Government 2.0: The Midlife Crisis
Excitement about the government's use of Web 2.0 technology has swept Washington, DC. One of President Obama's first acts in office was to issue a directive calling for a more transparent, collaborative, and participatory government. Websites like USA.gov have launched new Web 2.0 features, such as RSS news services. And the President got to keep his precious BlackBerry.
At the grassroots level, a group of knowledgeable insiders, the so-called "goverati," is spreading information across social networks. The recently formed Government 2.0 Club, modeled after the popular Social Media Club, will provide a further mechanism for branding events and sharing wisdom. And non-profit organizations like The Sunlight Foundation are developing applications and hosting events in an effort to make government more transparent and ultimately more accountable to the public.
From the outside, everything looks splendid. But the truth on the ground is that Government 2.0 is gummed up like molasses on a steamy afternoon.
Problems Bubbling Up
Relatively archaic government policies, rules, and customs that impede progress are being covered by the Washington Post and reach the highest levels of government. To this day, Department of Defense workers, even some of whom are in charge of new media output, cannot access YouTube. At one government agency, public affairs employees use government-purchased Macs and wireless cards to circumvent social networks being classified as "dating sites" -- by other employees! And in extraordinary cases, contractors hired by agencies to carry out the work of Government 2.0 are banned from doing the very job they were hired to do.
Meanwhile, amid rapid iPhone sales and the permeation of mobile technology throughout society, senior counter-intelligence officials publicly discuss security risks they face while traveling. Hackers have a new priority target: the President's PDA.
All this is happening while many of Government 2.0's supposedly biggest fans -- the Web 2.0 enthusiasts -- behave like the biggest critics of government efforts, particularly regarding citizen participation in policy making. The rejuvenated WhiteHouse.gov website, the newly launched Recovery.gov site for making the economic recovery more transparent, and the preferential use of YouTube to share information with the public have all been criticized, often in near real-time. Adding to the confusion, social media news reports about such things as the White House's use of Twitter have turned out to be unfounded because of spoofed accounts and guesswork rather than source checking. And salivating hackers at events like DEFCON discuss the many vulnerabilities of social networks like LinkedIn and Facebook, which are nearly ubiquitous among young professionals.
The Midlife Crisis
Government 2.0 has reached its midlife crisis. Despite some leadership from influential individuals on using social software in government, there is still in many cases a disconnect between authorities issuing directives and ground troops carrying them out. In some corridors of Washington, this impervious middle section of government is jokingly referred to as "the clay layer," the layer through which no light shall pass. Resistant to change and adhering strictly to doctrine even when nonsensical, people in the clay layer can halt progress. Despite their intentions and being in a strategic position, they often stop the progress being called for.
This midlife crisis was pointed out by one of Government 2.0's most outspoken evangelists, Chris Rasmussen, of the U.S. intelligence community, at a well-attended event held recently in the Washington area. As covered in a widely read trade press article, Rasmussen lamented the impossibly high standards that social tools are held to, even within government firewalls. Furthermore, many tools, such as Intellipedia, are used as supplements to (rather than substitutes for) legacy systems. As Clay Shirky once quipped, this is like putting an engine on a rowboat to make the oars go faster.
At this crossroads, "creative destruction" will require hard decisions about shutting down certain systems and processes and focusing employees on new ones. Employees at the grassroots level need to be given true executive empowerment, rather than dictatorial directives. But how to achieve this?
A Way Forward
In about a month, thought leaders from Washington and beyond will convene for the Government 2.0 Camp, an "unconference" designed to hash out these issues. The event is expected to build on previous ones, and its output will surely guide future agendas. Even now, organizers and other thought leaders are debating how Government 2.0 Camp can and should be used, and they are doing it in the open. On the agenda? How social software affects information security; social technology as part of everyday work versus fad products to be procured; and how to get citizens more involved in solving government problems.
An influential military thinker, Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, once said: "You have a choice: you can either create your own future, or you can become the victim of a future that someone else creates for you. By seizing the transformation opportunities, you are seizing the opportunity to create your own future." How will Government 2.0 advocates create their own future?
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
I like the implication, the new orientation of US gov into the tech world. They realize finally that www could save, even partially, the situation.
Absolutely agree with your description of the environment right now. There is definitely both good stuff, chaos, and concern in the air. Although I still don't think your "goverati" term is the right way to characterize us, I also agree that there is a whole cadre of folks inside and out of government working really hard to make openness and transparency a reality.
More important than the conference though is the 120 day window to provide comments on what needs to be done to work the problem. This is where I see the bulk of the effort placed (the Gov20 camp will certainly help with that).
While I agree in part with the 'clay layer' metaphor, it's just a metaphor. Allowing it to harden in the minds of 2.0 enthusiasts is not productive. Some (many) people in the middle and lower ranks work where the public meets the agency, rather than in the heights of policy pondering.
Like for instance, if I'm administering retirement benefits for people whose pension plans went bust(PBGC), I might be focused on reliability and on avoiding delay. I just might also be wary of a management flavor-of-the-month.
(I personally don't think social software is a flavor of the month, but specific applications definitely will be.)
It takes a lot for the executive level to get past the way Air Force procurement chief Marvin Sambur described the attitude of his subordinate, Darleen Druyan: "You're temporary, you're summer help, and I'm gonna be here long after you're gone."
I think it sounds a bit more like Government 2.0 is having an early life crisis. An infancy crisis even. "Midlife" wrongly implies a level of maturity that Gov. 2.0 has never come close to reaching. This also reinforces the Drake's entry from a few days ago about taking the Gov 2.0 Camp to more advanced approach, I think (especially the part about procurement). Midlife implies that all of this might not be gone in a second: it could be.
All of the problems that you describe here are early life issues. Buy in. Policy changes. Communications. These are the problems that come along with the very clear reality that there are significantly less than 1 percent of the DoD who know anything about Gov 2.0 and social media. This isn't just a Gov 2.0 problem, it's a enterprise 2.0 problem.
I think you do hit a good point that social media people are jumping on the Obama administration for not achieving lasting change in processes via gov 2.0. We tend to overstate problems and except agility from a structure that just isn't agile enough to change much in 2 months.
I think many of the people in the "clay layer" realize the absurdity of blocking the tools that the rest of the world uses. The problem is that that's their job. (Have some sympathy for those poor folks - would you like to say no all the time?) Bound by statute, procedure, rules and so on, they're almost forced to turn everything down - that's their default position. To change this unfortunate situation, the folks in the clay layer need some higher authority to tell them that they won't get in trouble for saying "yes" to change.
Mark,
Good post, as always.
Here are two questions that I've been grappling with recently around Social Media / Transparency and the Government:
- To what end? What is the purpose?
- So what if the data is available? Can people actually 1) use the data 2) understand the data 3) act on the data?
All organizations deal with the fact that they have too much data, rather than insight.
Organizations have databases and storage capacity beyond all previous capability. They are collecting data on every transaction and every conversation.
But. Are they able to gain Insights? And, more importantly, are they able to take positive forward action on all this data?
It is not immediately apparant that by opening up the conversation and making the data available that citizens will have the expertise or time to actually act on the information that has been set free.
Thanks,
Shaun Dakin
CEO
StopPoliticalCalls.org
@EndTheRoboCalls
Shaun, Although I agree on need for "actionable intelligence" for decision makers, you also need to consider that the availability of data is a pre-requisite to the analytics process of distilling into actionable intelligence. Agreed not all citizens will use the data, but those that do use the data who are capable of data analytics will produce those insights you and the decision makers seek. The open availability of data is an enabler of outsourcing the data analytic process and leveraging wisdom of the crowds. A little investment in data availability produces tremendous benefits.
I recommend checking out Many Eyes - http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/
Best,
Dustin
I did make one tiny mistake when I said that the "clay layer" is the layer through which no light will pass. It is really, I'm told by a senior defense person, the layer through which no life-giving water will pass. Adjust accordingly.
I completely respect anyone in public service. However, at some point, rigorously following procedures and rules hurts the overall mission. At that point, people either stay in the clay layer (granted, no one is leading them anywhere different), or they circumvent rules and do things on their own. Neither is ideal.
"Midlife crisis," or just "growing pains?"
Mark,
Good stuff as always. If "all government is local", then let me opine that the Goverment 2.0 logjam will end only when the headwaters of local government breaks free of the paralysis you so aptly describe.
While a single township or metropolis will not define the way forward, the energy embodied in many such simultaneous efforts will soon prove catalytic.
Thanks Mark, for sharing your bright mind here on RWW.
Respectfully Yours in Safety and Service,
Brian Humphrey
Firefighter/Specialist
Public Service Officer
Los Angeles Fire Department
Thanks
Blogtalkradio has been a big advocate in trying to help the government grasp hold of social media and use it for the good of the people and the government in creating a more transparent government. Our first task was the pentagon and we have had much success with it, as you can see from the link they have embraced it and are using it with much success, we hope to continue to strive for more of government to embrace this technology and reach new levels in transparency with more of the government.
But I agree on with the fact that there is alot of catching up to do for them, but if we all work together and help keep them on track we can get it done, perseverance and determination go along way and we have to remember we are teachers in this realm and they are the students, and I bet we can teach some old dogs some new tricks :)
Forgot the link
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/PentagonRadioNetwork
Mark,
Great summary of the current situation.
I agree with Justin and Dan that have suggested "mid-life crisis" implies a level of progress that has not been achieved yet.
I'd like to call it the "Twicky Tweens." It's that awkward period when we are beginning to know who we want to be as a government - more accountable, transparent and participatory - but are not quite far enough along to make some of the decisions. We need a bit more knowledge...and our "parents" need to open up a bit and allow us to make some tough decisions and make some mistakes (gasp - what if we get hurt?!).
Of course, the generational metaphor is apt because it is largely older Boomers (vs. younger Boomers born 1955-65 known as Generation Jones, Obama among them) and above who are (a) reticent and (b) lack knowledge to use the new technology. They are fearful of moving forward with planning much less implementation...as I am learning in my introductory workshops on Web 2.0 where senior leaders are present.
All of these changes are going to require courage...and trust....that Gov 2.0 is coming of age.
When I saw Obama using social media during his campaign I wondered who else within Government was going to embrace this new technology and use it. I admire the use of Youtube and other video sites by the White House. I wish more within the government embraced and used the social media tools available. not for transparency but just to get with the times. One thing I see as a harmful trend is journalists and the media using sites like Twitter as credible sources. In an age where things can be faked easily and where twitter is the new CNN this is bad for information sharing. While its good to get info in real-time where is the process that vets the info to verify credibility? I applaud the government for attempting to get the public involved like never before but the "clay" layer of gov't needs to get with the program in order for true collaboration.
@Andrew Krzmarzick
I really like the strange teenage years as analogy, but focusing too much on whether it should have been "growing pains" or this phrase or that misses the over-all point. The whole gov't 2.0 movement, be it totally behind the firewall, half, or public facing, is Bo and Luke Duke-ing-it in the General Lee trying to jump “the chasm” between Everett Rogers’ early adopter and early majority phase and it is not inevitable the they will make the jump.
This runs much deeper than training, “using the tools,” or waiting for whatever generation to take over. There are deep legal, procedural, budgetary, livelihood, work flow, and re-alignment of incentive issues at play here. Mark, as I did in the speech referenced, fired for effect to get attention focused on these massive issues and away from what my pal Brian Drake calls “101 sessions.”
Hi Chris,
Missed your presentation, but I'm sure it was thought-provoking. Agreed that there are complicated issues here, but how else will we move people to 201, 301 and 401 conversations if we don't help them to understand 101?
Some of the topics you mentioned ("legal, procedural, budgetary, livelihood, work flow, and re-alignment of incentive issues") - and I would add security and privacy - are significant barriers.
Case in point: delivered Web 2.0 "101" for a group of 20 GS-15s two weeks ago. At the start of the workshop, I inquired about level of knowledge of Web 2.0. Most had not even heard the term, much less used any of the "tools" that comprise it.
All of this discussion is about getting agencies there, right? If we want to win champions that will push forward on these issues and initiatives, there's a necessary commponent that relates to knowledge:
101 = Understanding
201 = Planning/Using in Pilot
301 = Implementing for Enterprise
401 = Evaluating
Yes?
- @krazykriz
Mark,
Great article and as always, thoughtful and thought-provoking. I was just about to argue with the label when I noticed (and agree with) Justin’s, Dan’s, and Andrew’s remarks that mid-life crisis implies a level of maturity, hence progress, largely unachieved. I’d also suggest that it’s no crisis, but is instead a time of self-assessment and reflection: what do we want to be when we grow up, how are we going to get there, and what do we need to make it happen? …Hopefully accessible, but also useful, actionable, and reliable. And in a way that we create and maintain a niche for our information, tools, and services in this era of information overload. It’s a story of coming of age—painful but also joyful. We won’t all do it at the same time, nor in the same way. There are plenty of advocates (in the arena and behind the scenes), and just as many groups, clubs, organizations, and boards speaking to/working on these issues. It needs to come together at some point. And it needs to address and support the many legal, security, resource, etc issues entangled in the snare. That's the disconnect.
It's funny. Techno-fears necessarily involve an arbitrary line between "technology that was already around at the moment I learned the category" and "technology that appeared sometime after I learned the category." All technology has risks. I'm sure there were many people who were concerned when the first president rode in a car (TR) and airplane (FDR). It would seem ridiculous to insist that presidents not do those things!
I echo those who note this is an Enterprise 2.0 challenge, not a Government 2.0 specific challenge. While Government 2.0 is not pegged to the pace of Enterprise 2.0, the decision processes in Government to weigh business strategies and ROI are not being significantly outpaced by the private sector to suggest government is in a crisis.
I see Government 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 facing many of the same challenges, particularly in a tight economy. Those challenges are primarily related to development of business strategy models, understanding value in and out, data security concerns, and training costs. These are all valid issues that pace the adoption of all new technologies in all sectors.
Social media may provide rapid access and connectivity, but that doesn't influence the pace of development in modern organizations. Personally, I'm encouraged by the patient approach towards adopting new technologies, the development of the right business strategy for each specific Government organization is more important than the pace of which the technology is adopted. Poor implimentations will hurt Government 2.0 a lot more than slow implimentations.
This all sounds very much like the PC revolution (which in the federal government, happened to coincide with the change-agent Reagan). I see people enamored much more with the technology than the results. Back then, it was the glass house and MIS, the keepers of systems approaches, the new people called the clay layer. We filled our book shelves with Yourdon and Martin. Maybe the old-boomers aren't so stupid - maybe we have seen it all before. It has come full circle.
Too many times, people have come to government with grand ideas, silver bullets, ubiquitous solutions. Government has spent a lot of money, wasted a lot of time, only to have the "clay layer" as you call it, trying to explain what went wrong in Congressional committees, to the GAO and OMB and their IG's. There isn't anything new about accountability. Just ask the IRS, FBI and CBP.
Until someone comes up with some definitive requirements, instead of 65,000 foot feel-good vision statements, this process has serious risks of failure. Without a destination, how do you know you have arrived? Gov 2.0, web 2.0, social media, transparency, are NOT destinations, they are a means to an end. The end is not defined. Results are not measurable. Right now, we are throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Out of that energy, we will find innovative and enabling technologies that actually accomplish something. There is a great deal of potential in the technology. It is the effective application that makes a difference and that must consider the problem at hand, the effectiveness of the tools, and what success looks like. Do not mistake motion for progress or persistence with results.
And yes, I do take offense at the characterization that the public servants who were here before "you" are somehow incompetent, unknowledgeable, resistant, culturally old-fashioned, archaic, disconnected, impervious, nonsensical... These are attitudes that employees file EEO complaints about. Maybe we have been burned too many times. I have been all over recovery.com, State Dept on youtube and whitehouse.gov and many others. Pretty packaging. I am not impressed. I think I will go back to my PMBOK on my Kindle, thank you. Apparently, audacity is contagious.
Old Boomer: you say much that is true, graying one. I too recall my transition (in an OSD/NA office) from an IBM Selectric to an IBM PC (wow - floppy drives!). But 2.0 approaches do bring one importantly relevant thing that the PC revolution didn't: an inherent advance for the central function of "government": the relation of civis to polity. It's direct with 2.0, far less mediated. Isn't that the "end" you rightly seek?
Did we work together before? If we didn't (or if we did), why don't we? Cheers -
Great insight as always. This also ties to the need for acquisition reform. The proglem is perpetuated by the acquisition process - the Government clay layer selects the contractor clay layer to continue the bureaucratic process. It is going to take people like you and others at the recent Gov 2.0 and Social Media meeting to overcome this. The loss of Rod Beckstrom will be greatly felt.
Old Boomer -
I don't think I claimed that anyone was "incompetent, unknowledgeable, resistant, culturally old-fashioned, archaic, disconnected, impervious, nonsensical..." - you just made all that up. You're needlessly offended by your own thoughts.
What I did say is that some people adhere to rules and doctrine even in the face of a failing mission. Of that there is plenty of proof, and little doubt.
I agree with earlier comments that this is not a mid-life crisis, but I'd go even further to say that this isn't even a teen or early-life crisis. Those of us who have been pushing this for years have a warped view of how mature it is - most of the government workforce hasn't even heard of this yet. As popular as we think the Obama campaign or the Intellipedia revolution is - when I teach classes throughout the government (at state, local and federal levels), the majority of the attendees haven't even heard of the tools until they receive the pre-course materials that make logins to these sites mandatory. I argue that this is still the pains of birth.
Old Boomer -
I don't think I claimed that anyone was "incompetent, unknowledgeable, resistant, culturally old-fashioned, archaic, disconnected, impervious, nonsensical..." - you just made all that up. You're needlessly offended by your own thoughts.
What I did say is that some people adhere to rules and doctrine even in the face of a failing mission. Of that there is plenty of proof, and little doubt.
Old timer
Once again, the unbelievabley high standards these tools and potential processes are held to is unfair. There was an end-to-end, air tight plan to computerize the workforce in the early 80s? There was no risk? And all future outcomes were anticipated up front?
Our ligitious, zero-tolerance-for-failure, everything-has-to be-safe-at-all-times society truly frightens me.
The Corona project was virtually completed in 18 months. There is no way today this could happen. We need to learn to "fail forward quickly" and adapt.
Mark - nice take on the issue, including mentioning the need to focus on new processes.
And the clay layer might assimilate with and/or wash away with the water that it thinks it can hold at bay. Either that, or can we educate clay?
government 2.0, if it really comes around will truly be a revolution. just as the barriers of communication have broken down across the world, it would be great if the barriers break down between those in the annals of power and those on the street. now thats where true democratization would begin!
From a civilian perspective, I look at this great post; but focus more on the back and forth comments between what I imagine is a range of civilian and government employees, perhaps located around the world--and I grin.
Midlife crisis? More like, as Dan suggests, a series of growing pains.
Andy alludes to teenage years and, in light of the comments I'm reading, this is like a junior prom where everyone's lined at the room's perimeter watching two kids dance in the middle. And everyone's talking to each other, pointing at the anomaly in the middle because those two lovebirds are the only ones dancing.
But wait. They're NOT the only ones dancing. Old Boomer is dancing too. He's not in the middle of the room, but he's dancing because people are talking about and pointing to him, too. Justin and Mark are also dancing. And right now, I decide to wave my arms and legs and do a jig.
Government 2.0 is represented by the kids on the dance floor. Everyone's watching, citizens and government insiders alike. Everyone waits for the next move. Who will take it?
Sorry to everyone for not naming the article, Government 2.0: Somewhere Between the Tween Years and their Twickiness and a Midlife Crisis, Most Likely Growing Pains Occuring Periodically.
The hyperfocus by numerous people on the simple metaphor in the title is nearly comical. The point of the article is that Government 2.0 is currently at an inflection point, heading soon in a new direction. The real focus should be on what that new direction is.
I do believe, Mark, you would have done well to name this post -- as you suggest, above, "Government 2.0: Somewhere Between the Tween Years and their Twickiness and a Midlife Crisis, Most Likely Growing Pains Occuring Periodically."
Midlife is a time to look at where you are, where you've been, and where you're going. In that question, answers such as what am I keeping, what am I dropping and what do I need to get for the rest of my journey are key. Gov 2.0 is hardly in mid-life.
But I still think you're really smart. And charming.
~ Jessie
wery good thank you
thanks web.
oky bilgiler güzel. web msatr. drmneon ailesi.
What I did say is that some people adhere to rules and doctrine even in the face of a failing mission. Of that there is plenty of proof, and little doubt. ( drmneon ailesi)
thanksssss
sonumuz sanbox gibi
olmassa bi
İNPOSİBLE
http://www.surgunsevdam.org
thanks
izmir hali yikama
hali yikama
izmir de hali yikama
thanks
halı yıkama, izmir halı yıkama, hali yikama
koltuk yıkama, izmir koltuk yıkama, koltuk yikama
buranında içine etmişler saol enay,ler
Good stuff as always. If "all government is local", then let me opine that the Goverment 2.0 logjam will end only when the headwaters of local government breaks free of the paralysis you so aptly describe.
thank you .
It is positive that the Obama administration has set up a number of websites to provide us with better access to information: having better data on crime figures and how our tax dollars are being spent, energy consumption, train timetables will help many citizans.
Can we argue that this is becoming a nanny state?
I am British and under the Labour government in the UK we had a costly experience of technology and the tax payer purse. With Britain in a staggering £804bn of debt, they are continuing with an IT project to ensure that citizens health data is all on one system. How much has this cost the UK tax payer so far? A staggering £12 billion. So, the lesson from this is to ensure that the Obama administration does not go down the same road as the British Government.
I personally think that lifting the lid on all this raw data is about more than just providing information; it is about having an excuse to be able to find out more and more about our habits. I watched on CNN when Mr O'Reilly he quoted that when the iPhone comes out and Apple turns it into a platform and two years later there is something like 70,000 applications and 3,000 written every week. The fact that he believed that Apple had created a framework and infrastructure and that is the right way we should be thinking about government.
Thank you for writing such a greatly worded article.
Thought of you today, after reading an entry on BoingBoing about a Diplomacy-type play-by-mail game that sounded a lot like Ghyll. Not one to talk... I think we all feel this way from time to time... I never had much trouble writing when I needed to (for work), but always blamed the fact I wrote for work for my lack of progress writing fiction. Having not had that excuse to use for the past three years now, I had to dig a little deeper... I think the problem is, I feel this pressure where, if I am going to invest the time, I feel obligated to have something meaningful to say. And few great things are born of starting with such high expectations. We'd probably be more productive if we remembered how to get our hands dirty and play with the language. And then kept at it, until we stumble into something worth attaching meaning to. In other words, I think that moral obligation is a lousy motivation for creative work. The work has to be it's own reward... and the best way to accomplish that is for it to be... fun? (Sez me, who has never been told she'd be on the back of any book... in fact, god only knows what any of my high school teachers expected would become of me, but I doubt any of it was good!
1 2 Next