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.

Knowledge, creativity and the Internet #1

So far I have not yet looked into critiques of the Internet such as Andrew Keen’s The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture or Nicholas Carr’s Is Google Making Us Stupid? Having been inspired by the creativity from artists connecting and producing art or music online, and having spend long periods of time in contemplation and conversation about information and perspectives expressed online, I just have not been inclined to delve into what the critics are on about.

Take a look at the One World video by MadV & co to see what online creativity can do:

There are some things that I have thought would be useful to research, such as continuous partial attention. I intuitively understand the attractions and the downsides of multi-tasking. Computing and the Internet can certainly provide streams of shifting from one site or subject or conversation to another. I actually really like it…but it can be a tad too distracting at times. I am generally relaxed about there being some limitations on effective uses of the Internet.

But over the last couple of weeks I’ve come across two more criticisms of the Internet that have prompted this blog posting. I joined in a Facebook conversation on 28 December that was initiated by Brian Solis linking to his  What Inspires You? blog posting. One of the people that commented:

• bemoaned the demise of “…a strong independant media and the rise of its subjective amateur replacement [social media]“
• described Web 2.0 as “hyperlinked agreement” and
• said “[the online] community does not learn”.

Just yesterday I read the conclusion to Reinventing Knowledge by Ian McNeely and Lisa Wolverton. The authors dismiss Web 2.0 as making it harder to obtain reliable, authentic knowledge and apparently “…drowning out traditionally credentialed cultural gatekeepers”(page 271 and in reference to Andrew Keen’s piece).

Starting with Reinventing Knowledge. For the most part I enjoyed reading the book but I was surprised to read such strong criticism of the Internet in the concluding chapter. The authors had stated in the preceding page that knowledge has always been about connecting people. Isn’t that what social media does? As far as authenticity is concerned, hyperlinks, transparency and reputation are hall-marks of online credibility…enough for a reader to make a judgment about the work in any case. If the authors are advocating a balanced approach to the pursuit of knowledge – making use of well-researched and peer-reviewed material from academia and scientific analysis for example – as well as the Internet, well, I could go along with that.  But to diss the Internet in manner applied by McNeely & Wolverton is just over the top.

Now, back to the Facebook conversation. Readers of this blog may recall my own critique of the so-called ’strong and independent media’. I mean, really: there is a lot of garbage in print…just as there is a lot of garbage online. I’m actually get turn-off by traditional media lovers clinging to some romantic but misplaced view of media quality in days gone by. Sure, the Internet does faciliate like-minded people to connect and support each other…but it also facilitates putting alternative views or corrections to others postings. I’ve done that myself as well as seen others do so. Finally, as for the ‘community does not learn’ – speak to the digital youth and you will know otherwise.

In any case, it seems to me that a growing body of opinion is finding things to critque about knowledge, creativity and Internet. Perhaps  I do need to look more deeply into this.  Do others have a view?

Networked citizens: second post

Continuing my review of Networked Citizens (NC) by Peter Bradwell and Richard Reeves.

Social actors becoming defined by their networks

One of the most interesting things about the evolving use of social networking sites is that people are recognising that the relevancy and value of relationships to them are far more important than adding more and more connections. I’m finding the same thing too – I have culled some of people I follow on Twitter. Indeed, taking care about your online relationships is likely to become more important over time as networking influences your identity and your reputation. This recent posting by Chris Brogan goes into some useful strategies to make more of your social networks online.

One of the observations in NC is that our online presence is defined as much by others as ourselves. I think that is true. Content posted by my online friends or connections on Facebook, FriendFeed or Twine is by any measure an indicator of my online presence – in terms of the people that I connect with and the interests we may share – as well as the content that I’m directly responsible for. Anyone looking at my social networking will make judgements about me based not only on who I connect to but what content the connection produces as well.

So the social actor could be expected to be defined in part by their online networks. Understanding social action requires less of an emphasis on the individual (and individualism) and more of an emphasis on networks. As the authors of NC say “the role of networked capital is increasing, and the influence of personal reputation, history and network presence will be vital”.

Blurring boundaries between work and social interaction

NC found that organisations are aware of the way that employees experience the freedoms of network working.  Employee social networks are becoming “…bound up with the success of their careers, present and future, inside organisations and outside” (page 41).  In other words, people are linking with peers over social networks to share knowledge, contribute to group discussion, distribute their work and comment on others, publicise their credentials and gain new forms of visibility and reputation.

Actually, according to the Digital Youth Project research findings, youth in the United States are often more motivated to learn from their peers than from adults. They like the freedom and autonomy to explore in social networking online, which stands in contrast to rigidities of classroom learning that is set by predefined goals. I would say these ways of learning and inter-working with peers online are starting to operate within the work place too. The implications for organisations are significant: it’s a case of not what the organisation can to to improve organisational learning, it’s more a case of what social networks can do for the organisation.

NC found that organisations that develop their own social networking platforms have had variable success with their implementation and impact. Inhouse networks “…provide too formal a script for people’s interactions, writing out the connections between internal and external networking, between work and social life” (page 44). In other words, those organisations simply do not get it. Those organisations have not figured out that they can no longer be in control of work-related networking that utilises employee social networks online. NC found that the most innovative responses by organisations to social networking online is to go with the grain of networks. That is very useful advice indeed.

However, it is not just a case of going with the flow in terms of networking platforms, the nature of the relationship between employee and employer must also adapt to embrace social interaction online. It’s about embracing peer-relationships and peer production. Organisations need to look beyond financial remuneration to connect with employees and their peers. Organisations need to work with the freedoms that come from self-directed exploration and self-expression within peer-to-peer relationships. Or, as Charlene Li might say, it’s about having conversations with employees, not issuing commands that come out of centralised management processes.

Social capital

Another important distinction to make between traditional networking within and between organisations, and social networking online, is that there is no ownership online, either in terms of the employer or individual. Sure, an individual increases their social capital value from networking online, but they do not own the data or the connections contributed by others. Questions about who owns your data are raging right now, and I’m not going to get into that right now. Suffice to say that, just as organisations must free-up some control over their relationships with employees, organisations cannot claim an intellectual property right on the value arising from the blurred social/work networks.

Disconnected Institutions

People have told me I am good at asking the right questions. Here’s a few.

What is the best way to keep pace with social, technological, economic, environmental and political developments?

If your answer was social networking over the Internet, pat yourself on the back. If not, you have some other questions to ask of yourself.

Social networking over the Internet transfers power & influence from institutions to networked individuals. As I’ve said before, mainstream media go to Twitter as a source of breaking-news. Want to know what’s happening on the ground in an emergency, go to Twitter. Want to connect to thought-leaders and their networks? Sign-up to FriendFeed. Want to run a check on what’s hot? Try Digg.

For those that got the right answer to the first question, now ask: What would your organisation’s answer be?

If your organisation is not participating on social networking over the Internet, your organisation is disconnected from an increasingly valuable stream of knowledge and information.