Bill's Notebook

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

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in
place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they
contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food
and tyrannize their teachers.”

Socrates complained about the younger generation. St. Thomas Aquinas lamented that the world would be left to an ill-prepared and slovenly youth. A year after I was graduated from college, I read Steve Allen’s Dumbth which “humorously” recounted tales of how Generation X just didn’t know how to think.

Twenty years later it’s the Millennial Generation’s turn with The Dumbest Generation. “According to recent reports from government agencies, foundations, survey firms, and scholarly institutions, most young people in the United States neither read literature (or fully know how), work reliably (just ask employers), visit cultural institutions (of any sort), nor vote (most can’t even understand a simple ballot). They cannot explain basic scientific methods, recount foundations of American history, or name any of their local political representatives. What do they happen to excel at is – each other. They spend unbelievable amounts of time electronically passing stories, pictures, tunes, and texts back and forth, savoring the thrill of peer attention and dwelling in a world of puerile banter and coarse images.”

The crux of the “dumb generation” argument is that their generation just doesn’t have the knowledge that our generation has with the implication that our knowledge is inherently superior. It reminds me of summers that I spent at my grandparent’s farm where I was pitied because I didn’t know how to milk a cow, can vegetables, or could identify all the trees on the farm. “Didn’t I know anything?” they asked. Then we bought them a microwave oven, a VCR, and hooked their TV up to cable. Now I got to mutter under my breath, “didn’t my grandparents know anything?” As our workplaces become more multi-generational, I am sure there is a lot of muttering about the limitations of the different generations. And that is a misleading issue.

The real issue is how to transform our organizations into learning organizations so that we capture the knowledge we already have and determine the knowledge that we need. We produce new data and information at an astounding rate and it is growing faster every year. The challenge is to determine what knowledge we need to keep, what knowledge we need to discard, and how to find the new knowledge we need. Like the way I cling to 80s rock, knowledge we already have feels comforting and empowering but we need to have the courage to let some of that go and embrace the new knowledge that is being produced. Even so, we also need to recognize that not all old knowledge is useless and should be discarded.

Others on GovLoop have written that the best learning is in our workplaces and with conversations with our colleagues. We can learn a lot from each other and our organizations desperately need our efforts to keep the organizational memory growing and thriving. That means younger workers should not just immediately dismiss current practices and processes because that is how they used to do things. And older workers should not be defensive and dismissive when younger workers suggest new ways of doing the organization’s business.

Back when I worked at a state agency, I had a colleague who insisted on using Lotus 123 for his spreadsheets despite the fact that we had Microsoft Excel. He would complain bitterly when they tried to install Excel on his machine and we would have to support Lotus 123 even though it was getting harder to do so every year. I then hit upon a strategy of having him teach me his spreadsheets. I would go over to his cubicle and learn the macros that he created. I would recreate the macros in Excel and then show him how much more powerful they were and how the reports looked better with charting available to Excel. He was reluctant at first but I believe what sold him on upgrading is that he would not lose the original knowledge he had in his spreadsheets and macros but that they would be faster and more effective in a newer environment. A couple of years later, he relished his role as the “Excel Guru” who was the go-to guy about the intricacies of Excel spreadsheets.

So, maybe what is needed are less books about how stupid the other generations are and more books on how much we can learn from each other.

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.

Doing a lot of research on process intelligence and project intelligence. I’ve started pages devoted to these subjects. Not many resources at the moment but I expect this to change once word starts to spread.

Been a while since I’ve blogged but it was quite fruitful absence.  I spent the time catching up on the latest developments in management including a fascinating book on Process Intelligence. What I like about process intelligence is that it is blending of business process management and business analytics that aids in designing an optimum process from the start.

At the same time I’ve also just finished Wysocki’s Adaptive Project Framework.  APF is used for projects where the goal is clear but the solution is uncertain.  Using iterative build cycles and treating scope as variable APF essentially explores a way to the best solution for the project.

It occurred to me that blending process intelligence with APF might lead to more effective change management efforts – Lean Change Management.  APF will be used to establish the process and then process intelligence will be used examine the process and feed in improvements to the next APF cycle.  Over the next month or so, I will work out the details of lean change management in periodic postings.

“Breitbart is, in short, expert in making the journalism industry his bitch. ‘The market has forced me to come up with techniques to be noticed,’ Breitbart says. ‘And now that I have them, I’m like, wow, this is actually great. This is fun.’”

How Andrew Breitbart Hacks the Media – Wired, April 2010.

By now, you have probably heard of how Shirley Sherrod, a former(?) Federal official, was forced to resign after a heavily-edited video of a recent speech she gave at an NAACP event was used as evidence of reverse-racism in Obama’s administration.  After the tape was released by Mr. Breitbart to FOX News, both the NAACP and White House called for Ms. Sherrod’s resignation.

Then, the unedited video was released (you can view it here).  Basically, the videotape shows that Ms. Sherrod’s statements were the exact opposite of what FOX News reported.  The NAACP apologized last night for being “snookered“  and called for her case to be reconsidered.  The farm family that Sherrod referred to even defended her while, just a few hours ago, the White House apologized.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if the White House and the USDA remembered one basic fact – FOX News is not an actual news station.  Also, once they realized that Mr. Breitbart was behind the videotape, they should have remembered how an earlier, heavily-edited videotape falsely accused ACORN (and let to that organization’s demise).  At the very least, someone should have asked to see the complete unedited tape.  Even Mr. Breitbart admits that viewing the entire tape demonstrates that Ms. Sherrod is not a racist.

Mr. Breitbart and others like him are taking advantage of the decline of journalism.  Newsrooms are cutting back on staff and especially investigate reporters.  At the same time, they have to fill the 24-hour news hole and compete with other cable stations and local news.  Ratings are more essential now than ever.  Media manipulators know these weaknesses and use them to their partisan advantage.  As the Sherrod case shows, reputations can be damaged in just a few hours.  What is unusual about the Sherrod case is that the true picture came just as quickly.  In cases such as ACORN or Climategate, it was several months before the truth came out but was of little help in averting the damage.

It is imperative that the audience become more skeptical and reserve judgment before all of the facts are in.  More and more media manipulators are taking advantage of the decline of traditional journalism to spread their falsehoods.  Unfortunately, I don’t hold much hope as when obviously fictional news events (such as this from the Onion) are viewed as investigative journalism.

You have a strange idea of “fun,” Mr. Breitbart.

Graetz and Smith’s (2010) article starts off well enough:

“Traditional approaches to organizational change generally follow a linear, rational model in which the focus is on controllability under the stewardship of a strong leader or ‘guiding coalition’.  The underlying assumption of this classical approach, ever popular among change consultants, is that organizational change involves a series of predictable, reducible steps that can be planned and managed (Collins, 1998).  The evidence from case studies of failed change implementations indicates, however, that this uni-dimensional, rational focus is limited because it treats change as a single, momentary disturbance that must be stabilized and controlled.  Such a view fails not only to appreciate that change is a natural phenomenon which is intimately entwined with continuity but, also, that the change-continuity continuum is what defines organizations and their ability both to exploit and explore.  Change and continuity represent competing but complementary narratives, bring in ambiguity and novelty to destabilize as well as validate existing organizational routines.” (pp. 135-136).

But the rest of the article doesn’t live up to the promise of introducing a new method for bringing about organizational change.  The authors catalog ten change philosophies* by describing each philosophy’s methods for change and associated shortcomings.  They then discuss the continuity-change continuum and argue that change agents must use a “multi-philosophic” approach even though the authors don’t specify what they mean by multi-philosophic. That is unfortunate because I believe that they have pinpointed the fundamental problem with change management in modern organizations.

Organizations are in a constant state of change as an inherent part of its interactions within and without.  Organizations are also constantly resisting change because the members are trying to maintain continuity.  Most of the time, change is a constant background hum in the organization that periodically causes minor changes in processes (switching from voice mail to email to communicate requests or distributing information via the web versus the previous method of printed reports).

Change agents need to realize that change already exists in the organization and that to bring about deep change is to dial up the change part of the continuum while realizing that people in the organization are conditioned to respond by dialing up the continuity part.  If the organizational change is meant to destroy the existing continuity part of the continuum in favor of a new continuity, there will be a period of chaos until the new continuity is established in the continuum.  Change produces feedback and this has to be handled carefully or the increasing disruption can upset the continuum balance.

Graetz and Smith (2010) have the beginnings of a successful change method.  Harness the change inherent in the organization and realize how the continuity portion of the continuum will resist the change.  Convince a critical mass of the organization’s members to drop the continuity in favor of the change in order to shift the balance.

The big question is just how do you handle these tasks in the change-continuity continuum?

Note:

* Biological, Rational, Institutional, Resource, Contingency, Psychological, Political, Cultural, Systems, and Postmodern.

Reference:

Graetz, F., & Smith, A.C.T. (2010). Managing organizational change: A philosophies of change approach. Journal of Change Management, 10:2. 135-154.

After several ScienceBlogs have left, Seed dropped “Food Frontiers” (blog sponsored by Pepsi).  A lot of postings back and forth over Seed‘s decision but one blogger made a rather telling point: if Seed‘s finances are to the point that they had to accept money for a sponsored blog that does not bode well for the future of ScienceBlogs.

Whatever the result, I’m dropping ScienceBlogs from my Bloglines reader.  Time to find some new science blogs that actually post about science.

A few years ago, I picked up the premiere issue of Seed magazine.  The magazine was devoted to science as culture and it was great.  Wonderful, insightful articles and some amazing photographs which reminded me of OMNI magazine in its prime.  Seed also had a great online presence with a network of science blogs.  I looked forward to the magazine every month and reading the blogs everyday.

Then the last issue appeared in May of 2009.  There was an announcement on the website that the next issue would be out on June 2009 but none have appeared since that May issue.  The ScienceBlogs are still active but they haven’t been as good as they used to.  The better blogs have moved on to other sites and what is left is not that focused on scientific (with a few exceptions).  You have a few blogs that spend most of their time arguing with creationists and fundamentalists; other blogs that essentially repost clips from Olberman, Maddow, or Jon Stewart; and a couple of self-aggrandizing blogs.  There are a few standout blogs that I enjoy but they seem to leave after a while or stop posting altogether.

Now, ScienceBlogs has a new blog from PepsiCo called Food Frontiers.  A corporate-sponsored blog has the other ScienceBloggers up in arms about this conflict of interest.  I find it an interesting position when Seed magazine had advertisements and the ScienceBlog site has banner ads all over it.  The other blogs have touted their own books and others (one blog even has a “shoe of the week” which is tongue-in-cheek but can be construed as blatant advertising).  To me, this is just another sign of the decline of Seed and ScienceBlogs because to allow such a blatantly commercial blog speaks of a desperate attempt to raise money.  And once Seed lets in one commercial blog, it is opening the door to more.

This is a sad reflection on modern science as it has been recently revealed how corporations have funded research that conveniently confirms the interests of the corporate sponsors.  I guess I didn’t expect this with science journalism.  It is sad to see but there are other science magazines and science blogs.  I really did like Seed and ScienceBlogs and I hope that they rediscover their objectivity.