Bill's Notebook

I succumbed to the hype and joined Quora last week. Two weeks before that I joined Academia which is a social networking site for academics. Friday night I joined Eegoes because they promised to help me organize my rapidly-expanding universe of social networking sites. I had a great time building profiles, looking for people to follow (like Stephen Hawkings!), and registering my interests (game theory and the Three Stooges). I post daily on FaceBook, participate in LinkedIn discussions, and haunt the GovLoop site at least an hour a day. Add in my Twitter activity and I put in a significant amount of time and effort creating content and interacting with others.

It was from Twitter that I came upon this posting from Derek Christensen that compared Google’s latest business efforts to Tom Sawyer’s scam to get his friends to whitewash a fence for him. As Mr. Christensen points out, the key is the packaging of the onerous task into an activity that people are fighting to do. You can go swimming anytime but it’s not everyday you can WHITEWASH A FENCE! Or answer questions from other people! Or share your academic papers with other academics so easily! Thanks to my efforts and the efforts of others we are helping to make Mark Zuckerberg a very, very rich man by contributing thousands of free hours of labor to make the FaceBook community valuable to other users who in turn contribute even more free labor.

I helped make FourSquare a major success and all I got was this lousy badge?

No, I am not that cynical. I benefit a great deal from the social networks. FaceBook allows me to keep in touch with friends on a daily basis when before I would occasionally call or only see them at special occasions. Twitter is a great resource for the newest stuff in my fields and GovLoop has given me a great platform to showcase my work and to connect with a great group of professionals. My Social Return on Investment (ROI) has been much better in the last three years than at any other time in my career. I am certain others have seen similar benefits from being on social networks.

But nothing fails quite like success. 2011 looks to be the year of the social networks as more organizations and entrepreneurs compete to build the next FaceBook/FourSquare/Twitter/LinkedIn. Look at the recent hype surrounding Quora. This will be a common event all through 2011 because the barriers to entry are so low and the potential payoff is so high. In a nice weekend afternoon and with a premium account on Ning I can build a competitor to GovLoop (BillLoop?). A three-day weekend, a six-pack of Five-Hour Energy, and a hosted Drupal account and I have a very sophisticated social networking site. Just add a critical mass of members and I will soon have a movie made about me.

Why does this matter to Gov 2.0? Because 2011 will also be the year of engagement fatigue. It will seem like everyone from your local grocery to your alma mater wants you to put a profile on their site and give daily status updates while constantly asking you your opinion on a quick survey. According to neuroscience findings, 150 is the maximum number of social contacts our brains can comfortably handle. Many people have quickly surpassed that number in their online social networking contact lists. By necessity people will start scaling back so expect to see major pruning as people determine just who are the most important members of their personal networks. And woe to the social network where people have just discovered they were tricked into helping the network owner into building a valuable body of knowledge that only the network owner will profit from.

So, how do you tell if you are benefiting from a social network or just whitewashing someone’s virtual fence?

1. What’s In It For Me? Put a dollar value on your time and treat your social networking time like an investment. Is being part of this network going to benefit me by keeping in touch with friends and family? Is it going to help me build a reputation in my field? Can I make a list of at least five ways I personally benefit from being a member?
2. How Much Can I Personalize the Experience? Can I form subgroups of interests? Can I specify who I will interact with? Can I determine the level of interaction I want and not be harassed to interact more?
3. Do I Have Ownership of My Work? At various times, FaceBook and Second Life tried to alter the user agreement so that they and not the user owned the work that was contributed to their respective sites. If you are in a social networking site that tries to claim ownership of your original work and/or does not allow easy exporting of your work, then you don’t want to be a member of that site.
4. Is the Site Owned by the Community? As the site grows has the social network owner ceded more and more of decision making to the community? Is there a diversity of opinion on the site? Is it easy to question and affect decisions about community operations? Is there a formal council of members that rotates membership on a regular basis?

In 2011, I expect to see the rise of many copycat social networking sites as more people try to gain in this emerging market. There will be many beneficial sites but I fear a greater number of social-fencepainting sites will also arise. The challenge for Gov 2.0 citizen engagement efforts is to first be heard above the din of all the new sites and then to survive the coming backlash from the collapse of many of these new social networking sites. The American people are great advocates for collective action but only if the benefits are clearly visible and evenly shared.

As the first decade of the 21st Century ends, I hope that the economic events of the last thirty-five years finally loosen the hold that neoclassical economics has on public policy.  It is widely recognized that the accepted economic models that governments use to shape policy are just not empirically valid.  Today’s economies are vastly different from the industrial revolution economies that shaped neoclassical economic theory.  Yet, these theories are the basis for setting interest rates, regulating the stock market, determining the level of environmental protection, almost every aspect of government regulation (Smith 2010, p. 65).  It is time to modernize the economic theories that are used to guide government and economic policies.

The case against neoclassical economics has been growing in recent years.  As Yves Smith (2010) details in her book:
1)  Economics is not a real science because it is difficult to do the empirical evidence to validate the models economist develop from their assumptions (pp. 20-21).
2)  Many of the core assumptions of neoclassicism (people are totally rational, have complete information, only act to maximize utility, etc.) have been disproved by experiments in behavioral economics (pp. 94-97).
3)  Despite the fact that they are working with faulty assumptions, economists claim that the implications derived from the assumptions are still valid because they are good approximations of reality (p. 41 and pp. 47-48).
4)  Hard sciences also use simplified models to explain phenomena but the crucial difference is that economists add unrealistic properties to validate their models.  For example, economists add the property of perfect information to make supply and demand models work (pp. 48-49).

Some economists counter by admitting that neoclassical economics has these problems but the cure is to do more empirical research.  But with more empirical research, the neoclassical assumptions are giving way to a new economic theory – complexity economics.

Eric Beinhocker (2007) surveys the rise of complexity economics in which researchers apply complexity and network theory concepts to economic activities.  The main advantage of complexity economics is that its assumptions can be empirically validated and that its findings apply to modern economic phenomena.  Thus, this is a better basis upon which to base policy decisions.

Beinhocker’s  (2007) core argument is easy to understand.  Businesses use a mixture (business plan) of physical technologies and social technologies to compete with other businesses.  The businesses that have more fit business plans out-compete businesses with less-fit business plans.  Based on this model Beinhocker details several implications for policy makers:
1)  The role of markets is to process the immense amount of information from buyers and sellers into the most coordinated and effective manner while also determining how fit a business is.  Thus free and open markets must be maintained by regulations that do not impede the flow of information available to all parties (p. 423).
2)  Government’s role is to provide and preserve the vast array of social technologies that make it possible for businesses and markets to exist.  Social technologies such as contract law, antitrust enforcement, and securities regulation (p. 425).  Therefore, government plays an important role in shaping the fitness determination role of markets (pp. 426-427).
3)  Behavioral economics indicates what kind of social programs will be more readily accepted and politically-supported.  People will support aid programs that have strong reciprocity – programs designed to help people become functionally independent (pp. 418-421).
4)  Countries that score higher on measures of societal trust also have higher economic performance than countries with lower societal trust scores (pp. 432-433).  Thus, an important role for American government is to build up social capital in the U.S. (pp. 439-440).

As the above demonstrates, government has a vital role in preserving and strengthening the U.S. economy.  The argument of neoclassical economics that government should have little or no role in market economies is a false one and has led to extreme reactions from the Left and the Right.  With a clearer understanding of government’s actual role in the U.S. economy policy makers can craft effective policies that preserve the best features of the market system while building up the necessary social capital to strengthen the economy and serve the U.S. people.  We just need to move beyond the false answers given by neoclassical economics to the insights of complexity economics.

References:
Beinhocker, E.D. (2007). The origin of wealth: The radical remaking of economics and what it means for business and society. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Smith, Y. (2010). Econned: How unenlightened self interest undermined democracy and corrupted capitialism. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Further Reading:
Berreby, D. (2005). Us & Them: The science of identity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Cassidy, J. (2009). How markets fail: The logic of economic calamities. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Lehrer, J. (2009). How we decide. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Pfaff, D.W. (2007). The neuroscience of fair play: Why we usually follow the golden rule. New York: Dana Press.

Schelling, T.C. (2006). Micromotives and macrobehaviors. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Shermer, M. (2008). The mind of the market: Compassionate apes, competitive humans, and other tales from evolutionary economics. New York: Times Books.

Stiglitz, J.E. (2010). Freefall: America, free markets, and the sinking of the world economy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Thaler, R.H., & Sunstein, C.R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New York: Penguin Books.

Ubel, P.A. (2009). Free-market madness: Why human nature is at odds with economics – and why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

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.

Take a moment and look around your personal office space. Now look at your computer and notice what your desktop icons are and what programs you have open. According to Richard Ogle, the books, documents, computer programs, and other work aids are parts of our extended mind. We create documents, spreadsheets, whatever to offload our intellectual task load so that we can function better in our tasks.

In doing so we have made our tools more intelligent so that they could do some thinking on their own. Think of a spreadsheet you created. Building it took concentrated intellectual effort on your part. But now, you just open the spreadsheet, enter a few numbers, and it does the thinking for you. The spreadsheet has embedded intelligence. Embedded intelligence can also exist in organizational procedures, processes, documents, and even culture. Put enough of these embedded intelligences together and you have an Idea Space.

So what does this have to do with innovation? It is through exploring different Idea Spaces and using analogical thinking that many innovation breakthroughs were achieved. Ogle gives the example of Frances and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA. Frances and Crick succeeded where other researchers failed because they were able to apply concepts from other fields and applied it to their problem. Instead of analytical thinking where they reduced the problem to its component parts they used analogies to view their problem from different perspectives and discover a solution.

This happens all of the time. You are working on a problem and then you think of something similar you did on another project. You apply the solution you created before and, with a little tinkering, it works just as well for the new problem. Real innovation occurs when you can apply a seemingly dissimilar analogy and make a truly creative breakthrough.

What all this means for you and your agency is that Idea Spaces follow the common laws of networks. Richard Ogle posits nine such laws such as the “fit get fitter” and “tipping points.” These laws boil down to two: Idea Spaces self-organize into networks and creative leaps occur by connecting Idea Spaces through analogical thinking.

Go look at your colleagues offices. What is their extended mind like? Think of your agency procedures and practices. What Idea Spaces exist there? How would you characterize the network of Idea Spaces? Is it easy to navigate? Can your apply analogical thinking from your colleagues’ Idea Spaces? What barriers exist in agency policies that prevent navigation and analogical thinking?

Nick Charney wrote in a recent blog posting about what is the goal of collaboration. He is correct in that just getting together to talk is not enough. I suggest that the goal of collaboration is to share our Idea Spaces and help others navigate the Idea Spaces so that we can apply analogical thinking to solve our collective problems. We should map our Idea Spaces, help the network of Idea Spaces grow, and clear away the underbrush and barriers to navigation. That is the return on investing in collaboration.

This is why Gov 2.0 and Open Gov are so important. They are not ends in themselves but they make the Idea Spaces network stronger and easier to navigate because the Gov 2.0 tools make it easier to embed intelligence while Open Gov encourages more collaboration. As you go about your work try to see your agency as a collection of Idea Spaces. Is the network strong or does it need help? What barriers are preventing you from applying analogical thinking in your work? Can Gov 2.0 and Open Gov help your agency create a better Idea Spaces network?

Reference:

Ogle, R. (2007). Smart world: Breakthrough creativity and the new science of ideas. Harvard Business School Press.

Appendix A – Formal Definition of Idea Space: “a domain or world viewed from the perspective of the intelligence embedded in it, intelligence that we can use – consciously or not – both to solve our everyday problems and to make the creative leaps that lead to breakthrough” (p. 13).

I believe that the best argument made by Eggers and O’Leary in If We Can Put a Man on the Moon was the need for lawmakers to consider how their proposals will be implemented when the programs are passed to the agencies. I was thinking about this when I was visiting the Woodrow Wilson Center’s electronic archives for the (now defunct) Office of Technology Assessment.

For those not familiar with OTA, it was an agency that performed deep technical analysis of current science and technology topics. Founded in 1972, it produced reports on the impact of the supersonic transports, how to best prepare citizens for disasters, and the benefits of early childhood health programs. OTA provided objective and succinct guidance to Congress on technology issues until it was shut down in 1995. The science community has continually called for OTA’s reestablishment and in 2008, GAO was tasked with producing technical assessment reports.

This year, the Woodrow Wilson Center argued [PDF] for creating a network of nonpartisan organizations to provide objective technical assessments (Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology – ECAST Network). This is a great idea but I think it should be taken one step further: a nonpartisan network of scholars and practitioners to provide analysis and strategies for implementing major legislation.

Now, your first response is probably that we already have more than enough organizations that provide detailed advice on how to implement almost every bill before Congress. Very true but the problem with their advice is that it is often politically-motivated and rarely deals with the realities of how the agencies will make the programs work effectively and efficiently. Also, I’ve yet to see these proposals consider how their strategies will impact other program and government operations as a whole.

We have a unique community of practitioners and scholars from all levels of American government on GovLoop. I envision developing some type of online structure that could tap into the expertise and practical knowledge that this community possesses and channel it into implementation strategies for such topics like health care, emergency preparedness, and similar topics. We already have tools for collecting ideas, judging those ideas, and crowdsourcing innovations and best practices.

I’m just tossing this idea out there to see if anyone would be interested in discussing it further. I have a few concepts for next steps but I really want to just start the dialogue. This could also serve as a general conversation on creating virtual agencies and better citizen engagement through crowdsourcing (like Beth Noveck’s concepts in Wiki Government).

“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.

I was going to post more about Process Intelligence and the Adaptive Project Framework last Monday but I was snowed under at work. Good thing because John Kamensky posted a great comment on President Obama’s Accountable Government Initiative. As I read the snapshots of the six initiatives, I was struck by how the success of each initiative depends on good project management and good business process management. There was a good discussion recently about the role technology plays in Gov 2.0 but I personally think the key to successful Gov 2.0 and OpenGov are the management methods. We need new methods for managing projects and for continuously improving Gov 2.0 processes.

Traditional project management is still useful. Thanks to TPM, the US Government built Trident submarines, nuclear aircraft carriers, and landed men on the Moon. Much of what made TPM so effective are the innovations pioneered by the Federal project managers such as Earned Value Management and Program Evaluation and Review Technique. But, for TPM to be effective, the goal and the solution must be known in advance and change must be minimized as much as possible.

In the Gov 2.0 reality, change is paramount and rapid while the goal may be well-defined but the solution to achieve the goal is often vague. Timelines are extremely short and so are resources and budgets. Using TPM to manage Gov 2.0 projects is just inviting failure (as the numerous examples in the IT Project Failures blog will attest). For Gov 2.0 and OpenGov to succeed we need new methods to manage these projects and their implementation. That is why I advocate the Adaptive Project Framework.

The APF was created by Dr. Robert Wysocki during his 40+ years as a project manager. He wanted a project management method that could better handle change and allowed for exploring a way to a solution while minimizing wasted time and resources. The best feature of APF is that the project scope is variable and that is what makes it perfect for Gov2.0 projects.

Scope in a project is what work needs to be done during the project (Project Scope) and what features the project product will have(Product Scope). In TPM, both Project Scope and Product Scope is fixed as early as possible. All planning, scheduling, and resource requirements are anchored to the scope and this is why change is so disruptive to the TPM project.

APF uses Cycle Plans and Cycle Builds to incorporate change into the project management process. In the initial planning, the project manager and project customer(s) create a high-level document that defines the project goal and conditions of satisfaction. Then a Requirements Breakdown Structure is built that captures the project product requirements at that time. A Cycle Plan is created that details what requirements will be created during the Cycle Build. The Cycle Build is time-boxed which means that it is a short duration (two weeks to a month).

During the Cycle Build you can have two streams of work. In one stream, some team members explore new features to include in the final project product while the other stream integrates proven features together into the product. As new ideas emerge they are added to the Scope Bank to be part of future Cycle Builds. Any features that are not completed within the Cycle Build are added to the next Cycle Plan. The Cycle Build can also be terminated early if the features are not working or if the current solution no longer fulfills the project goal.

To illustrate the difference, let’s use an example from recent events. Suppose you are working on a project to apply Search Engine Optimization (SEO) strategies to your agency website. You are halfway through the project when Google launches Google Instant. Then Twitter launches a redesigned search service. This requires a major change in your SEO strategies. Now what do you do?

Under TPM you could continue on with the project but your project product will be outdated and ineffective by the time you deliver it. Or you could cancel the TPM project and start all over again. You have wasted time and resources while incurring the additional costs of a new project. This will not look good on the IT Dashboard.

Under APF, the most you have to do is modify the Conditions of Satisfaction document and the Project Overview Statement. You can cancel the current Cycle Build and begin a new Cycle Plan to incorporate the new technologies and techniques into the final project product. Waste and loss of time are minimized while the current project can continue on toward the original goal but with an improved solution.

In my next posting, I will go into detail about Process Intelligence and how that can help address the issues raised by William Eggers and John O’Leary in If We Can Put a Man on the Moon… Getting Big Things Done in Government. I have also added two new pages devoted to collecting resources about Process Intelligence and Project Intelligence to my personal blog.

Nancy Dixon (author of one of the best books on communities of practice – CompanyCommand) has a great blog post about how NASA used conversation to capture knowledge gained from currently canceled Constellation program.  She describes how she helped NASA develop a knowledge capture strategy by working with NASA employees and other thought leaders in knowledge management.  Some excellent stuff here and I hope she formalizes the process into a book.