Government 2.0: no change without culture shift

Australian Government 2.0 Taskforce member Martin Stewart-Weeks has put up a really good posting on the culture shift necessary to thrive in the Web 2.0 world. Martin’s posting revealed a deep knowledge of the societal issues involved in online engagement, issues that are far more challenging than designing or selecting Web 2.0 tools.

The challenges and opportunities outlined in Martin’s posting are challenges and opportunities for citizens and lobbyists as well as for public servants and policy makers. Here is a taste of what he had to say:

“As governments and the public sector start to do the same [get value from Web 2.0], they will encounter the same challenge as others have, which is that these new tools don’t just change structures and processes, they change behaviour as well. In order to thrive in this kind of world – connected, contingent, collaborative – you have to adopt a certain set of behaviours that are similarly open, interactive and engaged. The obvious conclusion is simple, but demanding – no change without culture shift.

This is the big challenge underlying the ability for governments to make the most of this new way of working and these new tools for democratic conversation. If they want to use them to improve the design of public services, to empower citizens to use information to create new services themselves or to harness more powerful combinations of knowledge and expertise for better policy, then they have to embrace the consequent shift of culture and behaviour too.

As it turns out, this is much harder than it sounds in the public sector, although it’s true that it’s turned out to be much harder in the corporate sector too (even though they might not always admit it). As the Issues Paper points out, we’ve spent quite some time defining what it is that constitutes the requisite behaviour from a public servant, including things like impartiality, balance, fairness and the absence of partisan political advocacy.

The problem, though, is that these definitions were shaped in a world fundamentally different to the one which ‘government 2.0’ is ushering in, including especially the speed with which issues emerge and change, the level of transparency about government thinking and activity and the complexity of the ideas and inputs now clamouring not just to be heard but to be influential.

Somehow we have to find a way for public servants to be able to engage with this world on terms that are both satisfying and safe. Assuming that the twin extremes of prohibition and unfettered licence are unlikely to work, we have to set about finding some new territory somewhere along that spectrum that is fit for purpose.

I have no idea where that point on the spectrum is. My inclination is to be more permissive than not. But perhaps more useful than any single attempt to pick the new sweet spot is to encourage a process of active and energetic experimentation that will get us closer to that outcome, and more quickly, than simply sitting around talking about it.”

Martin went on to say that “For the public sector too, the rising demand for innovation in policy development, program design and delivery and organisational practice is enabled, and sometimes accelerated, by the new tools themselves. In that sense, the rapid spread of use and influence by social networking technologies, and the habits of mind and culture that they reflect and reinforce, is becoming an inescapable feature of public innovation in its own right.”

I found Martin’s description of Web 2.0 to be a good supplement the Issues Paper released by the Taskforce earlier this month. Although the paper provided a good overview of the aim and benefits of Government 2.0, there was one sticking point for me. To say that “The central theme of Web 2.0 is moving away from point to point communications and towards many to many communication and collaboration” just does not sit right with me. For a start the term ‘point to point’ is a technical one and not explained in the paper. Point to point communication is defined by some as direct communication between two end points not using the internet (such as a two-way telephone call). And by others it is used in a broadcasting sense, say like radio communication between two fixed stations. As for me, the central theme of Web 2.0 is participation & interaction. Pure and simple.

Government 2.0 Taskforce is off to a great start

I was one of those who were impressed with the Australian Government’s decision to launch the Government 2.0 Taskforce (#gov2au) on 22 June 2009. The announcement came from Lindsay Tanner, Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Minister Tanner drew some leverage from another high quality gov2 initiative – the second PublicSphere held in Canberra on the same day.

My expectations

As someone with project leadership roles in participative consultation, can I say I’ve had many expectations. Oh yes, when it comes to drawing on multiple perspectives and values (tapping into the broad knowledge base of large groups of people, forging new awareness, better understanding, creative vision and pragmatic action) it all lies ‘out there’ in the crowd. I have known intuitively and know from experience that tapping into the wisdom of an organisation lies in cross-organisational coordination, co-operation and (when it really sings) collaboration.

The magic of Web 2.0 (interacting, sharing, innovating, creating and massive networking) makes organising the wisdom of the crowd much easier… and a much more powerful force. Potentially powerful enough to sit alongside the power institutions of the 20th century – Government and industry.

I’m also very aware that expectations among participants in public policy processes are diverse. The gov2au will be no different as is already evident in the postings and comments on the taskforce blog. Some see the taskforce as a vehicle to set government data free, others to improve e-services and e-accessibility. I too hope that the taskforce meets those expectations.

Some, including the Chair, Nicholas Gruen, see the taskforce as having a transformative role where the business of government is gone about in new ways. It’s that expectation that gets me really excited about the potential of this taskforce. For, despite the tranformative potential of Web 2.0 (and other cultural, social and economic drivers of change – it’s not all about Web 2.0) to change the way people work and how organisations function, the most fundamental change is cultural. Cultural change that embraces facilitation, transparency and shared outcomes. Change of that nature calls for the agencies of government to go about their internal and inter-agency practices in new ways.

btw, it’s great to see four of the taskforce members having already posted to the gov2au blog. The quality of comments to the postings are rich signals of the type of change I really hope the taskforce will become known for driving, more than anything else. For if the taskforce achieves that goal, all other expectations will be met over time.

Putting the citizen at the centre of public service

Australian Public Service Commissioner Lynelle Briggs gave what I feel is a landmark presentation at the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy on 21 May. In signalling what I take to be a move away from designing and delivering programs on an inputs/outputs basis, Lynelle Briggs declared that a “new paradigm has emerged” about “putting the citizen at the centre of public service”. Public sector effectiveness ought now be measured in how well programs address the needs of those to whom it is being delivered. This posting provides a summary of my take on the presentation, and suggestions about possible implications for government agencies.

Leading

A key challenge for the public service is to become public facilitators. A key challenge for the public is to take on responsibility and to express their values and preferences to government. In both cases is requires a more open culture of decision-making. Recognising that increasingly complex problems are beyond the ability of governments to manage alone, being open to the knowledge and experiences of citizens, and to sharing data and intelligence across the public service, will improve the effectiveness of the public sector. As noted in the presentation:

“Innovation in the first decades of the 21st century is more open and pervasive, characterised by skill in collaborating and making connections so that knowledge flows and grows, and so becomes available to meet customer and community needs”.

Taking an open, facilitative approach means allowing for some managed risk and to be accepting of failure as a result. As Lynelle Briggs said “We have to try new things, and we have to learn and move on. Our accountability and responsibility regime needs to let us do that”.

A number of best practice solutions were identified. Lynelle Briggs would like to see them all in place. In particular, I would like to see:

• a greater focus on systems thinking and collaborative policy and program design as a critical capability to be developed and valued. As part of this, we need to understand the impact of complexity and the fragmentation of services and related requirements on citizens
• use of communities of interest across public sector agencies
• better sharing of data and intelligence across the public service.

Implications for government agencies

One immediate take-away in the formation of 2009-10 business and operating plans is for citizen engagement processes to be integrated into business outcomes and service inputs (eg. training and development).

In terms of service delivery, there are two aspects for government to consider. One is in the effectiveness of information and education awareness programs. The other is in the effectiveness of service delivery.

There is scope to review the effectiveness of processes and procedures to see how well they meet the needs of citizens rather than how well they are tailored to meet the structures of government.

Beyond that, the Netherlands e-Citizen charter referred to by Lynelle Briggs provides guidance on the practice of citizen engagement and what citizens can expect from it, through principles covering things like choice of communication method – an important issue in considering what collaboration tools to use. The question to ask is, what relationship do you want? Then select the right tools and processes.