Stimulus and Innovation

When management gurus Jerry Porras and Jim Collins wrote their landmark book Built to Last they could not have foreseen how relevant it might be to an historic global economic recovery. In it, the authors identify and then dissect the classic “tyranny of the or” trap that is all too common in management thinking. Their point was that inferior companies struggle with what appear to be contractions - “you can invest for the future or do well in the short-term”…“you can have low cost or high quality.” Visionary companies are able to live with and exploit contradictory ideas; they find ways to maximize both.

This brings me to the current debate about stimulus spending - that somehow we need to decide whether the money will be invested wisely or quickly, because to do it wisely will take too long for the funds to have the desired short-term impact.

There are lots of reasons to doubt it can be done.

• The sheer scale of the announced spending is unprecedented in many countries.
• The complexity is staggering, with provinces/states, cities, universities, hospitals, transit commissions, and others clamoring for a piece of the pie.
• The public auditors are keeping a watchful eye. As Canada’s Sheila Fraser said, "In all our audits, the criteria we use are based mainly on the government's own rules. Should the government decide to modify its normal processes in delivering the Economic Action Plan, we would expect the rationale to be clearly documented and accountabilities to be clear."[1]
• Government processes are built with control in mind and lack the surge capacity that is desired.

(Source: Assessing Policy Responses to the Economic Crisis – Investing in Innovation for Long-term growth, May 2009, OECD)

However, it is too easy to fall into the trap of accepting that stimulus money cannot be invested quickly and smartly. But to do so, will require governments to innovate while investing. Ideas worth pursuing include:

• Implementing strategies for innovation. In their recently released Public Innovator’s Playbook: Nurturing Bold Ideas in Government, William Eggers and Shalabh Singh present a framework for innovation that is timely for government leaders. Included in the framework are five strategies for government innovation. Especially compelling for stimulus investments are strategies for replicating, partnering, networking and open source solutions. That is, most of what is needed to invest quickly and smartly in infrastructure is already happening in pockets around the globe. The challenge for governments is borrow from each other, rather than re-inventing solutions.
• Adopting investment portfolio management. Another approach is for governments to view the stimulus budgets as a portfolio of investments. This is especially important given that most announcements require government to match funds. Viewing projects as part of bigger portfolios can, for example, lead cities to bundle projects into larger programs, reducing the approval cycles for more projects. Also, within the approved portfolio, if one project is delayed another could be accelerated.
• Introducing outcome-based risk management. A key advantage of most P3 and Alternative Service Delivery programs in recent years has been governments’ willingness to embrace outcomes-based risk management. Simply put, many governments have become better at identifying the risks inherent in projects and assigning them to the most appropriate party (e.g. government or industry). Implementing stimulus programs quickly and smartly will require governments to widely embrace an outcome-orientation to investments, whether working with public or private sector partners.

Simply accepting that more waste than usual is okay given the times, is falling prey to the “tyranny of the or”. We need government leaders who are willing to maximize the opportunity to spend quickly and spend wisely. There has never been a better time to innovate.

With assistance from Sarvani Chakravorty, Deloitte research assistant

[1] http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/fp/warns+Tories+ready+defend+stimulus+spending/1417087/story.html

UK government offering citizens cash prizes for ideas on how to expose government information

11111

as usual, the United Kingdom continues to show as Canadians how government and Web 2.0 should be done.

The UK government has just put up a contest offering 20,000 pounds in prize money,for the best ideas and how to use government data.


11111According to the original article:

Now we want to support projects that you will run to help people to address public issues and influence government.

If you can think of a way to get people talking, we’d like to hear
it. We have £150,000 available to develop about ten proposals.

Now if only I could find some examples of Canadian government leveraging the public like this...

Discussing government 2.0 with policy analysts

I just came back from presenting on the topic of Web 2.0 and government with a group of transportation policy analysts, of course the exact province shall remain nameless to protect the innocent as usual :-).
Paul Macmillan and myself were expecting a half an hour meeting with 4 or 5 folk, it ended up being a 1 1/2 hour meeting with around 40 people. I think my ability to improvise in getting a lot better, and of course Paul is a master.
This is about the sixth presentation that I have given within the last year on Web 2.0 and government and there are two things that I consistently come across.
1) excitement: I can say that with out almost any exception, members of government are incredibly eager to trying new Web 2.0 approaches to more effectively collaborate with citizens, concerned organizations, and each other. There is a palpable frustration around the churn involved using today's methods of providing information and getting feedback on matters of policy.
2) frustration: right now existing procedures and policies are making it very difficult for various members of government to engage using online forums, with user blogs. Facebook is banned for provincial employees within Ontario. So are many other social networking communities. Any time a group of government employees try to set up their own externally facing network they get hit with various roadblocks like the official languages act.
The issue here is that exchange is made on these types of forms and blogs, and message boards are much more like conversations than publicly broadcasted material. In fact the whole differentiation between a private conversation and a public conversation become a a lot murkier when using these kinds of tools. Clearly laws need to be updated, and policies need to be rewritten. It's a bit like the wild West out there currently. I find it difficult to advise on these issues except to say that being a risk taker by nature, I would recommend starting a social networking site anyway even if it violates a couple of policies. In this case it seems clearly easier to beg for forgiveness and ask for permission...

Government 2.0 And Municipal Government

Paul Macmillan and myself just had a great meeting with a municipal CIO, whom in order to protect the innocent will remain anonymous for the purpose of this post. :-)

We had a chance to briefly discuss Deloitte's view on the value of government 2.0, as well as some considerations around government 2.0 adoption. Our CIO had some great comments around some of the challenges in embracing of a Web 2.0 philosophy within the context of a municipal government. I thought that I would share these challenges with interested readers out there.

• Traditionally, municipal governments have a lot less IT budget than there provincial counterparts. When compared to provincial or federal, most municipal governments actually have an order of magnitude less IT staff per IT user. This is especially true for larger municipalities.
• This has required most municipal IT organizations to place greater emphasis on consistency, stability, and operations. This approach allows for better operational efficiency, and allows the municipal IT organization to stretch their dollar.
• Unfortunately, this also means a historical underinvestment in strategy, architecture, and it makes it much more difficult to innovate. There is very little money to support a heterogeneous environment.
• There are serious concerns around simple basic infrastructure which makes the idea of accessible Web 2.0 collaborative service challenging. As an example, many recreational centers in major cities do not have any Internet access whatsoever.
• Another concern has been raised around the need for cities that are multicultural and multilingual to support communities, collaborative environments, and other services in a fashion that is consumable by all of these varied citizens. Accessibility for all income levels and cultures is a priority.
• Finally, because of the emphasis on operations within the municipal government there is a fear that "opening up the floodgates" using Web 2.0 technologies to collaboration with citizens could make it very difficult for council members and other government employees to effectively sort through all the comments and feedback that could be provided by concerned citizens.

These are all valid concerns, and while I do have answers to almost all of them, I thought I would leave that for another post. If anybody out there has their own answers, or have some more challenges to add to a docking Web 2.0 tools and culture within municipal government and would welcome any feedback.

Interactive government gains momentum

I recently published an article about Web 2.0 Interactive government in the Canadian Government Executive (CGE) magazine that I would like to share on this blog

When William Eggers wrote his landmark book, Government 2.0, in 2005, he predicted that governments around the world would have to embrace the information age, abandoning industrial age management concepts of hierarchy, specialization and control in favour of openness, collaboration and community. The growing interest in, and acceptance of, Web 2.0 strategies and tools not only validates Eggers’ prediction, it holds the potential to become a truly transformative force.

That transition to a more interactive form of government is already underway as agencies begin to leverage this newfound capability. For example, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in an attempt to deal with an overwhelming backlog of patent applications and pressure from the hi-tech industry, agreed to pilot a wiki – a Web page or site that allows anyone to contribute – that would allow citizens to comment on prior art. This is the first time in the more than 100-year history of the USPTO that citizens have been able to directly share input on patent applications. Moreover, the wiki provides patent officers with access to intellectual capital from around the world.

Similarly, the District of Columbia has put the procurement of a police evidence warehouse online, with the bidders conference available on YouTube.

This trend extends to sensitive government areas formerly thought to be off limits to such openness. The Central Intelligence Agency’s Intellipedia wiki is available to any intelligence employee with classified clearance. It facilitates more efficient and rapid cross-agency collaboration and analysis, and has already proven its worth in high-profile situations. For example, when New York Yankees player Corey Lidle accidentally crashed his private plane into a Manhattan apartment building in 2006, CIA analysts used Intellipedia to rapidly pool their efforts and conclude that it was not a terrorist act.

Other governments around the world are creating wikis to obtain citizen input to proposed legislation; mashing-up information to map everything from traffic congestion to disaster relief and creating inter-agency collaborative sites in an effort to eliminate decades-old information fiefdoms.

The key advantage of this new generation of online tools and processes lies in its transparency. Because a wider range of stakeholders can view and be involved in the process, the government benefits from significantly improved levels of participation. It’s difficult for anyone to ignore, which in turn helps fuel the transformation.

Evolving landscape
For governments asking why they need to move to a Web 2.0 environment in the first place, the answer is simple: the world around government is changing. This is what it means for government leaders:

1. To be relevant you have to be connected. The Pew Research Center, a leading opinion research group, tells us that 33 percent of young Internet users have rated the performance of people, products or services, making this group a powerful force in setting consumer opinions. Facebook, with 70 million subscribers, is the sixth-busiest website on the planet and a hotbed of activity for new, interactive applications. Social networking is also going mobile: over half of Research In Motion’s two million new subscribers in the last quarter were from the consumer market. This reinforces how rapidly citizens are moving online. U.S. newspaper companies have lost approximately 30-40 percent of their market value in the past three years as consumers flock to online information sources and advertisers follow. Since governments need to be in contact with citizens to be effective, they must enter the online world. This means much more than the “one-window” strategy of e-government, where it was assumed that citizens would come to government. Now, government needs to go where citizens are meeting – online.

2. Historically successful solutions are no longer adequate. Web 2.0 is about Internet speed in communications, collaboration and performance. It’s about open source solutions and transparency of information. The State of Louisiana has combined Google Earth-based mapping technology with digital aerial photos and other data to create a statewide mapping capability that supports emergency response and disaster relief. This was completed with online community participation and minimal software licensing costs. The new IT world is about leveraging, networking and connecting – a process that extends far beyond earlier attempts at complex, holistic solutions. The U.S. federal government’s approach of “letting a thousand flowers bloom” reflects the new order.

3. Everyone’s an intermediary. In today’s world of bloggers and information services, government’s approach to information sharing needs to change. Whether it is private firms such as Earth911.org or Nature.com that provide public services or grass roots communities and soccer moms that are spearheading involvement, governments need to understand the communities that serve as conduits of information for the public. Agencies are also relying on these tools to raise the level of conversation with their customers. The Toronto Transit Commission, for example, is using feedback from transit users frustrated by the lack of customized trip guidance to implement changes to its 10-year-old website. Local bloggers solicit input on behalf of the TTC, which the Commission subsequently incorporates into plans for the next major version of its site. This partnership allows the TTC to provide real-time information on service delays and help disabled users schedule trips online. Future services will include personalized maps to help riders get to their chosen destination.

4. Local is global (and vice versa). Avian flu, SARS, the war on terror, cyber-threats, financial meltdowns and a host of other concerns are both local and global in nature. The new generation of online tools can help governments collaborate on a global stage. Many of the challenges that societies face today have global origins and implications. Government leaders need to collaborate on a global scale if they are to be effective in addressing local concerns. For example, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is using its Evolution of Security blog to encourage communication between the TSA and passengers. By sharing background on the complex and rapidly changing security regulations in place at the nation’s airports, the agency makes its processes more transparent and maximizes the potential for compliance. The website also allows the TSA to more easily act on suggestions from travelers to improve workflow and increase security.

Overcoming fear of the unknown
Government leaders who are embracing Web 2.0 strategies and tools consistently say that the biggest hurdle to further adoption is fear of the unknown. Normally when governments embark on what they see as transformational changes, they begin with extensive planning, massive budget submissions and lengthy approval processes. This has the advantage, or perhaps illusion, of providing comfort that most of the unknowns have been considered and the risks mitigated.

Web 2.0 solutions don’t offer or require the lengthy pre-planning periods of traditional information technology projects. They can be up and running for little cost. But they are transparent and citizen acceptance can’t be predicted or contained in the way that e-government portals have been in the past. Governments will have to evolve their expectations accordingly if the resulting radically different interactive landscape is to survive and thrive.

At the same time, these are not unguided or unmanaged citizen interactions. Rather, they are intended to complement and support other more traditional forms of citizen service, public consultation and information sharing. And as momentum builds, citizens will see the benefits of more effective policy, more rapid response and a level of transparency in government that has been unattainable to date.

Also in that same edition of CGE magazine is an article by Robert Parkins (editorial director of Canadian Government Executive) who provides Web 2.0 commentary in his article entitled “Vision-testing the vision”. In addition to describing our firm’s report as “a nifty piece,” Parkins also refers to its authors as “the management heavyweights at Deloitte Consulting.” His conclusion is that “Web 2.0 is happening, all right, but…that it is also still very much a work in progress.”

US Government Insights on Web 2.0

I had the opportunity to attend a Deloitte conference on Web 2:0 and the Future of Collaborative Government in Washington DC on June 3rd. The conference was co-sponsored with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). The session was well attended by U.S. Federal government executives and was highly interactive. The goal for the session was to develop a roadmap that outlines the operational changes that need to occur to fully take advantage of Web 2.0 technologies. The results will be posted on the NAPA site Collaborationproject.org. This site is a must see for managers interested in public sector case studies and content related to this rapidly growing trend.

Steve Goldsmith, Professor of Government at the Kennedy School of Government and the former Mayor of Indianapolis presented a ringing endorsement of the need for governments to embrace this trend as a way to partner with “co-producers” of public value (i.e. governments need to work with citizens and other stakeholders to provide the public value that citizens expect). Grassroots Web 2.0 sites like DonorsChoose.org and modestneeds site were referenced as examples of how “micro philanthropy” is emerging as a new means to meet social needs. But larger government projects such as the Australia Tax Authority’s “Listening to the Citizen” program and New Zealand’s giant on-line focus group of 50,000 seniors were also provided as examples of how these changes are taking hold.

Frank DiGiammarino, Vice President with NAPA made and excellent presentation on how Web 2.0 technologies can support the ideas and concepts that governments have wanted to implement regarding transformational change. Frank referenced the U.S. Transportation Safety Agency (TSA) Idea Factory as a leading example of how 43,000+ employees can be engaged in identifying opportunities to improve citizen service. And, how the new TSA head, Kip Hawley’s external blog is changing the way citizen feedback is gathered and acted upon. But his best analogy was how government leaders today are engaged a ‘3D Chess” when it comes to managing their businesses. That is to say, old hierarchies and single widow approaches to leading organizations are now longer enough, as ideas are generated for all levels and across organizational boundaries. The best examples at the State level, according to Frank, are the Virtual Alabama site and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Puget Sound mashup site.
Dr. Mike Wertheimer of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) provided a compelling story about how the US intelligence community to moving forward with fundamental changes to how information is shared and data analytics are conducted across some 16 US security agencies. Mike’s most compelling story was about his recollections of how in the early 1980’s people you to look forward to coming to work at U.S. security establishments because they were building things and doing things that they could not do anywhere else. Unfortunately, to paraphrase Mike, overtime, people have had to leave their imaginations at home. But DNI is changing that by encouraging innovation and adoption of new technologies, including experimentation with virtual realities, to push Analysts to think “two steps ahead in pursuing agency mission”.

Finally, Bruce McConnell of Government Futures presented how his firm is introducing predicative markets technology to governments. This capability brings industry practices of taping into the collective wisdom of employees and other stakeholders to predict or forecast outcomes. An interesting potential application of these tools that emerged during the Q&A discussion related to large IT projects, e.g. what if the business case and project plan for a major IT transformation was shared with employees and they were asked to predict the likelihood of it being delivered as planned, and employees were asked to state their reasons for predicting yes or no? Would this ultimately lead to a higher success rate for IT projects?

Overall, it was an excellent day and, in my mind at least, that Canada has some things to learn from our US neighbors.

---

Authors

• Paul Macmillan

Deloitte government 2.0 paper mentioned by ITbusiness

I just stumbled upon a article that discusses the recent announcement by the Canadian federal government concerning purchases of open text wiki. The article makes some pretty good references to our paper on the case for Government 2.0 .

A recent report by financial advisory firm Deloitte and Touche LLP pinpoints four key areas where governments can achieve some critical Web 2.0 payback.

the article then goes on to speak about the four key areas, and give some supporting evidence. Of course you can always get the original report here.