Link mas que destacable: http://www.whorunsgov.com/
Whether you’re a policymaker, Hill staffer, or an interested citizen, share your knowledge by creating or adding to our profiles of over 700 people in the federal government.
Link mas que destacable: http://www.whorunsgov.com/
Whether you’re a policymaker, Hill staffer, or an interested citizen, share your knowledge by creating or adding to our profiles of over 700 people in the federal government.
via Digigov
September 18th, 2009
David Pullinger
I’ve been pondering on what kind of online feedback would best help improve our public services. Of course, government already has it in some places – on NHS Choices, through third parties such as Patient Opinion, and for many local government services (that’s where I live).
The citizen might give a description and rating of an experience (just like restaurant and hotel reviews), an observation note (low hanging trees over pathways, abandoned cars) or photographs with GPS reference. What we lack is any kind of consistency.
There are a number of approaches:
We not only hinder the citizen in their ease of reporting (thereby potentially adding to their distress or preventing them from complimenting the service), we also lose something much more valuable – the ability to analyse where small changes across public services could result in maximum effect.
Those are systemic aspects that are not visible because believed specific, until some grunt work is done on the feedback in a comprehensive way. For example people’s experience of hospitals may be coloured by the difficulty or ease of getting there, or delays in responding to enquiries may be a generic response within certain organisations, rather than team specific. We don’t get that kind of information unless we start to listen to citizens in a more comprehensive way about their experiences of public services.
So how can we best do that online?
by PaulCanning
Following the almost universally badly received launch of the new Birmingham City Council website local developer Mark Steadman posted a challenge on his blog:
Why don’t those who are busy complaining and building independent fixes to problems that only concern people who know or care what hashtags are*, get together and build an alternative Council website? Something that’s a real resource for its users, and doesn’t suffer from the dearth of features the official site does.
http://mypublicservices.eventbrite.com
A national conference about citizen engagement with public services online
What’s it all about?
The web has already transformed the way we book a holiday, buy a camera, and share the snaps. Whole sectors – media, music, finance, publishing – are being turned upside down. But where is the impact on our public services? Why (with a few notable exceptions) are they still so top-down, so inflexible, so hard-to-reach? In sum, so last century?
This conference is about how that can – and already is – changing. It is about how the traditional public sector values of fairness, solidarity and equality are meeting the new networked values of participation, transparency and usability to create new services or add to old ones.
The web has created a new digital gift economy in which everyone can be a contributor and new kinds of public service are becoming possible.
It won’t all be top-down any more (and neither will this conference). We won’t be defined any longer just by what we need from the services we rely on, but also by what we have to give, and how we each can contribute to making our public services better.
This conference is about all that and more. There will be plenty of new ideas – but also plenty of practical examples of how people are already using the extraordinary gift of the web to improve, extend or challenge our public services to be the best they can be.
Desde Atención Ciudadana nos pasaron todos los anuncios que están saliendo en el subte, y nosotros armamos un compiladito y los pusimos todos juntos.
Las tres vías para conectarse con la ciudad:
* El 147 (nuevo número unificado del que hablamos ayer)
* Los CGPCs
* El portal de la ciudad: www.buenosaires.gob.ar
via: Aire y Luz
Just as the Cluetrain laid out 95 theses that described the new global conversation taking place via the Internet, here are 20 theses (I’m not nearly as ambitious as the Cluetrain authors) for carpetbaggers, gurus, civil servants, contractors, and anyone else interested in Government 2.0. There are undoubtedly many many more that could be added to this list and I encourage you to add any that you think of in the comments.
1. The risks of social media are greatly outweighed by the risks of NOT doing social media.
2. Your Government agency/organization/group/branch/division is not unique. You do not work in a place that just can’t just use social media because your data is too sensitive. You do not work in an environment where social media will never work. Your challenges, while unique to you, are not unique to the government.
3. You will work with skeptics and other people who want to see social media fail because the transparency and authenticity will expose their weaknesses.
4. You will work with people who want to get involved with social media for all the wrong reasons. They will see it as an opportunity to advance their own their careers, to make more money, or to show off. These people will be more dangerous to your efforts than the biggest skeptic.
5. Younger employees are not necessarily any more knowledgeable about social media than older employees. Stop assuming that they are.
6. Before going out and hiring any social media “consultants,” assume that there is already someone within your organization who is actively using social media and who is very passionate about it. Find them, use them, engage them. These are the people who will make or break your foray into social media.
7. Mistakes can and will be made (a lot). Stop trying to create safeguards to eliminate the possibility of mistakes and instead concentrate on how to deal with them when they are made.
8. Information security is a very real and valid concern. Do NOT take this lightly.
9. Policies are not written in stone. With justification, passion, and knowledge, policies and rules can and should be changed. Sometimes it’s as easy as asking, but other times will require a knockdown, drag-out fight. Both are important.
10. Be humble. You don’t know everything so stop trying to pretend that you do. It’s ok to be wrong.
11. But, be confident. Know what you know and don’t back down. You will be challenged by skeptics and others who do not care and/or understand social media. Do not let them discourage you.
12. There are true social media champions throughout the government. Find them. Talk to them. Learn from them.
13. Government 2.0 is not a new concept. It’s getting so much attention now because social media has given a voice to the ambitious, the innovative, and the creative people within the government.
14. Social media is not about the technology but what the technology enables.
15. Social media is not driven by the position, the title, or the department, it’s driven by the person. Stop trying to pidgeon-hole into one team or department, and instead think of a way to bring together people from across your organization.
16. Instead of marketing your social media capabilities, skills, experience, platforms, software, etc. to the government, why don’t you try talking with them? An honest conversation will be remembered for far longer than a PowerPoint presentation.
17. Today’s employees will probably spend five minutes during the workday talking to their friends on Facebook or watching the latest YouTube video. Today’s employees will also probably spend an hour at 10:00 at night answering emails or responding to a work-related blog post. Assume that your employees are good people who want to do the right thing and who take pride in their work.
18. Agency Secretaries and Department Heads are big boys and girls. They should be able to have direct conversations with their workforce without having to jump through hoops to do so.
19. Transparency, participatory, collaborative – these terms do not refer only to the end state; they refer to the process used to get there as well. It’s ok to have debates, arguments, and disagreements about the best way to go about achieving “Government 2.0.” Diverse perspectives, opinions, and beliefs should be embraced and talked about openly.
20. It’s not enough to just allow negative feedback on your blog or website, you also have to do something about it. This might mean engaging in a conversation about why person X feels this way or (gasp!) making a change to an outdated policy. Don’t just listen to what the public has to say, you have to also care about it too.
The technology that is currently driving social media will change, but the principles of participation, transparency, and collaboration will not. You can either jump on the Government 2.0 cluetrain or get hit by it. Which one will you be?
*thanks to Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger for inspiring this post with their book, the Cluetrain Manifesto.
Over the past 15 years, the World Wide Web has created remarkable new business models reshaping our economy. As the Web has undermined old media and software companies, it has demonstrated the enormous power of a new model, often referred to as Web 2.0.
Now, a new generation has come of age with the Web and is committed to using its lessons of creativity and collaboration to address challenges facing our country and the world. The Facebook Causes application has more than 60 million registered users who are leveraging the power of social networks to raise money for charity. Meetup.com helps interest groups formed on the Web get together in person–and a remarkable number of groups do so for civic purposes. A quick search turns up nearly 20,000 meetups devoted to cleaning up local parks, streets and neighborhoods. Twitter and YouTube have played major roles in helping organize political protests in Iran’s recent election. Everyblock and Stumblesafely take government crime statistics and turn them into public safety applications for the Web or iPhones. The list goes on.
Meanwhile, with the proliferation of issues and not enough resources to address them all, many government leaders recognize the opportunities inherent in harnessing a highly motivated and diverse population not just to help them get elected, but to help them do a better job. By analogy, many are calling this movement “Government 2.0.”
President Obama exhorted us to rise to the challenge: “We must use all available technologies and methods to open up the federal government, creating a new level of transparency to change the way business is conducted in Washington, and giving Americans the chance to participate in government deliberations and decision-making in ways that were not possible only a few years ago.”
There is a new compact on the horizon: Government maintains information on a variety of issues, and that information should rightly be considered a national asset. Citizens are connected like never before and have the skill sets and passion to solve problems affecting them locally as well as nationally. Government information and services can be provided to citizens where and when they need it. Citizens are empowered to spark the innovation that will result in an improved approach to governance.
This is a radical departure from the old model of government, which Donald Kettl so aptly named “vending machine government.” We pay our taxes, we expect services. And when we don’t get what we expect, our “participation” is limited to protest–essentially, shaking the vending machine.
In the vending-machine model, the full menu of available services is determined beforehand. A small number of vendors have the ability to get their products into the machine, and as a result, the choices are limited, and the prices are high.
Yet there is an alternate model, which is much closer to the kind of government envisioned by our nation’s founders, a model in which, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Joseph Cabel, “every man … feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year, but every day.” In this model, government is a convener and an enabler–ultimately, it is a vehicle for coordinating the collective action of citizens.
So far, you may hear echoes of the dialog between liberals and conservatives that has so dominated political discourse in recent decades. But big government versus small government is in many ways beside the point. To frame the debate in terms familiar to technologists, the question is whether government is successful as a platform.
If you look at the history of the computer industry, the most successful companies are those that build frameworks that enable a whole ecosystem of participation from other companies large and small. The personal computer was such a platform. So was the World Wide Web. But this platform dynamic can be seen most vividly in the recent success of the Apple ( AAPL – news – people ) iPhone. Where other phones have a limited menu of applications developed by themselves and a few carefully chosen partners, Apple built a framework that allowed virtually anyone to build applications for the phone, leading to an explosion of creativity, with more than 50,000 applications appearing for the phone in less than a year, and more than 3,000 new ones now appearing every week.
This is the right way to frame the question of “Government 2.0.” How does government itself become an open platform that allows people inside and outside government to innovate? How do you design a system in which all of the outcomes aren’t specified beforehand, but instead evolve through interactions between the technology provider and its user community?
The Obama administration’s technology team has taken the first steps toward rethinking government as a platform provider. One of the first acts by Vivek Kundra, the national CIO, was to create data.gov, a catalog of all the federal government’s Web services. (Web services, as opposed to static government Web sites, provide raw government data, allowing third parties to build alternate services and interfaces to government programs.) The Sunlight Foundation’s Apps for America Contest (modeled on the successful Apps for Democracy program that Kundra ran while CIO of Washington, D.C.) is seeking to kick off the virtuous circle of citizen innovation using these data services.
Rather than licensing government data to a few select “value added” providers, who then license the data downstream, the federal government (and many state and local governments) are beginning to provide an open platform that enables anyone with a good idea to build innovative services that connect government to citizens, give citizens visibility into the actions of government and even allow citizens to participate directly in policy-making.
That’s Government 2.0: technology helping build the kind of government the nation’s founders intended: of, for and by the people.
Tim O’Reilly is the founder and CEO of O’Reilly Media, a premier computer book publisher. O’Reilly Media also hosts conferences on technology topics. Tim is chairing the upcoming Gov 2.0 Summit with Richard O’Neill, founder and president of The Highlands Group. Tim’s blog, the O’Reilly Radar, “watches the alpha geeks” and serves as a platform for advocacy about issues of importance to the technical community. He can also be found as @timoreilly on Twitter.