting for Government 2.0: Why do Public Agencies Take so Long to Embrace Social Media?http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/researchwriting.html
- Concerns about organizational changes, personal reputation & advancement can be much higher than the real risks of government 2.0: reputation, security, and privacy. Risk can be used as a justification to not enhance legacy systems.
- 28
- What is the value to Government 2.0?Decision-makingIncluding taking on deep issuesAdding legitimacyAnd provide value added services to citizens and businessesSourceFodil, Yasmin. York, Anna. Using Social Media to Increase Civic Engagement in U.S. Federal Agencieshttp://www.slideshare.net/yasminfodil/social-media-and-civic-participation-final“public value – in the form of better public decisions, and/or fairer decisionsincreased capacity – in terms of the capacity of a society to solve complex or ‘wicked’ policy problems; and/or in terms of participants’ capacity to understand decision-making context and to contribute to the common goodsupport – in the form of increased legitimacy of public decisions, or bi-partisan ‘buy-in’ for policy solutions conceived across ideological lines”
- I’m not sure that all of these would be considered benefits to everyone in government.SourceHP. Government IT Professionals, Online Survey Resultshttp://www.slideshare.net/govloop/hp-government-it-survey-report-government-20
- Or these. It is interesting how collaboration comes up as an important benefit.SourceDeloitte. National Issues Dialogues. Web 2.0: The future of collaborative governmenthttp://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_ps_web20government_March2009.PDF
- But it is fairly clear that Government 2.0 can engage citizens, particularly in open data. They found far higher usage of open data than pay walls in Australia. And, much more use through open data than freely available reports.SourceAustralia, Government of. Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0. Report of the Government 2.0 Taskforcehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/24452610/Australian-Government-2-0-Taskforce-Report
- The interesting observation is that there appears to be low-hanging fruit – the 2 collaborative technologies deemed to have the biggest impact in Government are considered the easiest to implement.SourceDeloitte. National Issues Dialogues. Web 2.0: The future of collaborative governmenthttp://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_ps_web20government_March2009.PDF
- What’s going on here? What’s the change in relationship envisioned by Government 2.0? Pre-Gov 2, even e-government, is based on the notion that individuals interact with government outside their physical and virtual networks. Government is “out of network”. Government broadcasts information and enables goal-oriented interactions – open a restaurant, register a company, pay taxesSourceBartoski, Martha. Hadden, Doug. Embracing Government 2.0: Leading transformative change in the public sectorhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/28091182/Embracing-Government-2-0-Leading-Trans-Formative-Change-in-the-Public-Sector
- My view is that e-government was traditionally conceived to be structural – outreach of back office system. It was out of network, a publish model.MoreWe looked at e-government as structural – an extension of formal government services to the internet. Not social, not collaboration. Don’t let it fool you: Government 2.0 is as much about internal transformation as external. And there are technology enablers:Cloud computing, leveraging Web 2 infrastructures like Ning and Google, using open-source like MediaWiki, Drupal, Wordpress is making collaboration a dirt cheap proposition. Mobile computing is providing a new and compelling channel for governmentAnd semantic web is helping to simplify complex government information to make data understood and extending beyond web pages to the so-called deep web of linked-data – access to databases as part of data discovery.
- Government 2.0 puts government in the network to have constant interactions with citizens. A community. Why is this important?SourcesBartoski, Martha. Hadden, Doug. Embracing Government 2.0: Leading transformative change in the public sectorhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/28091182/Embracing-Government-2-0-Leading-Trans-Formative-Change-in-the-Public-SectorPetricek,Vaclav.Escher,Tobias. Cox,ingemar. Margetts, Helen. TheWebStructureofE-Government http://www.governmentontheweb.org/access_papers.asp“lack of progress in e-government can affect a government’s policy-making capacity. One of the key ‘tools’ of public policy deployed by government has been defined within the field of political science as ‘nodality’ – the characteristic of being at the centre of social and informational networks [11][12]. The concept of ‘nodality’ in political science is analogous to authoritativeness (often indicated by number of links pointing to a site) and hubness (number of links pointing outside a site) with respect to computer science and the Web. Intuitively, we would expect government to become more nodal as the Internet and associated technologies become more embedded into all aspectsof social and political life. However, if private sector organizations and non-governmental organizations are more successful at using the World Wide Web to increase their nodality, it may be that government will suffer a net loss of nodality in the virtual realm, thereby weakening one of its key tools.”
- Because of the impact of being in network. The reach of communications increases dramatically based on the number of nodes.
- Developing a new era of citizen feedback.SourceDeloitte. National Issues Dialogues. Web 2.0: The future of collaborative governmenthttp://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_ps_web20government_March2009.PDF
- So, we return to ROI.
- ROI is not effective to articulate value for social mediaBecause it deals with the narrowWhere data is considered in isolationWith no network effect
- Economic value add is a better concept.It does look at the incremental cost to make data open – the thing to realize here is that people have already paid for this dataRather than focus on revenue collected, it looks at the value to citizens and private sector – economic development, improved efficiencyAnd can be viewed in aggregate with other open government initiatives
- 36
- There doesn’t seem to me much consensus of how to improve IT governanceSourceDeloitte. National Issues Dialogues. Web 2.0: The future of collaborative governmenthttp://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_ps_web20government_March2009.PDF
- I’m not sure whether the “government-wide business case” is an adequate business case solution.SourceDeloitte. National Issues Dialogues. Web 2.0: The future of collaborative governmenthttp://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_ps_web20government_March2009.PDF
- The premise of traditional enterprise architecture is that uncontrolled flexibility reduces business value. And, effective flexibility can only be achieved through standardization.SourcesRoss, Jeanne W. Weill, Peter. Robertson, David. Enterprise Architecture As Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Executionhttp://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Architecture-Strategy-Foundation-Execution/dp/1591398398Ross, Jeanne W. EnterpriseArchitectureas_trategyhttp://colab.cim3.net/file/work/caf/meetings/Jeanne_Ross_01_08_2007_EA.pdf
- Yet, and this might be counterintuitive, but the best IT governance strategy might be risk.
- Because, Web 2.0 represents a new chaos theory.SourceSemple, Nick. ChallengestoImplementingWeb2.0intheCorporateSpherehttp://www.marshall.usc.edu/assets/062/11997.pdf
- So, a hypothesis: there have been things about traditional governance structures that have prevented government from achieving objectives. Government 2.0 places more stress on the governance model.
- The Australian state of Victoria has introduced a simplified Gov2-centric risk management and governance structure.SourceVictoria, Government of. Victorian Public Service - Government 2.0 Risk Register and Management Planhttp://www.egov.vic.gov.au/victorian-government-resources/government-2-0-action-plan/victorian-public-service-government-2-0-risk-register-and-management-plan.html
- We need to look at Gov 2 differently.
- First, we need to question conventional thinking. This reflects the need to look at impact holistically.SourceSaha, Dr. Pallab. Enterprise Architecture as Platform for Connected Governmenthttp://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/unpan/unpan041801.pdf
- We need to recognize that the type of Governance & Enterprise Architectural maturity can align to Government 2 and e-Government operations – not necessarily the experimentation stage – but where external e-government moves from prototype to reality.2010-09-21_Saha_Enterprise_Architecture_as_Platform_for_Connected_Government
- We should also recognize that Web 2 modality relates to different levels of risk and reward, and that internal and external focus have different risk profilesSourceChang, Ai-Mei. Kannan, P.K.LeveragingWeb2.0inGovernmenthttp://wiki.dbast.com/images/f/f7/Ibm-Leveraging_Web_2.0_in_Government.pdf
- We need to recognize that risk differs and hence governance structures can be more flexible for lower risks. SourceCureton, Linda. Drake, Brian.Drapeau, Mark. Radick, Steve. Russell, Michael J. Get Onboard the Government 2.0 Cluetrain, or Get Hit By Ithttp://www.scribd.com/doc/14119699/Get-Onboard-the-Government-20-Cluetrain
- And that governance structures can be aligned to Gov 2 modalities.
- Recognizing that Web 2 software often has these governance structures built-in, reducing the need for formal off-line governance methods.
- I think that it is possible to evaluate risk factors to determine the depth of governance required, and at the stage of implementation. Other SourcesCureton, Linda. Drake, Brian.Drapeau, Mark. Radick, Steve. Russell, Michael J. Get Onboard the Government 2.0 Cluetrain, or Get Hit By Ithttp://www.scribd.com/doc/14119699/Get-Onboard-the-Government-20-CluetrainBaumgarten, Jason.Chui, Michael. E-government2.0http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/publicsector/pdf/TG_MoG_Issue4_egov.pdf
- To determine the most effective governance structure – recognizing that this structure is likely hybrid where, for example, security and privacy concerns always have strong governance structures that may be very inflexible.
- 47
- McKinsey found that Web 2 isn’t so much an initiative as something that should become part of day-to-day employee work activities.Baumgarten, Jason.Chui, Michael. E-government2.0http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/publicsector/pdf/TG_MoG_Issue4_egov.pdf
- SourceDavis, Mills. What is the Role of Cloud Computing, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. Semantic Technologies in an Era of Connected Governancehttp://www.slideshare.net/Mills/what-is-the-role-of-cloud-computing-web-20-and-web-30-semantic-technologies-in-the-coming-era-of-transparent-collaborative-connected-egovernance"Web 1.0 was about connecting information and getting on the net.Web 2.0 is about connecting people - putting the "I" in user interface, and the "we" into webs of social participationWeb 3.0 is starting now, it's about representing meanings, connecting knowledge, and putting these to work in wasy that make oru experience of internet more relevant, useful, and enjoyable.Web 4.0 will come later. It is about connecting intelligences in a ubiquitous web where both people and things reason and communicate together."
- Sources1. Microsoft. Social Media Survival for U.S. Public Sector Professionalsdownload.microsoft.com/.../PublicSectorSocialMediaSurvivalGuide.pdf2.Osimo, David. Web 2.0inGovernmentWhyandHow?http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC45269.pdf“In terms of how web 2.0 applications are implemented, the most favourable context is characterised by a high-trust, collaborative and knowledge-intensive environment. For these reasons, implementation in small-sized back-office activities appears easier to start with.”3.Gøtze, John. Bering Pedersen , Christian. State of the Union: Government 2.0 and Onwardshttp://21gov.net/wp-content/uploads/e-book.pdf“Focus on small wins: Look for projects that minimize risk while demonstrating measurable results, building the case for more ambitious initiatives to come. Such projects can not only avoid failures that poison the well for future endeavors; they help to change internal culture, and identify potential policy issues, internal bottlenecks and unforeseen challenges while their impact is still small. And planned as part of a larger strategy, they can build not just support, but the software and social infrastructure – such as a community of users – that can make larger projects a success.”4. BoozAllenHamilton.Enterprise2.0 (Enterprise 2.0 Adoption Framework)http://www.boozallen.com/media/file/enterprise2-west2010.pdf“Utilizes pilots that fit non-disruptively into existing business practicesEnables organizations to selectively introduce E2.0 capabilities with the greatest potential value”
- SourcesDawson, Ross.ImplementingEnterprise2.0intheRealWorldhttp://www.slideshare.net/rossdawson/implementing-enterprise-20-in-the-real-worldFodil, Yasmin. York, Anna. Using Social Media to Increase Civic Engagement in U.S. Federal Agencieshttp://www.slideshare.net/yasminfodil/social-media-and-civic-participation-final“Identify and support executive level leaders – both inside and outside the agencyProvide opportunities for personal access, training and experimentation with social media to staff throughout the agencyCreate cross-functional teams to manage online engagement Invest in the development of engagement skills among policy officers, in addition to technical capacity”Center for Democracy and Technology. Online E-Government Handbook. 01 Nov 2009. http://www.cdt.org/egov/handbook/civicengagement.shtmlEd Mayo and Tom Steinberg: “The Power of Information”, June 2007 for the review: http://www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/advice/poi/power-of-information-review.pdf and UK Cabinet Office for the Power of Information Taskforce: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/reports/power_of_information.aspx