Government 2.0 Definition

Showing 1-29 of 29 messages
Government 2.0 Definition Wayne Eddy 5/21/09 4:38 PM
Andrew Boyd defined Government 2.0 as the "open, transparent,
collaborative relationship between government and governed. This may
be facilitated by technology, but it is not about the technology. "

The Gov2.0 Canberra home page says that "Government 2.0 is not about
social networking or technology based approaches to anything. It is a
fundamental shift in the implementation of government - toward an
open, collaborative, cooperative arrangement where there is (wherever
possible) open consultation, open data, shared knowledge, mutual
acknowledgment of expertise, mutual respect for shared values and an
understanding of how to agree to disagree. Technology and social tools
are merely an enabler in this process."

Wikipedia says "Government 2.0 is neologism for attempts to apply the
social networking and integration advantages of Web 2.0 to the
practice of government. Government 2.0 is an attempt to provide more
effective processes for government service delivery to individuals and
businesses. Integration of tools such as wikis, development of
government-specific social networking sites and the use of blogs, RSS
feeds and Google Maps are all helping governments provide information
to people in a manner that is more immediately useful to the people
concerned."

I suspect that the meaning of Government 2.0 has never been properly
defined and means different things to different people.  Am I correct,
or is there an agreed definition accepted by all?

I'd like to add a definition to my Local Government Glossary & I'm
leaning towards the Wikipedia version at the moment.

Regards,

Wayne Eddy
Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Government 2.0 Definition Stephen Collins 5/21/09 5:00 PM
There's no accepted definition as yet. And I think it's a way off.

That said, I don't believe any of those definitions are at odds. You
could build a very serviceable and accepted definition from those.

Even looking at documentaries such as Us Now which seeks to document
the phenomenon, there's no absolute definition. All the elements
combine to make a cohesive, working and happy whole.

I'd be tempted to lean away from the Wikipedia definition, which I
have been resisting jumping in and editing for some time. I think it
fails to adequately address the cultural shift at the heart of the
matter around all things "2.0".

Actually, I might just go into the Wikipedia chat page for the entry
and make that point...

Steve
--
Stephen Collins
Cell +61 410 680722
Skype trib22
www.twitter.com/trib
www.linkedin.com/in/stephencollins

www.acidlabs.org

acidlabs
Conversation. Collaboration. Community.

This email is:   [ ] bloggable   [X] ask first   [ ] private

Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Government 2.0 Definition fac...@gmail.com 5/21/09 7:33 PM
Hi Wayne,

you may find that definitions 1 and 2 sound similar because I wrote 1 and think I mostly wrote 2.

I'm not prepared to hang my hat on any definition of anything held within wikipedia :) I grant that others do.

To me, Government 2.0 is not about filtering government through Web 2.0 so much as it is filtering government through Thought 2.0, as exemplified by The Cathedral and The Bazaar (a new look at software development) and The Cluetrain Manifesto (a new way of looking at lots of different things).

Again, your mileage may vary. But please, let's look beyond the technology even if we can't leave it entirely behind.

Best regards, Andrew--
---
Andrew Boyd
http://uxaustralia.com.au -- UX Australia Conference Canberra 2009
http://uxbookclub.org -- connect, read, discuss
http://govux.org -- the government user experience forum
http://resilientnationaustralia.org Resilient Nation Australia
Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition Paul Roberts 5/21/09 8:07 PM
I'm on board with Andrew here. The word "relationship" is certainly critical in defining what Government 2.0 is all about. In fact, I would go one step further and say it is about interactive relationships. It's like the shorthand I use to describe Web 2.0 to people - that it is about interaction

Now, like everything else to do with human interaction, it gets messy and very hard to define in ways that have meaning and application across the board. But it is much more than the delivery of government services, which seems to be the focus of the Wikipedia listing. So Andrew is right, this is not a matter of filtering what government does through the Web, it's more about sharing the power.

In her latest presentation, Charlene Li (Altimeter Group) also says Gov 2.0 is not about technology, it's about relationships. Being a US citizen, Charlene uses the phrase "Government with the people" in place of "Government for the people". Charlene recommends starting with the question "what relationships do you want?"  and to then develop a strategy utilising whatever tools suit. The Engagement Pyramid in Charlene's slide pack is instructive here.To me its like asking:
  • Whose attention do you want? 
  • What are the most effective ways to get that attention?
Then look around for the tools that suit. Getting the attention of most people now means getting into social networks. 

cheers
Re: Government 2.0 Definition Wayne Eddy 5/21/09 8:08 PM
On May 22, 12:33 pm, Andrew Boyd <faci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Wayne,
>
> you may find that definitions 1 and 2 sound similar because I wrote 1 and
> think I mostly wrote 2.
>
> I'm not prepared to hang my hat on any definition of anything held within
> wikipedia :) I grant that others do.

Hi Andrew, everyone.

One of the big plusses of Wikipedia is that anyone who has issues with
an article can do exactly what Stephen has promised to do and
contribute to the discussion about the article to try and improve it.
Since the meaning of Government 2.0 isn't legislated anywhere, surely
the only way its meaning can be decided is through some process aimed
at reaching a consensus.  It seems to me that Wikipedia tries to
encourage users to reach a consensus.  If you believe Government 2.0
is not about technology, I think you should add to the discussion
about it on Wikipedia.

Having said all that I have tried to synthesis a definition of
Government 2.0 that draws on both your ideas, and the ideas of the
dozen or so people that have contributed to the Wikipedia article.

"Government 2.0 is a recently coined term describing attempts to apply
the social networking and integration advantages of Web 2.0 (wikis,
blogs, rss feeds, etc.) to the practice of government. The term is
also used to describe general non-technological efforts to make
government more open, collaborative and cooperative, and more
encouraging of open consultation, open data and knowledge sharing."

What do you think?

Regards,

Wayne Eddy
http://www.lgam.info - Local Government & Municipal Knowledge Base


Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition Stephen Collins 5/21/09 8:30 PM
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Wayne Eddy <way...@bundaberg.qld.gov.au> wrote:
> "Government 2.0 is a recently coined term describing attempts to apply
> the social networking and integration advantages of Web 2.0 (wikis,
> blogs, rss feeds, etc.) to the practice of government. The term is
> also used to describe general non-technological efforts to make
> government more open, collaborative and cooperative, and more
> encouraging of open consultation, open data and knowledge sharing."
>
> What do you think?

Nice. No doubt there will be a flame war at some point and accusations
of Nazism. But not amongst this group, I think.

Steve
--
Stephen Collins
Cell +61 410 680722
Skype trib22
www.twitter.com/trib
www.linkedin.com/in/stephencollins

www.acidlabs.org

acidlabs
Conversation. Collaboration. Community.

This email is:   [ ] bloggable   [X] ask first   [ ] private

Re: Government 2.0 Definition Wayne Eddy 5/21/09 8:49 PM
Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition fac...@gmail.com 5/21/09 10:58 PM

Oh, thank Dog, I am not the only one.

It is not only "not about the tech" but it is also "not not about the tech" either. It's beyond the tech. The tech is there, or not, to be used if needed. But it is not about the tech.

Thanks Paul, you have made my day :)

Best regards, Andrew
Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition fac...@gmail.com 5/21/09 11:12 PM
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Wayne Eddy <way...@bundaberg.qld.gov.au> wrote:

Hi Wayne,

this is going to sound churlish, and what you've written is an excellent start, but I think that "non-technological" is missing the point a little. Just a little. It is an improvement. It includes the cool stuff.

Let me try and explain where I'm coming from here. James' natural reaction when I said "It's not about the technology" was to interpret it as "It's never about the technology". This would presuppose that there was a big Venn diagram of all things normal (that is, affected/enabled by technology) and the NOT - a very tiny pool of stuff that happens in deep space or under 6KM of ocean that is untouched by the hand of humanity.

When I say "it's not about the technology", I am trying to say that the tech is there, or not, but it really doesn't matter. It may be the glue that makes things happen, but it is not the important part. The important part is the collaboration, the discussion between government and governed. The IM/data/site/wiki/tea kettle/meeting table/whiteboard is the enabler of the desirable thing, not the desirable thing itself. It's a means to an end.

The danger of concentrating on the tech - in some circles, mentioning it at all - is that people concentrate on the tech and not on the wonderful stuff. If I say "collaborative legislative review process" people (naturally enough) talk about wikis. I like wikis, I run several of them myself, and some are small things, others fairly popular. Wikis are cool tech, no doubt - but the cool part is what they enable when a motivated bunch of people use them. 

Maybe I should start talking about the supra-technological - to me, Government 2.0 is above and beyond the technology, any technology. For after all, the future is vendor agnostic :)
Re: Government 2.0 Definition Wayne Eddy 5/21/09 11:32 PM
Hi Andrew, everyone.

Interesting.  The "2.0" makes me think of Software, and in particular
of a new release with significantly upgraded functionality, which is I
imagine the idea that whoever coined the term "Web 2.0" was trying to
invoke.

Perhaps "Open Inclusive Government" would be a better way of
describing what you're talking about in a few words?

Regards,

Wayne
Re: Government 2.0 Definition chieftech 5/22/09 4:36 PM
Web 2.0 is the root of all this.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

I know some people have picked up on the "2.0" bit and applied it here
and there to imply the next generation of something. But then it does
really start to dissolve into marketing buzz and becomes hard to
define.

When I'm talking about Government 2.0, I'm talking about next
generation government/society that takes specific advantage of and is
changed by the Web 2.0 platform.

All the people and relationship interaction stuff already takes place,
and yes can be enhanced with non-technology stuff like different
techniques, approaches and the right culture in government. But that's
all incremental improvement, its not a step change. (Government 1.1?)

Hmm. Should this be my Public Sphere talk? :-) We should have someone
for and against. ;-)

James
Re: Government 2.0 Definition Justin Kerr-Stevens 5/23/09 2:42 AM
This is an interesting question.

We had a pretty active discussion around the term at the end of the
Gov2.0 conference in DC. I have to say from a marketing and longevity
perspective 2.0 will inevitably date the term. It also doesn't seem to
be as endearing (perhaps I should say the less enlightened ones) to
officials that sign cheques to get programmes off the ground.

I think the original definition on the Gov2.0 Canberra home page is
pretty accurate as is Andrew's comments that 'it's not about the tech,
but it's not, not, about the tech.

In the end the fluid nature of the conference will be what the
participants want it to be - but if it ends up without any kind of
strategic plan to bring about real change it'll have just been a good
get together...

Justin

On 23 May, 00:36, chieftech <james.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Web 2.0 is the root of all this.http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-w...
Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition fac...@gmail.com 5/23/09 5:59 AM
Breaking it down.... you are saying that anything with "2.0" in the title is inextricably linked to Web 2.0 and is therefore only ever going to be about technological decisions and discussions? That any open/cooperative/collaborative discussion that takes place outside of a Web 2.0 enabled arena is Government 1.1 and is therefore not worthy of discussion on this list?

I just wanted to clarify that prior to forming a response.

Cheers, Andrew
Re: Government 2.0 Definition martind 5/24/09 5:12 PM
I think an important aspect, indeed the first steps in Gov 2.0, is the
internalisation of the practices of Web 2.0 within and between govt
departments. Until this is practiced, absorbed, and customised by
public servants in their own world, we will not be able to effectively
apply it to citizen engagement or service delivery. Trying to apply
Web 2.0 to full govt services is trying to run before even growing
legs. There are still attitudes within the APS that any of this Web
2.0 'stuff' is against the APS code of conduct, and agency security
classifications. It's a numbers game I know, but I still perceive Gov
2.0 advocates as being a minority within government, particularly in
the SES and legal areas, where the application of the formal hierarchy
model and ‘need to know’  is very entrenched.
Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition Stephen Collins 5/24/09 5:37 PM
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:12 AM, martind <marti...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> I think an important aspect, indeed the first steps in Gov 2.0, is the
> internalisation of the practices of Web 2.0 within and between govt
> departments. Until this is practiced, absorbed, and customised by
> public servants in their own world, we will not be able to effectively
> apply it to citizen engagement or service delivery. Trying to apply
> Web 2.0 to full govt services is trying to run before even growing
> legs. There are still attitudes within the APS that any of this Web
> 2.0 'stuff' is against the APS code of conduct, and agency security
> classifications. It's a numbers game I know, but I still perceive Gov
> 2.0 advocates as being a minority within government, particularly in
> the SES and legal areas, where the application of the formal hierarchy
> model and ‘need to know’  is very entrenched.

I don't know which department you might work with.

You're right about the attitudes, but they appear, based on
experience, to largely be at middle management. These are hurdles to
be overcome, not reasons to give up.

It's also important to acknowledge that there are a significant number
of projects, and whole-of-government policy guidance, already in
place, that encourage the kinds of activities and efforts we might
label as Government 2.0. It's important that we're aware of these
projects and the documents and make those with whom we work in
government aware of them.

Just looking at the documents, the following all give guidance and
framework advice and encourage engagement in open government:

- APSC Circular 8/2008 on online engagement for APS staff -
http://apsc.gov.au/circulars/circular088.htm
- APSC report on governance and accountaibility (liked elsewhere on this list)
- Gershon report
- AGIMO Online Consultation Guidelines -
http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/Online_Consultation_Guidelines
- AGIMO e-Government Strategy 2006 -
http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/e-Government_Strategy_2006
- AGIMO Access and Distribution Strategy 2006 -
http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/Access_and_Distribution_Strategy_2006

So, there's more than adequate high level advice available. While
these documents might reflect APS advice, many parts of them are
applicable or adaptable to state and local levels.

There's also a significant push from a number of Ministers and other
parliamentarians for increased openness. I think this will land
heavily on agency desks much sooner than many would imagine.

I spent last week at a conference (and keynoting one day) organised by
the NZ public sector on opeing government. There's a lot of traction
there and in my experience it's reflected here.

I think you'll see that evidenced by the number I imagine will attend
the one day Government 2.0 Camp/Public Sphere that's to happen in
Canberra soon.

My point is that returning constantly to the "but there's resistance"
argument is futile. It's a guaranteed loss. I you can't raise
awareness and win friends at that level start both lower and higher in
the food chain - with politicians and with the doers. It does seem to
work.

Steve
--
Stephen Collins
Cell +61 410 680722
Skype trib22
www.twitter.com/trib
www.linkedin.com/in/stephencollins

www.acidlabs.org

acidlabs
Conversation. Collaboration. Community.

This email is:   [ ] bloggable   [X] ask first   [ ] private

Re: Government 2.0 Definition chieftech 5/24/09 5:43 PM
No, this isn't what I mean.

The more diversity in our Gov 2.0 discussions the better. That's why I
mentioned the Citizen's Parliament in the first place in the other
thread. Other ideas like Open Government are worth talking about in
this mix too, but even then its interesting that (according to
Wikipedia) recent ideas in this space appear to be inspired by the
open source software movement.

To be clear, I take a systemic view - its neither not not about the
people or not not about the technology. Web 2.0 was called out to mark
an observation that there was a significant change from the old under
way. Why is there anything wrong with acknowledging the theme of Web
2.0 and Government with a term like Government 2.0?

I had a look at the Charlene Li's slides that Paul mentioned. I think
those slides have been misunderstood in the context of this thread -
she is not defining Government 2.0 as relationships as far as I can
tell, just how existing Government institutions can go about planning
a strategy to use social media (one aspect of Web 2.0), because of how
social media works. In fact, its lacking in the people dimension
because I didn't see any discussion about how social media will
actually change those institutions, the relationship with society and
society itself.

Going back to the idea of Open Government, Wikipedia says: "The
origins of open government arguments can be dated to the time of the
European Enlightenment: to debates about the proper construction of a
then nascent civil society." As this concept is a lot older than Gov
2.0, I'm not sure we can or have the right to hijack it. Of course
again it doesn't mean we don't include it, since we will want to
understand how Web 2.0 affects new debates about Open Government.

James

On May 23, 10:59 pm, Andrew Boyd <faci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Breaking it down.... you are saying that anything with "2.0" in the title is
> inextricably linked to Web 2.0 and is therefore only ever going to be about
> technological decisions and discussions? That any
> open/cooperative/collaborative discussion that takes place outside of a Web
> 2.0 enabled arena is Government 1.1 and is therefore not worthy of
> discussion on this list?
>
> I just wanted to clarify that prior to forming a response.
>
> Cheers, Andrew
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 9:36 AM, chieftech <james.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Web 2.0 is the root of all this.
>
> >http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-w...
Re: Government 2.0 Definition martind 5/24/09 7:33 PM
I absolutely agree - please don't think me a doubter!

It will of course vary within individual agencies, but getting Gov 2.0
past the perception of just being an IT thing as opposed to core
business is important, as is the engagement of public affiars type
roles who have traditionally managed broadcast-communications with the
public.

For me, hints and tips of these internal aspects is where I am at in
the Gov 2.0 journey (redefining the 'intranet' being key).



On 25 May, 08:37, Stephen Collins <t...@acidlabs.org> wrote:
> - APSC Circular 8/2008 on online engagement for APS staff -http://apsc.gov.au/circulars/circular088.htm
> - APSC report on governance and accountaibility (liked elsewhere on this list)
> - Gershon report
> - AGIMO Online Consultation Guidelines -http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/Online_Consultation_Guidelines
> - AGIMO e-Government Strategy 2006 -http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/e-Government_Strategy_2006
> - AGIMO Access and Distribution Strategy 2006 -http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/Access_and_Distribution_Strategy_2006
Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition Paul Roberts 5/24/09 8:27 PM
Actually, Martin raised an issue that I've been reflecting on in terms of the target audience of this group. It goes to the "is this about technology or relationships" discussion thread too. 
As Henry Jenkins has said, we should be paying attention to emerging cultural practices, not emerging technology. I'm referring of course to social media and all of the interactivity, self-expression and sharing going on. That is what government should be paying attention to.

Targeting IT types keeps the mind-set in the "it's about technology" groove. What's more, the social web is seen as a threat to those used to deciding on what applications are used and how, and that it all be behind the firewall, and to those in control of the public interface. I would target a broad range of people in government, not just IT or media types.

Even the Pope is using Facebook, YouTube and iPhone applications. How long will it be before [a lot more] government agencies in Australia get in on the same attention space as the public?

Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition fac...@gmail.com 5/24/09 9:20 PM
Regardless of what we call it, if this list is solely about Web 2.0  
and not about what may be termed Open Government, then I'm running the  
wrong list.

The trouble with tying everything that we do to Web n.0 is that people  
will think that it's all about the tech.

Question for the group: Am I the only one that thinks that it needs to  
be about collaboration (sometimes to the exclusion of technical  
platform discussions)? Regardless of what wikipedia says?

Cheers, Andrew

Andrew Boyd fac...@gmail.com
http://uxbookclub.org -- connect, read, discuss


RE: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition Jenny Millea 5/24/09 9:28 PM
I think including the term Web 2.0 limits the discussion to something about a particular set of software functions. Government is going to have to engage using a whole range of strategies - Web 2.0 (and I don't really subscribe to the view that there is such a thing: it's just a convenient short hand), Web 3.0, semantic web, mobile technologies, ubiquitous wireless, identity management, security, trust, personal data management, privacy, interoperability, cloud computing, community expectations etc etc. Web 2.0 applications are just one possible way of enabling government interactions with citizens - and they are not suitable for all purposes.

I like Open Government better as it's technology independent and based on an underlying principle that will outlast (hopefully) any particular technical approach or tool set. It's the underlying set of principles that need to be discussed with governments and the people who run them - the technology (yet again) is just an enabler. The easy part is implementing technology. The hard part is changing people's views and practices. And without people on board technology is just a series of 0s and 1s.

Regs, Jen
~---


IMPORTANT: This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain private or confidential information. If you think you may not be the intended recipient, or if you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not reproduce any part of this e-mail or disclose its contents to any other party. This email represents the views of the individual sender, which do not necessarily reflect those of Education.au except where the sender expressly states otherwise. It is your responsibility to scan this email and any files transmitted with it for viruses or any other defects. education.au limited will not be liable for any loss, damage or consequence caused directly or indirectly by this email.
Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition Stephen Collins 5/24/09 9:31 PM
Web 2.0 is demonstrably a factor, and *only* a factor. The cultural,
behavioral and organisational changes are much more the relevant
matter.

As I've said many times before, "the technology" is the last 10 per
cent of the problem. It exists *only* to make the recording of
activity (of any sort) sustainable.

Without the tech, the sustainability suffers. And, in a few cases, the
tech is the catalyst for activity and change. But only where latent
need exists.

I think the tech component shouldn't be the focus. But it is an
important factor. Think 3x5 index cards. If we could pass and store
the info on 3x5 index cards (ignoring the available space), then the
change is helped by tech, but not about tech.

Andrew is right (and I don't always agree with him, indeed, I often
don't), if we focus on the tech, we do ourselves a huge disservice and
potentially turn away many who might otherwise show interest.

Think Open Government rather than Government 2.0. The 2.0 moniker has
done massive damage to many things 2.0.

I look to Andy McAfee's E2.0 definition, which uses tech, but makes
the point it's not about tech.

Steve
--
Stephen Collins
Cell +61 410 680722
Skype trib22
www.twitter.com/trib
www.linkedin.com/in/stephencollins

www.acidlabs.org

acidlabs
Conversation. Collaboration. Community.

This email is:   [ ] bloggable   [X] ask first   [ ] private

Re: Government 2.0 Definition chieftech 5/24/09 10:07 PM
If this is the case, this list of topics needs some urgent revision:

http://groups.google.com/group/gov20canberra/web/topics-for-gov20canberra-camp?hl=en

What do you think?

James
Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition Ben Rogers 5/24/09 10:07 PM

There seems to be a consensus forming that Open Government is a better name for what this list is about? being on the inside of Govt I feel like we could do a lot worse and generally do, then to make our decisions more transparent in the first place and open to honest input from the public in the second.  

A collaborative approach to policy making would seem to me to create much more sustainable outcomes especially where things like the environment are concerned and could in part remove some of the short sightedness that our election cycle engenders in what needs to be long term policy.  Although I will admit to hopeless idealism :)

ben--
Ben

Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition Stephen Collins 5/24/09 10:10 PM
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 3:07 PM, chieftech <james....@gmail.com> wrote:
> If this is the case, this list of topics needs some urgent revision:
> http://groups.google.com/group/gov20canberra/web/topics-for-gov20canberra-camp?hl=en
>
> What do you think?

Not at all.

All of them are topics centered on greater openness and underpinned by
technology as the sustaining factor.

I don't think any of us are actually disagreeing. I think we just have
different foci.

Steve
--
Stephen Collins
Cell +61 410 680722
Skype trib22
www.twitter.com/trib
www.linkedin.com/in/stephencollins

www.acidlabs.org

acidlabs
Conversation. Collaboration. Community.

This email is:   [ ] bloggable   [X] ask first   [ ] private

Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition Paul Roberts 5/24/09 11:00 PM
The "Social Web", the "Participative Web" are used to label the changes that Web 2.0 has enabled. The underlying factors are still social, cultural - i.e the ability to connect with others, for self-expression and to share stuff. They are contribute to meeting basic social needs. Web 2.0 amplifies what can be done. It helps to make things more open, for governments and business to be more accountable. As Clay Shirky put it, "group action has got easier" [and] "media is moving from a source of information to a source of action".

The Internet and the Social Web are disruptive, no question. Just look at what the consequences have been for media and telecommunications business models.

So an important part of the process is in promoting more use of the Internet in achieving better government. It is fair to acknowledge the Web is a huge driver of change, but the trick is not to focus on whatever applications are out there from a technology point of view. As I've said before, a lot of that is in changing culture...so the biggest picture is with all of the social and cultural tools and practices that go with more openness, engagement, transparency and accountability.

So perhaps the main label is open government, with a byline on the Web and other tools/practices?
Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition fac...@gmail.com 5/25/09 12:14 AM
Dunno, James, I didn't write that list so I can't comment. I disagree  
with the whole concept of corraling SphereCamp into grouped sessions,  
but I'm not that much against it that I see it as a dealbreaker.

Probably need comment from the people that put the list together. The  
list changing doesn't change my views on why I am here :)

Cheers, Andrew

Andrew Boyd fac...@gmail.com
http://uxbookclub.org -- connect, read, discuss


On 25/05/2009, at 3:07 PM, chieftech <james....@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> If this is the case, this list of topics needs some urgent revision:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/gov20canberra/web/topics-for-gov20canberra-camp?hl=en
>
> What do you think?
>
> James
>
> On May 25, 2:31 pm, Stephen Collins <t...@acidlabs.org> wrote:
>> Web 2.0 is demonstrably a factor, and *only* a factor. The cultural,
>> behavioral and organisational changes are much more the relevant
>> matter.
>>
>> As I've said many times before, "the technology" is the last 10 per
>> cent of the problem. It exists *only* to make the recording of
>> activity (of any sort) sustainable.
>>
>> Without the tech, the sustainability suffers. And, in a few cases,  
>> the
>> tech is the catalyst for activity and change. But only where latent
>> need exists.
>>
>> I think the tech component shouldn't be the focus. But it is an
>> important factor. Think 3x5 index cards. If we could pass and store
>> the info on 3x5 index cards (ignoring the available space), then the
>> change is helped by tech, but not about tech.
>>
>> Andrew is right (and I don't always agree with him, indeed, I often
>> don't), if we focus on the tech, we do ourselves a huge disservice  
>> and
>> potentially turn away many who might otherwise show interest.
>>
>> Think Open Government rather than Government 2.0. The 2.0 moniker has
>> done massive damage to many things 2.0.
>>
>> I look to Andy McAfee's E2.0 definition, which uses tech, but makes
>> the point it's not about tech.
>>
>> Steve
>> --
>> Stephen Collins
>> Cell +61 410 680722
>> Skype trib22www.twitter.com/tribwww.linkedin.com/in/stephencollins
>>
>> www.acidlabs.org
>>
>> acidlabs
>> Conversation. Collaboration. Community.
>>
>> This email is:   [ ] bloggable   [X] ask first   [ ] private
> >
Re: Government 2.0 Definition wraptinweb 5/25/09 5:00 AM
The top summary statement still says it best for me - "..... It is a
fundamental shift in the implementation of government - toward an
open, collaborative, cooperative arrangement where there is (wherever
possible) open consultation, open data, shared knowledge, mutual
acknowledgment of expertise, mutual respect for shared values and an
understanding of how to agree to disagree. Technology and social tools
are merely an enabler in this process...."

Why call it Gov2.0? because we link to other groups in US, Canada and
UK using the same shorthand. "Open Government" is a good term, but
perhaps doesn't encompass as much as the little snippet I copied. We
are not alone in a Gov2.0 world. I would ask if we have thought
through what we might lose if we forgo Gov2.0 as a term.

Yes - I can confirm that -at present - Gov2.0 carries a technology
stigma - but that will change. Please let me explain why I think that.
I'm currently working on a (Cathedral - genuflect now please) project
related to Business Service Transformation. Today it is presented as a
technology thingy in several stakeholder organisations, rather than as
a more effective and efficient service delivery model that will reduce
costs and enable Stakeholders to cope with the swingeing cuts
inflicted by Gershon-influenced forces. We see planners planning up,
and Department strategies imposed down, with a collision where they
meet. Cold, hard budgeting will force a rethink and a business level
appreciation that this cannot be about the technology - it has to be
about service delivery. This project is a microcosm reflecting the
changes that have already occurred in many Private sector businesses -
but they don't always 'get it' either.

My most telling personal experience was our washing machine repairman
(yes - I am working up to a point). He refused to work on our old
brand machine any more - why? Because the supplier had a faulty web
site for service people, the catalogue wasn't accurate, and he refused
to deal with complaints from customers because he often got the wrong
parts, or the delivery failed altogether. It wasn't that he disliked
the manufacturing or design principles of Brand X - their failure to
create a working relationship (mediated by a technology) with active
repair people meant that we bought a different replacement model. The
business failed to understand the importance of even web 1.0 in
delivering services through their service agents to the ultimate
consumer. Ultimately the failure is a business (relationship) failure.

The technology has reached a level where it enables (oh I hate that
term - but it is correct here), it enables new ways of working
together to achieve new business process models, new ways of
consultation, new partnerships and participation. To that extent it is
about the technology - a new generation of technical capability.
However, as Andrew keeps emphasising - it's not about the technology,
it is about the new ways of working the technology enables.

One of the Central Coordinating Departments in government has a 6
megabit link - for the whole department of 1,000 people. Less than my
home connection. Look at the behaviours this fails to allow - no video
conferencing, no sharing screen areas with remote developers, no cross
department sharing or collaborative authoring. With the new regional
projects, there can be no central web-based project management and
tracking site coordinating across jurisdictions and presenting a nice
centralised control panel to identify trouble early - and on, and on.
These are business model and relationship failures. Efficiency and
effectiveness failures.

Changing these behaviours, showing what is possible encounters massive
hurdles when the people we are trying to reach can't even access the
video sites, where all the explanations and examples are, that would
show them why they should access those sites. That's why both
Cathedral and Bazaar are vital. We need to reach decision makers at
all levels. Us Now is fantastic - but most of it is on Youtube -
blocked in most sites we want to reach. That means we as real live
people have to step up and break down the barriers of understanding.
Cathedral, Bazaar, early church, true believers ... technologists and
accountants.

Which brings me back to branding. If we align our brand (Gov2.0) with
an international movement to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of Government (books published, speakers speaking, evangelists
preaching) we are in a stronger position than finding our own term -
however appropriate it might be. I feel the same way about each of the
other activities. If we are having a Barcamp - call it a Barcamp -
there are expectations around how a barcamp works. If we are having a
seminar - sure - we understand the expectations are different.
Conference - same.

I know we are starting to talk about Web 3.0 - sorta. I would be
thrilled if Gov2.0 became 'passe'. I just don't expect it to happen in
my working lifetime. My vote is Gov 2.0 and thankyou Andrew for the
great intro explanatory words, that I (and wikipedia) am unable to
currently improve upon.

Regards Alistair
(Exit stage right carrying soapbox)
Re: Government 2.0 Definition Wayne Eddy 5/25/09 8:09 PM
On May 25, 10:00 pm, wraptinweb <wraptin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why call it Gov2.0? because we link to other groups in US, Canada and
> UK using the same shorthand. "Open Government" is a good term, but
> perhaps doesn't encompass as much as the little snippet I copied. We
> are not alone in a Gov2.0 world. I would ask if we have thought
> through what we might lose if we forgo Gov2.0 as a term.

> Regards Alistair
> (Exit stage right carrying soapbox)

Hi Alistair, do you have links for the Gov2.0 sites in the US, Canada
and the UK?  I'd be interested to see what they say on the subject.

BTW, I tried searching for "Government 2.0 Canada" and found the
following article.
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=48569

Its says, "The term Web 2.0 is used to refer to online collaboration
and user-generated content and the tools that enable these – such as
blogs and wikis. Government 2.0 refers to the application of these
tools by government agencies", which seems to match the wikipedia
definition better than the Gov2.0Canberra one.

Regards,

Wayne Eddy
Re: [Gov2.0Canberra] Re: Government 2.0 Definition Stephen Collins 5/25/09 8:11 PM
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Wayne Eddy <way...@bundaberg.qld.gov.au> wrote:
> Hi Alistair, do you have links for the Gov2.0 sites in the US, Canada
> and the UK?  I'd be interested to see what they say on the subject.

GovLoop - http://govloop.ning.com/
Government 2.0 Club - http://www.government20club.org/

Both US efforts, and both specifically looking for non-US input.

Steve
--
Stephen Collins
Cell +61 410 680722
Skype trib22
www.twitter.com/trib
www.linkedin.com/in/stephencollins

www.acidlabs.org

acidlabs
Conversation. Collaboration. Community.

This email is:   [ ] bloggable   [X] ask first   [ ] private

More topics »