One of the things we hope to see in the US is something akin to a public utility for Web 2.0 type capabilities, where the govt mission owner would just need to come to the table with a problem and a potential direction – they wouldn’t need either funding or real technology know-how to get things going (they still would need knowledge of the strategy in applying the tools). The thought would be that you remove the power from the IT shop and put it in the hands of those who can exploit it.

I don’t know if you could do similar things (assuming we even do something like this), but that might help with the expertise problem.

The problems I see are two-fold.

One is definitely your first point – lack of support from top-down. Let’s face it: they don’t trust all these new technologies emerging, and possibly they have good reasoning behind their mistrust. They’re probably sick of hearing about it too – they’ve climbed up the ladder, they’ve put in their time, they’ve paid their dues, and all of a sudden, they get some Gen Y-er teaching them things that they haven’t lived with as long as these young whipper-snappers.

I get it. It’s a generational thing… we’re digital natives and we’re far more immersed in these technologies. It’s easy for us to learn them and use them because it’s second nature to us, not to them. Too often, I’m seeing leaders trying to incorporate social media in communications products, but they’re trying to fit them into antiquated strategies. The first question I was asked when writing a plan for Twitter was “What’s the demographic using Twitter?” I felt like replying: “It doesn’t matter. But you won’t get that.”

Top-down resistance is going to hinder the speed at which Canadian governments adopt social media tools. Until we get an Obama-type leader in this country, I expect this to continue.

The second problem I see is lack of bottom-up initiative. I do see your point about expertise: why would a good IT person stay with an organization that doesn’t value his or her skills? That doesn’t consider projects that use new technology because it doesn’t fit in their cookie-cutter strategies? Makes sense.

But I see young people, people my age, who don’t see the point of social media. Sure, they’re on Facebook… they’re using some social networking things. But they don’t immediately see the potential at work, especially not in government. Because we’re still using Outlook 2002, and because our computers have 512MB of ram, and because we still use paper approvals and our stakeholders don’t use tracking in Word to add comments to our products… Twitter? Yea, right. Like anyone’s going to support that! From the grassroots level, we don’t even bother trying because we’re so far behind. It seems futile.

I think two things need to happen here: One, a young person gets into a position of some power or authority and runs his or her work environment in the 21st century. Two, he or she needs to convince the bosses that they should be doing likewise. The change has to come from both directions… I’ll continue pushing my ideas, and hopefully get some support from people who have been around longer than me – there has to be mutual respect here. I’m not saying I’m some know it all – far from it… I’m learning the ropes and I’m a baby just yet. But my generation needs to help me out, here… too much apathy. Far too much.

When they first put admin. manuals on line, they scanned them in, when they could have much better organized the info as a database. Then they sent everyone off to learn how to use the yahoo search engine, but not how to navigate the manuals on line, and effectively search them. Everyone was frustrated, and complained they missed being able to use stickies.

Another issue is ownership. There are a few people of my (boomer) generation who think they have no right to share their understanding because it’s just one subjective voice, and they need some sort of institutional legitimacy, or at least some sort of quorum, to chirp at all. (Then they complain about not being heard…*~*) People feel unconsciously that they need permission to reason and express their arguments because reasoning has long been usurped by bureaucratic process in some areas. (Or could we say, “rationalized by irrational bureacratic processes…?”)

That being said, we do need some STRATEGIC leadership and governance around the IM/IT/KM piece or it will be garbled.

Your 2 points make sense, Doug, but only from the pov of “business as usual.” My prob is that I believe the days of bau are over. I think that, until the GoC goes through the same transformational change that’s rocking a lot of corps’ and business’ worlds out there, we can kiss the implementation of Web 2.0 in the GoC goodbye.

Too, the only way the right change is gonna happen is from the bottom up. With this in mind, today’s public servants need to take the same approach that people took a decade ago on the internet.

The development of the social Web didn’t get approval from anyone and it didn’t rely completely on technical experts to evolve. It grew out of experimentation, innovation, lack of rules, workarounds, failures, successes, etc. It grew out of our need to solve old problems in new ways. And, most of all, it grew out of our desire to have a voice, to share and to connect.

And you know what? Even though we GoC workers might not have access to Youtube or Facebook, there are ways that we can use social media PRINCIPLES and even some tools, right now, to solve actual business needs.

Without going into too much detail, here are some examples of what I do in my comms shop, even with outdated software, negligible computing power, pathetic bandwidth and limited access to online tools and sites, etc:

- RSS feeds to grease the flow of info — RSS feeds can be sent to email, phone, twitter, etc. You can even have feeds converted to speech
- iGoogle, Google Reader, Netvibes, Technorati, Google blog search, Pageflakes, myYahoo, etc. for media monitoring (specifically social media monitoring
- Twitter to connect w peeps in your branch, dep’t, etc, to promote good causes, give people a new perspective on old ways of meeting, direct people to important information, communicate internally on important issues, peoplesource, get or provide quick answers to questions, etc
- Xing, Linkedin, Facebook (if u can) to find resources, network, connect, promote, etc
- GCpedia, xternal wikis, Google dox to collaborate on projects, send surveys, develop content, etc
- Youtube or internal video to promote news, information, announcements, events, to the public or to staff
- Brighttalk to webcast for free

Also, we should find ways to work the principles of social media into the HLBRs of our IT projects. This will guarantee the creation of approved inhouse social media tools that can facilitate the liberation and two-way sharing of information, allow departments to listen better, build loyal communities, etc.

I say, stop wasting time waiting for senior management to “wake up.” Let’s create a GoC groundswell that will be too powerful to ignore. Every social media evangelist, aficionado and dabbler in the GoC should start using what social media tools in whatever way they can to solve real business problems. And they should be looking at ways to incorporate the principles of social media into the work they do.

Following in the spirit that brought us Web 2.0 on the internet will bring us a lot closer to Web 2.0 in government than waiting for approvals.

-R

[...] As mentioned, it’s now day 57 since publicly stating my first request for the head of the Public Service to demonstrate Web 2.0 leadership. I’ve repeated it afterwards, and still consider it crucial for Web 2.0 to progress in government.  [...]

I’m under 30. I’m a blogger. I have a Twitter feed. I use Facebook. Subscribe to RSS feeds. Post my photos on Flickr. Bookmark on Delicious. And yes I even Wiki.

So while I agree in part with some of your statements about the lack of leadership and lack of expertise, I disagree at where the message is being directed.

We, the Web 2.0 promoters, should really be looking deep down inside ourselves on the methods that we have applied up until now to try to influence the use of Web 2.0.

Where have we demonstrated leadership in bringing people on board, providing mentoring, guidance, support to ensure that no one gets left behind as we embark into the world of Web 2.0?

How have we facilitated effective dialogues between different viewpoints and brought people into shared understanding and shared vision?

How have we demonstrated the value of using Web 2.0? And I don’t mean Web 2.0 for the sake of Web 2.0. I mean taking the time to look at real complex problems facing day to day business, helping others share in the understanding of those problems, and then possibly providing Web 2.0 as a solution that’s objectively better than other possible solutions.

What have we done to ensure that people create good quality, meaningful, and valuable content that doesn’t just clutter up “bandwidth” and makes it even more difficult to sift through the garbage already stored in our document management systems, intranet sites, databases, and emails?

How have we taken the time to stop, look around, and recognize the small progress that has been made and provide positive reinforcement to those who have at least made some attempts and held them up as examples to be followed?

How often do we take the time to demonstrate the use of Web 2.0 as means for effective dialogue, group decision making, developing shared meaning, maintaining group cohesion, and promoting accountability?

I feel that we need to do a much better job of demonstrating leadership from the bottom up and helping others develop the necessary expertise by promoting education and continuous learning not just from IT, but from all the disciplines that are needed to make Web 2.0 a success.

“A revolution doesn’t happen when a society adopts new tools. It happens when society adopts new behaviours.” – Clay Shirky

Web 2.0 is just another tool and there will be plenty more “versions” by the time we’re done. What we should really be after is using these tools to influence human behaviour and improve the nature of our work. And if we can do that, then we’ll have proven ourselves as worthy leaders of tomorrow.

Hi Amanda –
Very interesting comment.

I know our Natural Resources department, who have an excellent and standard-setting implementation of a Wiki (built on Mediawiki) underline the focus that their wiki is not an IT project, but an IM project. IT supports it.

I also illustrated my analogy that IM and IT should relate like the chef and the farmer. I continue to see its relevance (tooting own horn here).

Ideally, IT is service-oriented. I see this as increasingly difficult to argue in the government context, as the pressures for e-government (as I’ve recently read today in an academic text) are so different (and lagging behind) e-business developments, which have learned much from the dot-com bust. This makes sense though – there isn’t yet a model for balancing fulfilling requirements of responsibility & accountability with the implementation of service-improving tools like Web 2.0

Thanks for your feedback.

Hi Rob Wiebe, thanks for your comment.

“days of bau are over”
bau?

Good idea re: creating a bottom-up groundswell –
But how do you want to create a GoC groundswell when we are limited by the gatekeeper IT folk who keep the gate closed because there’s lack of support from the top?

Some people do have great managers who support them and can provide this support (I for one have it), but we’re not all so lucky, and the critical mass of influence-making support is still very far from being attained to make any change, imho.

All too often, those who are in a position to propose Web 2.0 tools don’t have the resource/access. And those who have resources and access to develop the Web 2.0 tools aren’t in a position to propose Web 2.0 tools. Without support from the top, I see it as problematic for these people to push down the silos and make bottom-up change. I do see it as possible in the private “open” sector, but not in government of Canada. I hope I’m wrong – but again, I have that support and access, but I’m lonely here. I need others around, and that’s how I’m trying to influence this change myself, trying to identify and break down the barriers (hence the ranting blog post).

Thanks for your feedback.

Hi Peter, thanks for your comment.

What Web 2.0 tools are we “demonstrating” if…we can’t implement and use these tools in GC? Heck, some departments are blocked access from these tools. What can they demonstrate?

I see that we can demonstrate Web 2.0 leadership from the bottom until the cows come home. But who’s listening?

It seems the Government is more responsive to external pressures, by the citizenry demanding/expecting our government to be more connected. Perhaps the web 2.0 front won’t come from within, but from outside as citizens expect higher levels of e-government standards in service delivery. And those citizens would speak to the political presence.
Although from outside the Public Service, that would be bottom-up influence.
Just hopefully it gives way to supporting internalefforts to unblocking/relaxing conditions against/support for implementing Web 2.0 tools…

Hi Meznor – well put. Thanks for your comment.

You’ve reminded me of a post I want to publish about the inter-generational divide in the public service. It would be scathing yet forgiving –
I want to argue that experience actually doesn’t matter in an environment of knowledge workers (what you did 5 years ago doesn’t matter if your role is less about work and more about solutions), and that although it’s evident younger public servants are definitely part of a new generation of public servants, older public servants can be either. It’s just a question of whether they still hold on to their old thinking (where experience could be valuable if that’s what they value) or to new/emerging/predominant ways of doing things (where skills and knowledge are valuable because it’s relevant and needed).
What do you think?

This might be a tad long.

I think one of the root problems is in the way we measure our work. If you break it down to its simplest components, the government provides services to Canadians. We aren’t measured by the quality or quantity, simply by offering it. (So what if a passport takes 3 months, and 50 hoops.) The goal is the service offering and not the intermediary steps.

Web 2.0 is not a tangible deliverable, it’s a method. You can’t hand someone a twitter. Sharepoint isn’t a document, it’s a platform. I compare it to a car vs a plane. Both have the same result, get you from point A to point B. Both have radically different methods of achieving that goal.

The problem with adoption is that the new method of achieving goals does not present a tangible value to a lot of people. This isn’t just showing someone how things work, it’s a huge culture change. Collaborating for people who spent 10-20 years with the impression of information herding for job security is not something that flips with a switch. A lot of people are comfortable with the way things work. They like taking 3-4 weeks to come to a consensus when a forum/blog could reach the same result in a day. They like the security that comes from considering their thoughts before showing them to the world. In their minds, things work fine and they don’t have time to learn a new way of doing things. (Not having time is the #1 reason I hear from management.)

I look at my younger cousins. They have never known a time without the computer, some never without the internet. They live and breathe over SMS, chatting, facebook et al. Then I look at my uncles, most don’t use a computer at home, have ever chatted/SMS with someone and think that Facebook is “where my kids put stupid pictures”.

That’s the reality we face, there is a generational/cultural gap that cannot be bridged in the short term. We can’t assume non-2.0 folks understand even the most basic value attained from online platforms.

We need to speak in their terms, demonstrate their values. If we want to implement a government facebook (ie – GEDS+), we need to show a practical use of the tool and quantifiable benefits it brings. This requires business metrics, analytical data and hard financial numbers. Small-base pilot projects over short terms. Project managers that use the tools and champion the benefits (no more 10 meg emails!). Folks who will use the existing method and a new method at the same time.

A slow “creep” is already occurring. NRCan has launched a Wiki, in the final steps of a corporate sharepoint strategy (we already have 300+ solo sites), about to launch NRTube (internal YouTube for now) and actively participates on the GoC Wiki/GEDS+ initiatives. Other departments are following suit…

The times, they are a-changin’. They key word is time.

Doug, great blog – but I think you (and other commenters) are missing the point on this one.

The reason Web 2.0 hasn’t taken off in government has nothing to do with aversion to technology, a generational divide, or leadership style. It quite simply has to do with the perceived risks and benefits of greater and more transparent communication with the public.

The vast majority of the public does NOT want to “engage” with government – they want fast, efficient government service so they can get on with their lives. I’ve observed enough focus groups, and seen enough survey data, to confirm this.

When you combine the fact that most Canadians don’t want more interaction with government, with the risks inherent in Web 2.0 communication (i.e. more open, transparent, and less one-sided communication), the government simply doesn’t have an incentive to embrace Web 2.0.

That’s the real reason Web 2.0 hasn’t taken off in government.

Wow, great insight, Maurice! Thanks for sharing. I think you have something here.

With the drive on GCPEDIA and other internal projects, and lack of development on external products, I see this. You-may-be-right.

I’ll need to reflect on this further, and chart out the types of Web 2.0 engagement the government is in – Distinguish internal projects from external, and by scope.

Thanks again.

I’d hesitate to look to Obama as a model for our own leaders, or to think that “Canada just needs an Obama” to set SM and Web 2.0 free upon the public service and the public. On one hand, I agree with Maurice – that Canadians, for the most part, just want to know that the government machine is working, that our social safety net is in good enough shape, etc. There are plenty of Canadians who are interested in engaging with government, and providing input, but there’s hardly a majority of them. That said, I also agree with meznor when he says “Who’s the demographic using Twitter? It doesn’t matter”. It really doesn’t. The advantage of using some of these tools is that, for example, stakeholders in government activity will filter Twitter to find the information they’re interested in. If they’re engaged and interested, we won’t have to find them. They’ll find us. But we first have to make relevant information available to be searched and filtered. What’s great about Twitter is that it takes minimal effort to get the message out. And these new tools at our disposal can be viral. That makes SM a potentially cost-effective tool, especially compared to the costs of traditional forms of advertising or engagement. All that to say, use the tools that help, not because Obama champions them, but because they work. Canadian are pragmatic. (I think this is what Marc was saying too) Our leaders have (mostly) always championed reason over passion, pragmatism over ideology, and they’ve done so because that’s what voters want. Canadians are not risk-takers, especially public servants. So how do we position SM as low risk, efficient and effective to meeting our goals?

One last point though. SM is not a replacement for the more traditional ways of engaging Canadians. It’s one of many tools – along with social, civic and big “P” politics. It is not “the” solution to engagement. It’s one piece of a bigger puzzle that can help us reach more people. But it cannot reach all. We cannot assume that we would get balanced, equitable and pluralist input from “Canadians” through SM. It’s a segment of the population. But not a microcosm. If we engage Canadians using SM, the information we gather must be integrated with info we gather from more traditional forms of engagement.

Now I’m babbling, so I’ll stop.

No no no – Tariq, you make very interesting points here -

I got imagery about how all these departments may be keeping their sites updated, but there’s a fence and no one sees the action. No one knows they’re being updated, there’s no Social media engagement, no broadcast (i.e.: RSS), no twitter. It’s only when you go and visit these departmental websites on the key webpage do you know, for example, the latest PCO report came out or the latest report on plans and priorities or budgeting. Even though the information may be current, it’s still very web 1.0, and disconnected.

Can’t be everything to everybody. It needs to be about responding to engaged Canadians, not trying to engage all Canadians.

Thanks Tariq. Have we met in person?

“Why Web 2.0 is not progressing in government” was the original question.

I think Web 2.0 is different than Government 2.0, although many people use the two terms interchangeably. Whereas web 2.0 is the “read / writable web” and all the new information environments the web as a platform delivers, government 2.0 attempts to tap into these new information environments to revitalize democracies.

I can readily think of 8 reasons why it is more difficult to have web 2.0 in governments than in other settings (e.g. personal):

- Access to Information. It is often difficult for Departments to ascertain how Access to Information applies to web 2.0 solutions. In addition, knowing that all sorts of information contributed candidly can be subject to Access to Information requests sends a chilling factor to Public Servants… and their managers / executives

- Privacy. Under the more recent Privacy framework, any IT platform that has the potential of hosting personal information must be subject to a Privacy IUmpact Assessment (PIA). PIA are not cheap… nor easy to do for web 2.0 solutions which, be definition, have open-ended purposes!

- Records Management. It is already difficult for Departments and Agencies to manage existing electronic records in compliance with the Library & Archives Act… Web 2.0 multiplies these difficulties by an order of magnitude… (under the current records management regime, that is)

- Official Languages. Must a blog post be bilingual? What about a wiki page? Under what conditions? What about the comments? That’s another challenge layer…

- Copyright. Web 2.0 is the quintessential manifestation of the credo “information wants to be free”. Well, in the government of Canada, information created by Public Servants is copyrighted by the Crown, unlike the federal US Public Servants whoe info is automatically in the public domain by operation of statute. Makes it hard to facilitate the flow and re-purposing of info in government web 2.0 platforms…

- Information Security. IT security folks don’t like web 2.0 platforms simply because it puts users in control and thereby signifiantly augments the risks related to information security…

- “Business process” mindset. All too often Departemnts and Agencies think of IT as “business process enablers”. That’s fine. But there is more to IT and to web 2.0 solutions. They are not mainly in the realm of process enablers, they rather offer fluid information environments to knowledge workers. Governments are not used to this fluidity and have difficulties leveraging it.

- Generational Gaps. I don’t need to talk about this one… It’s been overtalked about already all over the web (!)

That’s 8 reasons I can think of on a Sunday night, I plan to detail those reasons in a series of blog posts when my site launches… In a few weeks!

We were supposed to meet in person with Patrycja and Nick, right after the Career Bootcamp that Nick spoke at, but you stood us all up!

True that.
GCPEDIA meeting was rescheduled. NOT fun…then worked on my masters.
My apologies.

Will there be another?