The more I chat to people at the sharp end of the OpenGov or Gov 2.0 movement, the more I find myself questioning the sustainability of its driving force, and the way in which it has managed to be collectively pigeon-holed as the nice fluffy bit on the side of policy and decision making—the strawberries on the spongecake, the mustard on the hot dog or Tinkerbell’s fairy dust, sprinkled wistfully across selected departments.
I wondered why that was. At an event in Hong Kong towards the end of 2010 I approached a senior official in the Hong Kong Government to ask how he assessed the takeup of Web 2.0 tools within his government and how they were being used to connect with citizens. The answer I got was refreshingly blunt: “I think most of them are just wishing it will all go away.”
But even at the very top of the Gov 2.0 chain of command there are lingering doubts about whether the buy-in is sustainable, or even if it is there.
“Momentum is building within the Australian government with attitudes changing over a broad front,” Australia’s Gov 2.0 Taskforce Chair Nicholas Gruen tells us in the next edition of FutureGov Asia Pacific. “We will see more evidence of this in the next few years.”
Dustin Haisler, the former CIO of Manor, Texas, and a leading light of the Gov 2.0 movement through work such as his open innovation platform, Manor Labs, which invites people far and wide to participate in addressing the city’s problems, says there is still more work to be done in understanding the ROI of Gov 2.0.
“What is missing from Gov 2.0 is actually not a technology component, it’s an education component,” he tells me.
“We need to understand what it is Gov 2.0 is, what it is set to accomplish and why it is valuable. It is going back to the business value of technology.”
He goes on: “What I tell agencies is to try and identify a business value you’re trying to achieve—if you’ve taken something up because it’s the cool thing to do or your neighbouring communities have done it, you’re not going to gain anything out of that.”
Manorlabs helped empower citizens by offering them a platform to contribute to the city’s development and was hugely successful in gaining attention to how citizens can play an active role in government, if presented with the right tools and the right platforms.
Gov 2.0 or the Open Government movement is struggling with its own empowerment problem or rather its soul is getting lost in an endless struggle to define itself. It is unable to project its own narrative.
I don’t know why that is, exactly. But up until last year for every one official I met who was singing its praises from the rooftops, there were just as many suggesting it had no place at the business end of policy making.
Most, if not all of the people I meet who are passionate about the future of Open Government, are not decision makers: they work in small teams or on the fringes of government; getting support and recognition from elected officials is like trying to flag the attention of a passing juggernaut.
The best examples—like Manorlabs and several others I can think of in Australia—have shown that a culture of innovation must be encouraged from the top down and the bottom up simultaneously, but not many government departments are prepared to take a step in either direction. Perhaps because they’re keen to see how this movement plays out, indulging it through the conference circuit.
Haisler says that agencies in the US need to focus on empowering the right people, “giving the right people who make the decisions the freedom that they need to embrace these technologies.”
That seachange in government is still a way off. We know that the tools and the technology are there, that is very clear—but at the highest level no one seems capable of refining the Gov 2.0 story, and that leaves a cloud of doubt over its narrative arc.
I wondered why that was. At an event in Hong Kong towards the end of 2010 I approached a senior official in the Hong Kong Government to ask how he assessed the takeup of Web 2.0 tools within his government and how they were being used to connect with citizens. The answer I got was refreshingly blunt: “I think most of them are just wishing it will all go away.”
But even at the very top of the Gov 2.0 chain of command there are lingering doubts about whether the buy-in is sustainable, or even if it is there.
“Momentum is building within the Australian government with attitudes changing over a broad front,” Australia’s Gov 2.0 Taskforce Chair Nicholas Gruen tells us in the next edition of FutureGov Asia Pacific. “We will see more evidence of this in the next few years.”
Dustin Haisler, the former CIO of Manor, Texas, and a leading light of the Gov 2.0 movement through work such as his open innovation platform, Manor Labs, which invites people far and wide to participate in addressing the city’s problems, says there is still more work to be done in understanding the ROI of Gov 2.0.
“What is missing from Gov 2.0 is actually not a technology component, it’s an education component,” he tells me.
“We need to understand what it is Gov 2.0 is, what it is set to accomplish and why it is valuable. It is going back to the business value of technology.”
He goes on: “What I tell agencies is to try and identify a business value you’re trying to achieve—if you’ve taken something up because it’s the cool thing to do or your neighbouring communities have done it, you’re not going to gain anything out of that.”
Manorlabs helped empower citizens by offering them a platform to contribute to the city’s development and was hugely successful in gaining attention to how citizens can play an active role in government, if presented with the right tools and the right platforms.
Gov 2.0 or the Open Government movement is struggling with its own empowerment problem or rather its soul is getting lost in an endless struggle to define itself. It is unable to project its own narrative.
I don’t know why that is, exactly. But up until last year for every one official I met who was singing its praises from the rooftops, there were just as many suggesting it had no place at the business end of policy making.
Most, if not all of the people I meet who are passionate about the future of Open Government, are not decision makers: they work in small teams or on the fringes of government; getting support and recognition from elected officials is like trying to flag the attention of a passing juggernaut.
The best examples—like Manorlabs and several others I can think of in Australia—have shown that a culture of innovation must be encouraged from the top down and the bottom up simultaneously, but not many government departments are prepared to take a step in either direction. Perhaps because they’re keen to see how this movement plays out, indulging it through the conference circuit.
Haisler says that agencies in the US need to focus on empowering the right people, “giving the right people who make the decisions the freedom that they need to embrace these technologies.”
That seachange in government is still a way off. We know that the tools and the technology are there, that is very clear—but at the highest level no one seems capable of refining the Gov 2.0 story, and that leaves a cloud of doubt over its narrative arc.
No comments:
Post a Comment