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.
Malegaon Call Girls Service ☎ ️82500–77686 ☎️ Enjoy 24/7 Escort Service
Emperor has no Clothes: IT Governance in Age of Transparency and Open Government
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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