Bill's Notebook

As we work on how to use social networking technologies in Gov 2.0, I thought this article from IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management might be of some interest to practitioners. “The Strategic Implications of Web Technologies: A Process Model of How Web Technologies Enhance Organizational Performance” answers two questions:

1) “How do Web technologies support the strategies of an organization?”
2) “How do Web technologies enhance organizational performance?”

The authors of the study argue that existing efforts to use Web technologies are not being effectively utilized because the organizations do not know how to align the technologies with the strategic goals of the organization due to a limited understanding of how to achieve such an alignment. Using a case study of a Singapore IT publication (Hardwarezone.com), the authors list the seven capabilities of Web technologies:

1) “Enable an organization to transcend geographical and temporal boundaries.”
2) “Facilitate improvements to processes in an organization’s value chain.”
3) “Provide an effective means of collecting customer information and feedback.”
4) “Enhance the timeliness of organizational information.”
5) “Reinforce offline business models and facilitate the creation of new business models.”
6) “Reduce the capital outlay involved in establishing and expanding a business.”
7) “Enable the development of virtual communities.”

None of the above should be surprising to Gov 2.0 practitioners. Having listed the seven capabilities, the authors then describe their process model which consists of the three core logics of strategic management and the two core logics of organizational sociology:

1) Strategic Management
a. Logic of Positioning – how a company strategically positions itself in the marketplace
b. Logic of Leverage – effectively using strategic resources and capabilities
c. Logic of Opportunity – innovating effectively in response to a changing external environment
2) Organizational Sociology
a. Logic of Optimality – creation of the optimal organizational form for the current environment
b. Logic of Social Congruence – organization harmonizes relationships with key stakeholders

So, what does this mean for Gov 2.0 practitioners? Even though the process model applies to business organizations, the same logics can be transformed into public administration equivalents. For example, when selling a new social networking technology to agency management, you can demonstrate how the technology’s capabilities can fulfill one of the logics.

Let’s say you want to start up a Twitter feed to publicize agency activities. The Twitter feed meets capabilities 1, 3, 4, and 7. These capabilities meet the logics of Positioning, Opportunity, and Social Congruence. By demonstrating how the new technology aligns with some of the strategic goals of the organization, Gov 2.0 practitioners can better sell these new technologies to upper agency management.

References:
Tan, B.C.C., Pan, S.L., & Hackney, R. (2010). The strategic implications of web technologies: A process model of how web technologies enhance organizational performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57: 2. 181-197.

(Cross-posted on GovLoop)

Back in 2005 I presented a conference paper on a framework for general organization failure.  Five years later and I find that the framework is still valid with parts of the framework being confirmed by neuroscience experiments.  I compiled a list of books and articles to update the research and will expand the paper into a book.  I hope to have it finished by the fall.  Stay tuned for updates.

I’m still pondering its uses in project management – from Net-Map ToolBox.

My other day job is teaching web development and political communication for the University of Louisville.  I’ve taught college classes for ten years now and to a wide range of ages.  That is why I am skeptical about the concept of the Digital Natives (students born between 1980 and 2000).  In my experience, age is not a good predictor of the technical expertise of students.  This is why I was glad to see a recent article in The Economist that validated my anecdotal experiences.

According to the “Net Generation, Unplugged,” there is growing skepticism among academics that the digital natives are any better at technology than the other generations.

“Michael Wesch, who pioneered the use of new media in his cultural anthropology classes at Kansas State University, is also sceptical [sic], saying that many of his incoming students have only a superficial familiarity with the digital tools that they use regularly, especially when it comes to the tools’ social and political potential. Only a small fraction of students may count as true digital natives, in other words. The rest are no better or worse at using technology than the rest of the population.”

This is important to the OpenGov community because preconceptions about how the generations approach technology can hinder efforts for openness and engagement.  These preconceptions can also affect how new government managers are treated as they enter the workforce.  As Jennifer Deal argues in her book, Retiring the Generation Gap: How Employees Young and Old Can Find Common Ground, the generations all want the same things (family, recognition, achievement, etc.) but how they perceive each other is what causes the gaps.  Changing perceptions is the first step in better engagement.

Great op-ed from James Cameron that argues for the new vision for NASA.  Turning NASA into a form of DARPA may be the best way to spur America’s lead in space technology.  Look at how technology grew under DARPA’s direction – The Department of Mad Scientists: How DARPA Is Remaking Our World, from the Internet to Artificial Limbs.

I recently read Matthew Stewart’s The Management Myth during my hiatus from blogging.  Mr. Stewart’s book is an expose of the myths that created the management consulting profession and his adventures at a typical management consulting firm.  He describes how Taylor’s experiments would not even make a good undergraduate research project and how the Hawthorne effect was never scientifically established.  Everyone from Peter Drucker to Tom Peters is shown to be more of a showman than a serious researcher in management science.   These sections are well-documented and were eye-opening for me.

In alternating chapters he describes his misadventures at a management consulting which was eerily similar to my times at various consulting firms.  His description of the type of analysis taught to neophyte consultants is quite illuminating for those who want to hire management consultants (especially the part about the “Whale”).

For a taste of what the book is like, you can read Mr. Stewart’s article in the Atlantic Monthly.