Bill's Notebook

It was in my second year of being a Presidential Management Intern when I was feeling rather cocky after a string of successful projects. So, when I met with my boss for our weekly status meeting, I was casually leaning back in my chair just radiating gloat. That is when he leaned forward and said, “you are only as good as your last project. What have you done for me lately?”

It was that advice that has guided me ever since. It is very easy in the euphoria surrounding the triumph of solving a difficult problem or pulling off the near-impossible project to not spend the time questioning just why you succeeded. To do so seems to be diminishing the success and even doubting that you actually did succeed. On the contrary, an objective review of how you succeeded will greatly help you in continuing to succeed.

When we succeed, we can become victims of three biases, according to Gino and Pisano (April 2011). There is the attribution bias in which we overestimate how our knowledge and actions contributed to the success and we downplay any external factors that could have just made us more fortunate. We also become overconfident in our abilities as we tackle the next challenge. The third bias (and which I believe is most important) is that we don’t ask why we succeeded because the success is proof enough.

To illustrate this last bias, Gino and Pisano (April 2011) recount a study in which students were given a set of math problems to complete. When the students submitted their answers, they were only told if they had the answer right or wrong. The students were given time to reflect before they were given a second set of math problems. The second set was designed so that a key concept in the first set of problems was needed to solve the second set. The students who successfully solved the first set of problems generally spent much less time reflecting before they started on the second set of problems. Thus, many of these students failed to find the answer for the second set of problems. Reflection, whether the student succeeded or not, is the key to continuing to be successful.

So, how do we best learn from success? We should celebrate success but also examine the causes of success. For every project, we should hold a systematic review. Gino and Pisano (April 2011) give the example of Pixar’s review process. Even though Pixar has had eleven hit animated films in a row, the company still goes through an exhaustive review process to determine what made the film successful and how to repeat that success.

Another point to keep in mind is to fully investigate the feedback. Was it immediate or at least can be connected to the actions taken? Is the feedback a true indicator of success or just a random event that looks like a successful outcome? Feedback is an important concept and I explore it in greater detail in this discussion posting.

Two final points. First, “[r]ecognize that replication is not learning” (Gino and Pisano, April 2011). Blindly following the same formula again and again can suddenly turn against us as the nature of the problem changes and what worked before doesn’t work now. And, second, we should always be experimenting. We can always improve how we do something. Plus, we can create variations on our actions that may not apply to the current situation but can apply to a challenge in the future.

Failure is a great teacher but so is success. Learning from our successes will keep us from becoming “one-hit wonders” and give us the string of successful “hits” to be “rock stars.”

Reference:
Pino, F., & Pisano, G.P. (April 2011). Why leaders don’t learn from success. Harvard Business Review. 68-74.

It is time to move from creating a more open government to sustaining open government. Yes, there is a lot more work to do in making agencies on all levels of government are releasing their data and becoming transparent. Governments have successfully picked the low-hanging fruit of opening up their datasets. It’s now time to change the culture of government so that openness, transparency, and collaboration is embodied in everything government does. Ten years from now (if not sooner) government employees shouldn’t even have to think about if they are being open, transparent, and collaborative because the culture of the agency insures that they they are.

Culture is a natural byproduct of humans as social beings. We develop culture so that we can get along, survive, and achieve goals. It is only naturally that we develop cultures at work because a large part of our waking hours is spent at work or thinking about work. A single person cannot have a culture; it takes interactions between each other to create a culture. But what exactly is culture?

There are many academic definitions for culture but for our purposes I prefer this simple definition: the way we do things around here. “We” come together in a defined group (eg. IBM, HUD, Star Trek fans) and in a defined boundary such as a department, office, or online community (“around here”). We develop methods, practices, policies, etc. (“way”) that govern the actions (“do”) members of the culture take in response to “things” (issues, events, etc.) that we face as a culture. Essentially, organizational culture is how we collectively solve the problems we face everyday in our work and life.

Thus, the resistance to changing the organizational culture. Problem-solving is hard and takes a lot or resources and effort. Humans are incredible at problem-solving but they are also good at optimizing. We don’t like having to solve the same problems over and over so we create things like writing, forms, email, databases and the like to embody the solutions we have created so that the next time the same problem shows up we can just solve it without having to think about it. We only give up our solutions when a demonstrably better solution comes along. And it better be a really good solution if it has a chance of displacing the current solution.

Cultural change is not only possible but it is necessary. Groups change, new events confront the group, and new problems face our culture. I believe that the reason why many intentional cultural efforts fail is that they don’t recognize the paradoxes of cultural change. This is what I can the Zen of culture because we blend many paradoxical ideas to develop culture. Here are three paradoxes that makes cultural change difficult for those who do not first seek to understand the culture:

1. The culture is not the culture. There is no one culture but many cultures that people belong to. You may have an overall agency culture but you also belong to the subculture of your department, the subculture of Redskins fans, the subculture of people who eat out for lunch, and so on. Some of these subcultures are easily changed while others are ingrained in you. And how these subcultures interact cause the resistance to change. For example, IT folks are often most open to new technologies while the law department would rather stay with the software they have been using for the last 20 years because they have built many of their processes around how the software works.
2. We seek the novel and the safety of the familiar. A colleague has a great example of this. Imagine a playground in an open field without fences. The children will often huddle together in the middle of the playground and are reluctant to wander out in the field. Now, put a fence around the playground. Then the children will often hang around the fence and are more willing to venture out in the open field. It is the setting of boundaries that makes us adventurous. We have the safety of the fence that we can run to in between our adventures. Culture equals safety.
3. Culture remains the same by changing. Thanks to the Internet, many ancient religions are now being practiced today. Many Amish businesses use a personal computer in their business dealings with the outside world. There are numerous monasteries that sustain themselves by creating websites for clients. Cultural groups will often use the new technologies or practices as a way to sustain the culture and its core beliefs. This can be frustrating for a change agent when they see their innovation being used to defeat the intent of the change.

I want to invite you to join the conversation on cultural change and keep Open Government alive. There is well-justified concern that the 2011 budget cuts to the Open Data sites will stall the Open Government but I believe that the best way to keep Open Government going is to change the cultures in our agencies and governments so that the citizens demand further change. This concern has prompted several of us to start an online group with two purposes:

1. to collect the best thinking on how to effectively change cultures so that they are more open, transparent, and collaborative, and
2. to establish worldwide unconferences where government workers, academics, and citizens gather to discuss how to change the culture of their governments to be more open, transparent, and collaborative.

Please join us at Culture Change and Open Government.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed are my own and do not reflect the views of my employers or any groups where I am a member.)

You ever wonder about the first person who bought a fax machine? The first person to buy a cell phone? How about the first person who set up an email account? These early pioneers must have had some difficulty in demonstrating the benefits of these these technologies because of the very small base of users. It wasn’t until a critical mass of users adopted the technologies that the fax, cellphone, email, and other networked technologies demonstrated their true value. This is the network effect – the more people that using a networked technology makes it more valuable.

I remember when I set up my Commodore 64 with a 300 baud modem to connect to my high school friend across the small town of Winchester, Kentucky so that we could type text messages to each other. I spent an entire weekend typing in machine code from RUN Magazine to create a bulletin board system (BBS). My parents didn’t understand why I went to all this trouble when I could have just called Steve, mailed him a letter, or just see him at school the next day. Today, billions of texts and tweets are sent daily all thanks to the network effect.

The Internet has fundamentally changed our world because it has helped us connect on a level never seen before in human history. I don’t believe we can go back to a time before we had the Internet because so much of our current economic and societal systems depend on this connectivity. And, according to William Davidow, we are realizing new dangers as we go from highly-connected to overconnected.

Davidow argues that as complex dynamic systems (such as economies) become more and more connected they shift from stability to instability. There is a cultural lag as organizations and societies cultural practices lag behind technological advances. Institutions begin to falter because they are not flexible enough to keep up with the rapid changes and increasing demands of more and more connections. We enter a vulnerability sequence as positive feedback from the connections lead to more specialization and network lock-ins.

Davidow gives numerous examples of the dangers of overconnection such as Three-Mile Island, the decline of the American steel industry, and the 2008 mortgage meltdown. His best example is a two-chapter examination of how Iceland’s attempt to be an Internet banking superpower led to the collapse of the Iceland economy and government. Here we can see how positive feedback driven by the Internet led to riskier investments by Iceland banks and citizens that made them very vulnerable to an external event – the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Thanks to a chain of connections from New York to London to Paris and so on, the ripple effects from Lehman Brothers collapse were magnified so that the ripple became a tsunami that led to a massive devaluation of Iceland’s currency.

That is the secondary danger of overconnection – the magnification of the effects of small events into greater dangers. You may have heard of the black swan theory in which Nassim Taleb describes events that are so highly improbable that they are hard to foresee but can have significant impact when they occur. Thanks to overconnection we are subject to more black swan events that have their effects magnified by the positive feedback of overconnections.

So what does this mean for government agencies? As agencies rush to increase social networking inside and outside of their organizations they are in danger of becoming overconnected. Can the agency’s culture deal with the increasing demands of the connections? Is the agency flexible enough to deal with the unexpected events that will come being more open to the world? Will the management even realize when a black swan event has occurred?

To combat the effects of overconnection Davidow describes three things organizations must do:

1. Provide buffers to mitigate the increasing positive feedback.
2. Develop more robust systems that can better handle system accidents.
3. Restructure organizations to be more effective and adaptable.

As we embrace Open Government we must realize that increasing transparency, openness, and collaboration has great benefits but can also lead to major unintended consequences. We need to strike that delicate balance between highly-connected and overconnected by moving at a pace where we transform agencies into more effective and adaptable organizations without going into a vulnerability sequence.

Reference:
Davidow, W.H. (2011). Overconnected: The promise and threat of the Internet. Harrison, NY: Delphinium Books.

First, a quick disclaimer: I am currently on a six-month detail for OPM’s Open Government Team. Yes, I am bragging but I also want to stress that anything I write on my blog is just my personal opinion and does not reflect the opinions of OPM, the Open Government Team, or anyone connected with the OPM Open Government effort.

Now on to the topic. There is a lot of cynicism both in and outside of government concerning Gov 2.0 and Open Gov. I believe most of this comes past government reform efforts which had, at best, mixed results. In my first round as a Federal employee I was involved with Gore’s Reinventing Government effort. Reagan had a blue-ribbon commission on reform as did Nixon. Government reform has been a continuing effort since Wilson and Taylorism. I believe they even found evidence of government reform efforts in Ancient Egypt (I wonder how you tell a god-emperor he or she needs to go “lean”).

So, with this long history of government reform which has some brought some innovation but disappointment what makes Gov 2.0 and Open Gov different? And is this difference enough to make a real impact? To me there are three major reasons why Gov 2.0 and Open Gov will succeed and succeed big:

1) Government is re-engaging their citizens. Public agencies can no longer operate as vending machines where citizens put in tax dollars and out pops government services. Agencies are becoming transparent and accountable for how they spend tax money and are encouraging citizens to become part of providing government services. Think of Dr. Noveck’s Peer-to-Patent program and the recent SeeClickFix programs.

2) Democracy is changing. I have written before about the emergence of monitory democracy and the recent events in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern countries just demonstrates the desire for democracy and how media-rich nations empower citizens to grow democracy. Even in well-established democracies citizens are no longer content to vote for a representative and then trust that the government will operate in their interest. People want to speak directly to agencies that affect their lives and are demanding the right to monitor even the inner workings of the Federal, state, and local governments.

3) Balance of Information Power has shifted. Before the Open Data movement, government essentially held all the cards when it came to information about what government did and how it operated. Yes, there were investigative journalism articles, legislative hearings, and the occasional FOIA request but obtaining government information that wasn’t selectively released by agencies was difficult to obtain for the average citizen. Now, thanks to the Internet and Social Media technologies it is easier to gain access and to aggregate data sources to give a more complete picture of what government is doing. The Balance of Information Power is shifting in favor for the citizen and will continue to shift that way as government engages citizens and as monitory democracy evolves.

In Gov 2.0 and Open Gov the citizen is no longer a customer who passively receives government services. Past reform movements were built upon the vending machine model and that is why they didn’t deliver as promised. Gov 2.0 and Open Gov are built upon engagement and collaboration and that is why they will prove to be more successful.

What do you think? Are these three reasons valid? Are there better reasons for why Gov 2.0 and Open Gov will succeed? Or is Gov 2.0 and Open Gov just like previous government reform efforts?

As I wrote in a earlier posting, I coined the term collaborgagement while attending a session at Content.gov. John Newton (Alfresco’s CTO) commented that the next generation of enterprise IT tools need to serve the middle of the enterprise – the domain of the knowledge workers. These tools need to support collaboration, knowledge management, and just-in-time sharing of expertise. Even so, collaboration/knowledge management software doesn’t automatically empower knowledge workers. There has to be more than just new tools.

Collaboration is important but it is not sufficient. Nicholas Charney noted this in a great posting where he questioned the value of collaboration as it was currently practiced in organizations. I commented that a tangible product from the collaboration would make the process better but I am becoming more convinced that even that is not enough. What is needed is something that would continue the benefits of collaboration between the collaboration sessions. A way of engaging the person’s thoughts and focusing those thoughts on the collaboration work even when the person is working alone. A process that I call collaborgagement. Not just a combination of collaboration and engagement but a process that is synergistic.

The foundation of collaborgagement is the mental model. The mental model has been variously defined by different fields but the consensus seems to be that mental models are “deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action” (Wind and Crook, 2005). Individuals have mental models but so do teams and departments. The purpose of the mental model is to make sense of various aspects of our lives including our work. Mental models take a great deal of effort to build but the benefit is, that once built, they reduce our thinking load.

For example, researchers have found that expert chess players actually think less than novice chess players because the expert chess player can focus on several pieces at once and perceive patterns of board arrangements. The novice chess player has to focus on separate pieces and build the pattern from the individual pieces. The expert chess player has a library of mental models they can consult that makes them better players because they can “look up” the answer to a chess problem while a novice is still calculating the problem.

The same process can be seen in everyday life. Think of how you learned to drive. Remember all the steps you had to master to start the car, put it in drive, and begin your journey. Repetition and observation helped you build a mental model so that driving almost becomes an automatic process requiring very little conscious thinking.

The challenge is that we rely on our mental models so much that we strenuously resist changing or discarding our existing models. This goes for team mental models as well as individual mental models. But our changing world requires that we change our mental models or they quickly lose their benefit and can even harm us in the new realities we face. We need a process of engaging peoples’ attention at the level of their mental models and then collaborate together to help explore current mental models and modify or even replace these mental models on an individual and team level. This is the purpose of collaborgagement.

There are probably several methods for examining current mental models and altering them but I like the process Wind and Crook (2005) outline in their book The Power of Impossible Thinking:

1. Understand the power and limits of mental models.
2. Test the relevance of your mental models against the changing environment, generate new models and develop an integrated portfolio of models.
3. Overcome inhibitors to change by reshaping infrastructure and the thinking of others.
4. Transform your world by acting quickly upon the new models, continuously experimenting and applying a process for assessing and strengthening your models. (p. xxiv)

With Wind and Crook’s (2005) process in mind this is how collaborgagment would work:

1. Before a team meeting the individual members examine their existing mental models that relate to the topic of the meeting. The team member may want to blog, mind map, or similar tool to help him or her to surface the mental models and produce it in a tangible form.
2. During the team meeting the individual members display their mental models. Then the team works together to surface the team mental models in a tangible form.
3. The team then examines the new reality of the topic and lists the characteristics. The goal of this phase is to come to a consensus about the new reality.
4. After a consensus has been reached, the team compares the current team mental model to the new reality. Does the team mental model need revising or is a completely new team mental model needed? The team works to determine the revisions or constructs the new mental model.
5. After the team meeting the individual members go on their own to reflect on the consensus about the new reality and how their current mental models compare to the new reality. The member then revises their existing mental models or constructs new mental models that reflect both the new reality and the team mental model.

What is important about this process is that it engages people on a deeper level than what usually happens in change efforts. I have been to plenty of meetings where great ideas and energy has been generated but it quickly dissipates once the meeting is over. For deep and sustainable change to happen you have to engage people at a fundamental level and produce collaboration that carries on ever after the meeting is over. I believe that starting at the mental model level is the best way to produce lasting transformative change.

Reference:
Wind, Y., & Crook, C. (2005). The power of impossible thinking: Transform the business of your life and the life of your business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

Previous Posts on Collaboration and Engagement:
Without Engagement Gov 2.0 Will Fail
The Goal of Collaboration: Navigating the Network of Idea Spaces

A book that I constantly recommend is Beinhocker’s The Origin of Wealth for two reasons. First, Beinhocker demonstrates how traditional economics is inadequate for explaining today’s economic systems. Second, he introduces complexity economics which is still developing but does a much better job in describing how real-world economies work and how people behave economically. To illustrate, let me give a simplified description of his core theory.

You start with a business plan. A business plan is a description of how you will meld physical technologies and social technologies to create a business that competes in an economy. Physical technologies (PT) are “methods and designs for transforming matter, energy, and information from one state into another in pursuit of a goal or goals.” Social technologies (ST) are the “methods and designs for organizing people in pursuit of a goal or goals.” Your business then competes with other businesses on the economic fitness landscape.

The best way to think of a fitness landscape is to imagine a square piece of land with hills and valleys. Businesses want to climb as high as they can on the highest hills because the higher you are up on a fitness landscape the more successful you are. Conversely, if you are in a deep valley you are failing in being fit on that landscape. Various factors determine fitness such as profitability, customer relations, and so on.

So, what does this have to do with Gov 2.0 or government in general? Replace business plan with plan and business with either project or program. You still have PT and ST but instead of building a business to compete on an economic fitness landscape, you are building a project or program to compete in government agency fitness landscape or policy area fitness landscape. This may seem rather abstract but this new perspective helps to consider fundamental questions about your Gov 2.0 project.

1. What are the factors that determine fitness in your landscape? Is it citizen engagement, cost-efficiency, and ease of implementation? Or is it increased collaboration and knowledge generation? Understanding what constitutes success will help to determine what the goal or goals should be for your Gov 2.0 project.
2. What PT an ST will the project need? How will these technologies blend together? Are there barriers to a good blending? Will the proposed blend fulfill the fitness factors more effectively than other blends?
3. How do I know if the Gov 2.0 project is climbing hills in the fitness landscape? How do I find the highest peaks in the fitness landscape and keep the Gov 2.0 project from being stranded on a smaller peak? How do I keep the Gov 2.0 project out of the valleys?
4. What do I do if the fitness landscape shifts? How do I determine when the fitness landscape shifts and what can I do to move the Gov 2.0 project so it stays on the peaks?

Another concept from Beinhocker that is also useful to government agencies is the idea of social architecture. Social architecture determines how adaptable an organization is and is composed of three factors:
1. Behaviors of individuals in the organization (Mental Models)
2. Structures and processes that align people and resources in pursuit of the organization’s goals.
3. The emergent culture that arises from people’s interactions with each other and their environment.
A robust social architecture gives the organization better abilities to determine the shifts in the fitness landscape and to better adapt to the shifts.

The advantages of the fitness landscape perspective is that it starts the dialogue on what the goals of the the Gov 2.0 project are and how the current environment will help or hinder reaching those goals. It also requires an honest assessment of the agency’s abilities to understand their current environment and to adapt when the environment changes. Beinhocker’s book is dense with ideas but he writes in a approachable style and his last chapter is especially vital in understanding government’s role in complexity economics.

Reference:

Beinhocker, E.D. (2006). The origin of wealth: The radical remaking of economics and what it means for business and society. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

In the last twenty years, I’ve probably read hundreds of books and articles on organizational change. My dissertation was a case study of a major organizational change. In all that time and all that I read, I found very little that dealt with how to best communicate a vision for change. The advice was mostly anecdotal and boiled down to “communicate early and often.” In a 2006 Public Administration Review article, Fernandez and Rainey surveyed over one million articles on organizational change and they concluded that the field was filled with conflicting theories and very little empirical evidence supporting these theories. One area that needed further research was the process of initiating change by which the change leader(s) communicate the need for change.

Then I came across a recently published book that offered specific advice on communicating a change vision. Written by Dr. Nickerson, the concept is called changecasting and it is a simple method. The leader records a series of weekly or biweekly videos that are no more than two-to-four minutes in length. In these videos the change leader speaks directly to the camera while explaining the change vision using only one idea per a video. The videos are released through a secure website for the entire organization to view simultaneously. The members of the organization are then encouraged to give their feedback to the videos through an anonymous web-based communication method. The change leader answers the feedback in subsequent videos.

In support of changecasting, Dr. Nickerson offers a case study of two firms (identities hidden) where the presidents initiated a major organizational change. One president used the changecasting method as outlined by the author while the other president used video but didn’t follow the changecasting method. The firm that used changecasting of course prospered while the other firm failed at its organizational change effort. There is a website and, for a fee, your organization can have their changecasting videos reviewed for effectiveness.

I’m usually wary of such books because many business books have plenty of anecdotes but not much empirical evidence to support the author’s claim. In this case, I think the changecasting method is a good idea because it does track well with what I found out in my research on organizational change and general theories on communicating effectively.

When change is communicated the general model is that the change leader(s) creates a vision and then broadcasts the vision to organization through different communication channels such as posters, newsletter, all-hands meetings, intranets, etc. Rarely is feedback encouraged and even rarer is the opportunity to offer anonymous feedback. Much of the advice on handling resistance to the change vision is either by marginalizing the dissenters or enforcing compliance with the change effort. Most change efforts are initiated because of a threatening situation to the organization so there is little time for dissent or even questioning of the change effort. As you can imagine, there is very little interactive communication about the change vision.

This explains why a large majority of change projects fail despite the fact that organizational change must be one of the most studied topics in management science. According to research by the Standish Group, roughly 70% of projects will not deliver promised results, go over the budget, use more time than scheduled, and/or consume more resources than planned for . Clearly, current methods for organizational change are not working effectively. There are many reasons for this but the biggest reason is resistance to change due to uncertainty about the proposed change.

Now, I don’t believe that people in general are naturally resistant to change. If that were true, people wouldn’t buy lottery tickets. What people are naturally afraid of is not understanding the implications of the change that they are compelled to follow. And it also human nature to imagine the worst in situations we do not fully understand.

This is what attracted me to changecasting. I like the aspect of keeping the messages short and simple so as to fully engage your audience. I also like the frequency of communications but what really interests me about process is the anonymous feedback. Opening up a dialogue about the proposed change can help to reduce the uncertainty and thus the resistance to change. There will probably be some residual resistance but I believe that the change leader(s) will gain more acceptance of the change vision than if they simply broadcast the change vision.

Organizational change is a fascinating area of study that also has major practical implications. Methods that can switch the 70% failure rate to a 70% success will be extremely beneficial considering the vast amounts of time, money, and resources the government now wastes on bad change projects. I am greatly interested if any readers of this blog were engaged in a change project where feedback was encouraged and if this feedback led to a successful outcome. I think the changecasting concept is a good method but it needs more empirical support.

References:
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 168-176.

Nickerson, J. (2010). Leading change in a web 2.1 world: How changecasting builds trust, creates understanding, and accelerates organizational change. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press

“Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember, my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.”
(From the opening of Plan Nine from Outer Space)

The idea for this posting came from a remark by a participant at the OpenGov Summit at NASA. It was a great event with some wonderful ideas for OpenGov and Gov 2.0. I was in a session where we discussed applying social network analysis to knowledge management when one person stated that agencies have to implement Gov 2.0 or it will be forced on them.

A rather provocative statement! I thought about this as I took the afternoon off to wander around the Air and Space Museum. Being a student of scenario planning, I thought of four scenarios where the government takes the lead in Gov 2.0 or misses the Gov 2.0 change. Now the idea behind scenario planning is not to predict the future but to use the scenarios to understand the potentials and challenges of current trends. A good example of this is Business 2.0’s 2006 scenarios concerning the future of Google.

I offer the following to set the stage for a discussion on Gov 2.0’s future. Please feel free to agree, disagree, or come up with your own scenario. We have some amazing thinkers out in the Gov 2.0 community and I am eager to hear your ideas so, please do respond!

First Scenario – SteamGov
Borrowing from the steampunk genre, this scenario describes a future where government attempts to implement Gov 2.0 but the rest of the world has already moved on to Web 3.0 or even Web 4.0. Government IT is still a generation behind the current technology available to citizens thus limiting the amount of engagement offered by the agencies. Large, centralized IT architectures dominate the agencies and employees are continually frustrated by the underpowered workstations they have to deal with especially when their own personal technology is much more powerful. There are small pockets of innovation and pilot projects but organizational cultures prevent scaling up these innovations to the agency as a whole.

Second Scenario – Google.Gov
Following a Supreme Court ruling that greatly narrows the definition of inherently governmental, almost all government functions are outsourced to the private and nonprofit sectors. A Google-like company consolidates most of the outsourcing contractors into one large contracting firm that applies the latest technology and business practices to delivering a diverse range of government services. The Executive Branch now consists of the White House staff and a larger GAO. The new GAO administers the megacontract that governs the quality and accountability of government services provided by the large contracting firm.

Third Scenario – LabGov
Still suffering under crushing budget constraints and frustrated by the continuing number of programs forced onto the states by the Federal government, state governments see Gov 2.0 as the way out of their fiscal mess. Fully living up to Justice Brandeis’ metaphor as “laboratories of democracy,” the various state governments experiment with the latest open-source technologies, agile project management, and any other IT or management innovations that promise greater efficiency at lower costs and higher citizen satisfaction. Citizens respond with enthusiasm and petition to have more federal programs (and funds) transferred to the states because they can manage services better, faster, and cheaper than the federal government. States form into regional and programmatic associations that shift the federal-state balance-of-power from the national government to regional governmental organizations (As an example, see Utah’s Laboratory of Democracy Act of 2010).

Fourth Scenario – InnoGov
In 2011 the civilian equivalent of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration is established. Its mandate is to be the project management office for Gov 2.0 and the office seeks out innovative Gov 2.0 projects, funds the development of these projects, and helps other agencies to copy the innovations. New radical management techniques are introduced and organizational cultures become more collaborative and innovative as a result. By 2014 the federal government is the leading innovator in IT and management practices and helps to revitalize the private and non-profit sectors with its technology/best practices transfer programs. Citizen engagement and trust in government begins to rise while the cost-savings and greater efficiencies bring about an era of budget surpluses.

What exactly is the nature of the Gov 2.0 challenge? This question was inspired by Andrew Krzmarzick’s post (“What Gov 2.0 Needs Now: Managers, Money and Models”) and Christina Morrison’s post (“What is Gov 2.0? A survey of Government IT pros”) on the recent GovLoop survey about Gov 2.0. As Andrew and Christina argued, the survey demonstrates many differing perspectives on Gov 2.0 in terms of what it actually means and how to implement Gov 2.0. To me, this suggests that Gov 2.0 is the classic wicked problem.

Wicked problems were originally an IT concept but it has spread to other fields as we confront more complex challenges. Definitions of wicked problems vary but the Rittel and Weber’s definition is the most cited:
“ 1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem (defining wicked problems is a problem).
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.
10. The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).”

Gov 2.0 seems to fit nine of the ten criteria (I have my doubts about point five) but I think the better definition is Conklin’s incorporation of social complexity into wicked problems because of the great number of stakeholders , the multitude of solutions, and the multiple perspectives of Gov 2.0. I believe Mark Drapeau’s diagram of Gov 2.0 best captures this complexity.

So, why should it matter if we determine that Gov 2.0 is a wicked problem? Well, once we know the kind of challenge we face, we can determine the best strategies to confront it. If Gov 2.0 were a tame problem then we know that our standard toolkit of problem solving methods and data analysis are adequate for creating solutions. The tame problem does not change as we attempt to analyze it and we can model the interactions as simple cause and effect relationships. The definition of a tame problem can be easily agreed to as also the solution.

But if we establish that Gov 2.0 is a wicked problem, then we know that even defining the problem will be difficult much less knowing what the solution will be. In fact, with most wicked problems, you don’t solve the problem as much as manage it (climate change is a good example of this). Much of the work is in building consensus among the stakeholders on the wicked problem and developing innovative methods to manage the problem. There is also a substantial amount of work in identifying and containing undesirable effects stemming from the management of the wicked problem.

In dealing with a wicked problem, we need collaboration across government organizations while helping to build up skills for innovation among the employees. Beinecke (2009) argues for a new type of leadership that is transformational rather than transactional. We also have to develop a new perspective on risk management as Krigsman (2010) argues in his article. The Australian Government has produced a great manual on how to deal with wicked problems in government management that is excellent guidance for current Gov 2.0 activities.

Establishing Gov 2.0 as a wicked problem may seem discouraging but the good news is that there is many tools to help us understand and manage wicked problems that emphasizes the benefits of our solutions while minimizing the undesired effects. It also confirms the need for more openness, collaboration, and innovation in government.

References:
Australian Government. (2007). Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public Policy Perspective. http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications07/wickedproblems.pdf

Beinecke, R.H. (2009). Introduction: Leadership for Wicked Problems. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 14:1. http://www.innovation.cc/scholarly-style/beinecke1.pdf

Conklin, J. (2008). Wicked Problems & Social Complexity. http://cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf

Drapeau, M. (May 24, 2010). What does Government 2.0 look like? http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/05/what-does-government-20-look-l.html

Krigsman, M. (May 7, 2010). ‘Wicked problems’: collaboration, risk, and failure. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/projectfailures/wicked-problems-collabora…

Science Daily. (December 5, 2007). Complex ‘Wicked’ Problems Better Solved Individually Than Through Internet Groups. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071130172937.htm

Wicked Problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem

Wicked Problems, May 2002. http://www.poppendieck.com/wicked.htm

In my last posting I wrote about the advantages of using the Adaptive Project Framework (APF) to deliver Gov 2.0 projects. I argued that Gov 2.0 needs new management methods to take advantage of the new technologies and deliver on the promise of open, transparent, and accountable government. But Gov 2.0 doesn’t stop at the launch of a successful project. The project must become an enduring process that is constantly monitored and refined to ensure that it is delivering the promised value.

This is where Process Intelligence (PI) comes in. PI is simply defined as “the ability to understand business processes and knowing how to use them effectively” (Blickle, et al., 2010). It is a combination of several disciplines such as Business Intelligence, Business Activity Monitoring, Process Discovery, Business Process Management, and Analytics. The goal of PI is to use real-time data to anticipate and shape business processes so that organizations can continually improve processes. PI achieves this goal through the establishment and measurement of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) that are the vital signs of the process like blood pressure and cholesterol numbers are indicators of our health.

To understand how to use PI in Gov 2.0 let me talk about Eggers and O’Leary’s (2009) book about big government projects. If We Can Put Man on the Moon discusses why government projects succeed or fail by explaining seven different traps along the way from the idea of a government project to its results. The authors describe a five-step process government projects travel through which is very similar to the PI process.

The Eggers and O’Leary Process:
Idea -> Design -> Stargate -> Implementation -> Results
<——————–Reevaluation——————————>

The PI Process
Strategize -> Design -> Implement -> Compose -> Execute -> Monitor and Control -> (Cycle around to Strategize)

As you can see Idea is to Strategize and Design is Design. There is no Stargate in PI but Implementation pairs with Implement and Compose and Execute while Results pairs with Monitor and Control. Viewing these processes side-by-side led me to the realization that KPIs and PI monitoring needs to be built into the Gov 2.0 project/process from the Idea stage. Doing so can help avoid or mitigate the seven traps that Eggers and O’Leary’s (2009) research found. Taking each trap in turn:

1) Tolstoy Syndrome (confirmation bias) – Decision makers only consider evidence that confirms their preconceptions. Asking how we will measure the success and failure of a project objectively will force decision makers to consider all evidence and to build in KPIs that are true vital signs of the health of the Gov 2.0 project/process.
2) Design-Free Design Trap – Often, the enabling legislation is written to ensure passage of the bill and very little consideration is given to how the project/process will actually work once it is handed off to the government agency or agencies. Again, incorporating KPIs will bring in questions of implementing the proposed project/process once it passes to the agencies.
3) StargateTrap – The project/process passes from the political arena to the operational arena. As Patashnik (2008) points out in Reforms at Risk, reforms are easier to initiate than to maintain because the opponents to the reform will continue to chip away or suffocate the reform. There are many tactics for eroding reform but PI can help by providing objective measures that can counter the usual argument that the reform is not producing the promised benefits.
4) Overconfidence Trap – Agency managers are under great pressure to make the project/process succeed and often have unrealistic expectations about their chances. The idea of even considering failure is unthinkable to most agency managers but ignoring the warning signs can doom the project/process. Clearly this argues for the need of objective measures provided by PI.
5) Sisyphus Trap – Government work can be confusing and ambiguous especially on large government projects/processes. KPIs can be the GPS that tells workers how we are progressing on the journey and can also be the basis for incentives for good work.
6) Complacency Trap – Things are going well so our guard is relaxed. But, unnoticed events can be occurring under the surface that will suddenly cause a major crisis. PI can alert us to these emerging events long before they become a serious problem.
7) Silo Trap – PI is not just about mapping and measuring the processes but is also about understanding how people and organizations interact with the process. PI encourages us to consider our goals for developing a project/process and to bring in all parties to discuss their part in the project/process. By its very nature, this dialogue breaks down the silos that separate agencies and departments.

Gov 2.0 came about because the old ways of government just don’t work anymore in today’s world. We live in an exciting time where the new technologies and the new ways of thinking can create a government that is more engaged and serves our country better in innovative ways. There is a lot of energy and enthusiasm for Gov 2.0 reform and that is desperately needed to keep the momentum going. But the true test is if we can maintain the advances of Gov 2.0 for the long run. Patashnik’s (2008) research demonstrates that reforms can easily lose steam and are difficult to keep alive for more than a few years. Despite our technology and commitment, using the current management methods is likely to doom Gov 2.0 to another short-lived, good intention movement that just didn’t endure.

References

Blickle, T., Hess, H., Klueckmann, J., Lees, M., & Williams, B. (2010). Process intelligence for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, Inc.

Eggers, W.D., & O’Leary, J. (2009). If we can put man on the moon-: Getting big things done in government. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Patashnik, E.M. (2008). Reforms at risk: What happens after major policy changes are enacted? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.