Design Principles

[Lucas Cioffi]

Let's begin a conversation about the design principles laid out
below. What will work? What won't work? What are we missing?
___________________________________________________

This event will be transparent, participatory, and highly
collaborative.

OGD UnCon will take place 30-60 days after the OGD is issued. The
purpose of the event is to identify barriers to successful
implementation of the Directive and to share best practices across
agencies.

What: an unconference focused on implementation of the Open Government
Directive (challenges, case studies, and next steps)
Who: federal, state, and local government employees collaborating with
the open government community
Where: Washington, DC

Planning for the unconference has not yet begun, so all these ideas
are open to modification. Here are some starting principles which are
completely open to improvement:

* To increase public sector turnout, the event will take place on a
Monday and will not cost anything for government employees.
* Non-government employees will pay a modest fee to cover the costs of
the event (perhaps in the range of $30-$50). This will help us ensure
that RSVP numbers are accurate and will pay for a decent venue.
* There will be no need for sponsors.
* All organizers will be volunteers and the registration fees will go
directly to food, venue, and supplies-- no profit.
* The event will have a heavy live-streaming component so Americans
outside the Beltway can participate in a meaningful way.
* Instead of a standard tech fair where vendors have booths and talk
about their products, this unconference will be a an opportunity for
people to kick the tires on these apps to make sure they work as
advertised. The main point is not to sell yet another bright and shiny
software program; the main point is to combine face-to-face discussion
and all appropriate technologies to create solutions and solve
problems that government employees face every day.

[Jenn Gustetic]

I would recommend that instead of focusing only on the technology
components/ programs/ case studies, we also discuss the policy and
culture components since those will be critical to implementing the
directive as well. The components that we see as important in the
initial assessment phase are:
Technology (Security, Tools, Pilots)
Policy (Legal, Performance, Mission)
Culture (Organizational Maturity, Communication Channels, Agency
Stakeholders, Participatory Activities)

We'll have a blog posting up in the next couple weeks that will go
through each of these components in more detail and why they should
each be considering in developing a strategy. (http://
blog.phaseonecg.com/) The bottom line recommendation I have however is
to make sure we don't just focus on implementation of a particular
program or tool, but helping agencies that are relatively new to this
concept figure out where to even start.

Thanks for organizing! This is going to be great!
Jenn Gustetic

[Scott Bryan]

I think the first step is to crystallize our goal, to create as sharp
and clear a picture of what we'd like to eventually achieve. I
believe this is nothing less than empowering the public to oversee the
government as effectively as possible. That means creating incentives
that genuinely lure people into acquiring a meaningful understanding
of whatever it is they are concerned about. Creating roles for people
who do understand an agency or database to serves as docents,
evangelists, and even deputies with some authority to manage abusive
users. I think we should consider creating a virtual currency--
political capital--that participants earn a steady income of but that
evaporates relatively rapidly (like 20%/month) if unspent. By letting
them spend it to support or oppose policy options we might harvest a
better idea of how the public feels about the choices facing policy
makers. Or delegate it secretly to someone they find that they
consider more competent than they are to spend it wisely. If we
design a site that is capable of genuinely harvesting the wisdom and
insight of large numbers of our public it's likely that we will
actually achieve a quantum leap in the ability of policy makers to do
their jobs brilliantly.

I think we need to appreciate the attitude we must adopt to achieve
this and remind ourselves of it constantly. We need a mantra the
captures the gist of the effort. Something that will leave us
predisposed to find a consistency and breath integrity into our
designs. Something like "Where you go to spend the political capital
you didn't know you had." Or "The difference between a politician and
a public servant is that the latter makes it's impossible to be
confused with the former, while the former simply leaves that as an
exercise for the reader."

Coming up with a algorithm or at least a strategy to apply those
principles wisely depends a lot on how precisely and clearly we can
envision the result we are seeking.

[NoelDickover]

Hi Lucas,

I was just wondering about the rational regarding the decision to go
with fees versus sponsorship.

Especially if we get a venue that requires some fee, it seems to me
that unless we get a solid number of early attendees who pay, it will
be hard to make any commitments - meaning someone will have to be out
on risk. Usually this is what conference companies do, for instance.
With sponsorships, you can wait on the venue until you get a sense of
the sponsor dollars that will come in. With sponsors, going into the
final day, you have a much greater chance of equaling out your cash
received and payed out.

The other issue I like with the sponsorship model is it makes everyone
equal - the govt and non-govt attendees all contributed the same
amount, which I think makes the conversations more collegial. That's
just my perspective though - it might be interesting to see an
unconference with this type of pay model.

Noel

[Steve Ressler]

Great stuff. 

I lean with Noel on going sponsorship vs paid.  As we've seen with Gov 2.0 camp and the other camps, it's usually pretty easy with a little outreach to get enough money to fund the event.

To me - the mission of the event is really to bring the tribe together towards implementing the Open Gov Directive.  If we could have a giant brainstorm through the camp, capture ideas from all the smart people there and continue to connect people - that would be a success.

And then in conclusion, I'd wrap it all up into a 10-page e-book that can be emailed around (with possibly corresponding wiki reference).

Would love to help however I can...

-Steve

--
Steve Ressler
Founder and President of GovLoop
email - fou...@govloop.com
mobile - (202) 445-0084
twitter - @govloop
govloop - govloop.com/profile/sressler

[Stephen Buckley]

Dear All,

Judging from the attendance at previous "open-gov" unconferences, I see that there are all types of people, inside and outside of government, who are interested in finding "best practices" for achieving a more "transparent and open government".

However, I think we need to keep in mind that, if this gathering is for the "practitioners" of the (by then released) Open Government Directive (OGD), then we are talking those federal employees who have been (or think they might be) tasked to carry out (i.e., implement) the OGD.

Of course, there are many outside of the federal government (including ex-feds like me) who eagerly want to help the "federal practitioners" figure out the best ways to do that job.

BUT it is the "federal practitioners" who will decide what THEY need in order to take their first steps.  If they are the primary customers of this event, then it should revolve around THEIR needs (and not what WE think they need).

Of course, they (and all the rest of us) don't really know -- yet -- about what those needs are, because the OGD has not been issued yet.  But whatever the OGD contains, and no matter how well-written it is, the federal practitioners will still have questions about how they should move forward.

And that's because there has NEVER been a first-version of a federal directive (at any level) that was perfectly clear to the bureaucrats to whom it was addressed.  Even the best ones result in requests for further clarification and guidance.

"Okay, Boss -- you say that you want me to do ( ______ ) 'more' and 'better'?"

"How much 'more' do you want?  And what do you mean by 'better'?"

So, assuming that there will be more than just a couple of unclear aspects to the OGD (ha!), I think we can move ahead with the idea that the unconference -- at the very least -- will allow a way for the federal practitioners to:

(1)  Say what THEY see as the most unclear sections of the OGD, and then
(2)  Rank those sections according what needs to be clarified first.

In essence, we should enable them (the customers) to generate a genuine "Frequently-Asked Questions" (FAQs) about the Open Government Directive.   (This is not the fake kind of FAQs generated by a P.R. Dept. as it tries to anticipate questions about a brand-new product).

Yes, of course it would also be fun for attendees at the OGD-Uncon to then discuss the possible answers to those questions but -- to me, at least -- anything that happens *after* generating an "FAQs on the ODG" would be frosting on the cake.

As an ex-federal employee experienced in "implementation" of policy, I know how frustrating it is when top-management issues a directive long on rhetoric and buzzwords, but short on specifics.  ("Make it So!")  Based on that experience, I know that the people who will be charged with implementing the Open Government Directive will be looking for one thing above all:

Real clear directions on what they are supposed to do.

Bottom-line:  In order to make federal agencies more transparent, the directions to federal employees should also be transparent (i.e., clear) to them.  The OGD-UnCon can let them say which parts of the OG Directive are not clear to them.

I look forward to hearing your feedback on this suggestion (esp. if I have been unclear!).
 
vr,
Stephen Buckley
moderator, OpenGovernmentDirective google-group
http://UStransparency.com
http://twitter.com/transpartisan

=======================================

[Jenn Gustetic]

I agree 100% with Stephen and Steve that the audience will likely be
diverse and we should provide different degree of learning for the
folks that will bring many different levels of knowledge to the event.
But as with any super intelligent and motivated group of folks, I
think we should let them run wild with the brainstorming at the event,
but also provide some structure with time boxing around specific
subject areas. I think these learning/subject areas can be divided
into four meta-areas:

Understanding the Mandate:
1. What does the open government directive REALLY direct me to do
(FAQs per Stephen's suggestion)

Understanding the Needs of my Agency in a Systematic Way:
2. Where does my agency currently stand in my efforts? (the components
I talk about in my earlier post that will equip people to understand
all the areas they need to explore in their "as-is" assessment in
order to know what open government efforts could work best for their
Agency)

Understanding Agency-Specific Goals and Performance Drivers for Gov
2.0
3. Where should my agency strive to be?

Understanding the Tools and Best Practices:
4. How do I get there using available tools and best practices?
5. How do I improve on the efforts I already have underway?

This is about the people that are going to struggle with implementing
open gov--and how they can do it in the best possible way for their
agency.

If we divide some topic areas like this we may even be able to wiki
the outcome document starting now, by opening up "chapters" for folks
to edit with their best practices, strategy approaches, understanding
of what gov 2.0 means, performance goals, and PMO lessons learned.

Thoughts on the topic areas?

Jenn

> moderator, OpenGovernmentDirective google-grouphttp://UStransparency.comhttp://twitter.com/transpartisan

> >email - <mailto:foun...@govloop.com>foun...@govloop.com

> >mobile - (202) 445-0084
> >twitter - @govloop

> >govloop - <http://govloop.com/profile/sressler>govloop.com/profile/sressler- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[chapk...@gmail.com]

I agree, would only add that we ascertain risk and challenges.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Jenn Gustetic <jenn.g...@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 06:42:13
To: Open Government Directive Unconference (OGD UnCon)<OGD-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [OGD-Uncon] Re: Design Principles

> "Okay, Boss -- you say that you want me to do (______ ) 'more' and 'better'?"

[ken]

I am forwarding this message from our founder, Alexander Christakis.
It sets forth our viewpoint on the need for a participative link
betwee dialogue and deliberation.
Ken Bausch
Director
Institute for 21st Century Agoras


Like you, we trace our inspiration back to the agora of Athens.
Democracy made Athens a dynamic, creative force 2500 years ago. Even
then, however, democracy was fragile, sometimes stupid, and short-
lived. Since that time democracy has become evermore removed from
everyday people.

We share your belief that the Information Age offers us a way to make
participative democracy work today. We do not believe, however, that
unstructured discussion on the Athenian model is adequate for dealing
with the complexities of the Information Age. It was not adequate
even for the simpler situations of that bygone age.

We want to create are communities energized by vibrant participative
democracy. In our Information Age as old hierarchies prove
dysfunctional, it is imperative that human communities have flexible
ways to tap their wisdom and power. We believe the Information Age
offers us a way to make participative democracy work today. Research
and proven methodology aided by computing power has solved the basic
dilemma of democracy: How can we hear perspectives of all the
stakeholders, dialogue about them, and still reach decisions and act
on pressing issues?

This methodology was not available 40 years ago during the founding of
the Club of Rome. As one of its founders, I learned early that the
global institutions at that time were being created as specialized
instruments of telling, rather than as instruments of transparent
inquiry. The emergence of the powerful field of System Dynamics
fueled a generation of top-down, expert-led institutions and think
tanks. Along with the distinguished systems thinker and fellow co-
founder of the Club of Rome, Hasan Özbekhan, I took an alternative
path.

My career has been devoted to advancing powerful technologies for
multi-stakeholder situational inquiry and design. I am writing to you
in an appeal to elevate our dialogues to the level of transparent
collaborative design. We call this service a “technology of
democracy.” I organized the Institute for 21st Century Agoras, an
international nonprofit organization established a decade ago, to
promote this technology for system-level inquiry and problem-solving.
The world desperately needs a forum for the design of democratic
institutions. Without the capacity to enable authentic democracy we
are victims of the good intentions of experts, their decision support
tools, and their consulting practices, These tools are designed to
help technical analysis of complexity, but they were never designed to
deal with the challenge of engaging large and disparate perspectives
into shared commitment for action.

We live in a world where we will collectively gain only if we
cooperate. We need innovation in our use of social design
technologies in order to resolve this core problem. I am saying that
this innovation is actually already in hand yet it is held back by the
traditions of centralized governance.

We all agree that we must move into the realm of active engagement.
However, the political will to do "something" does not assure that we
will do "something right.” This concern will continue to work against
us all until we give the people of the world a new model of decision
making upon which to place their trust. The people need to be
actively engaged in the discovery of their social situation before
they will commit to act upon that finding.

It is not a matter of giving people a means of talking; it is a matter
of giving people a means of listening to and learning from each
other. The institutions that we are missing in the world are the
institutions that will allow us to achieve the goal of constructing
bottoms-up shared understandings for which citizens enter into
contracts for mutual benefit. My life’s work has convinced me that
strong, agile and adaptive global institutions cannot be constructed
on understandings alone, they must be constructed on commitment to
ways of forging understandings. Facts and situations change much more
rapidly than our approaches for understanding facts and situations.
Institutions wedded to the belief that the future we are facing today
is the future we will be facing tomorrow anchor us to yesterday's
wisdom. Effective institutions SHOULD be founded on ways of
discovering and acting wisely, rather than just on ways of knowing and
managing.

We are not convinced that an extensive harvesting of creative ideas
will result in a strong link of ideas with commitment to action.
Rather, we are concerned with the continuity of idea gathering and
constructing shared views of problems that are a prerequisite for
jointly owning -- and only then jointly solving -- complex problems.

Transparent collaborative design provides the necessary participative
link between dialogue and deliberation. We at the Institute for 21sr
Century Agoras invite you into a discussion about how it can
contribute to your citizen engagement efforts.

Sincerely,

Alexander N. Christakis

Founder, Institute for 21st Century Agoras

[ananias]

I agreed with Alexander Christakis perspective entirely. I'm hoping
something emerges from the google WAVE platform that's more suitable
than this interface which I find rather cumbersome. We need a tool
that allows us to harvest our collective insight in order to design a
better tool to do the same thing. A bootstrapping problem.

I think that with a cleverly designed collection of interactive
elements in shared documents we should be able to cobble something
together that allows a more tightly focused collaboration to take
place.

[Lance Simon]

iCohere offers its platform to be used for the OGD UnCon.

http://www.icohere.com

This is a GSA-approved product, small business offering (OSBDU) and is current in use by Forest Service, DoL, National Defense University, NIH, USAID and others.

Lance A. Simon
lance....@gmail.com
Office + Mobile (202) 870-6146

[ananias]

I've reviewed the http://www.icohere.com offerings and don't think it
offers much in the way of facilitating more focused discussions. The
reason I like Google's WAVE is that it allows us to jump in anywhere--
in the middle of a sentence even--to create new branch or direction
for the discussion. I like the shared document model, and google's
architecture best, because it promises to foster a great many special
purpose widgets meant to be included in documents that can do things
like poll readers, rank alternatives, collect list items, and
automatically update related documents.

I believe we're going to have to dramatically improve our ability to
communicate precisely and that the shared document model can help us
do that by parsing our comments to create glossaries of the objects
and concepts we define and use. After writing a post, we might do a
little post-processing that consists of precisely linking phrases of
text to more verbose descriptions in a glossary (that are impractical
to be us define as explicitly each time they are referred to in a
discussion.) That will allow us to do things like simply restate
something said by someone else and allow each reader to indicate with
version seemed more clear or readable to them. Nothing like that
seems even possible in approach that iCohere has taken.

[ken]

Our method of transparent collaborative design is Structured Dialogic
Design (SDD), which is thoroughy explained in the book How People
Harness their Collective Wisdom and Power www.harnessingcollectivewisdom.com.
We have made significant progress in adapting this process to the
Internet in what we call the Webscope. This adaptation at present
relies upon a combination of a restricted access wiki, interactive
teleconferencing and the SDD software.

If uncon members were interested, we can provide the process, but it
will require patience of the participants. The basic process is the
formation of a triggering question; Sequenced answers; Honoring
everyone's autonomy;clustering answers; voting on what is considered
important; and software-assisted determination of the most
influiential factors. This last step Interactive Structural Modeling
(ISM) prevents participants from falling for Erroneous Priorities.
The follow-up sessions generate prospective solutions focussed upon
the root causes identified in ISM and select prioritized activities to
counteract them.

I would be happy to discuss SDD with you. We might even generate
funds to integrate the Webscope into an integrated Web-based product.