Posts
In what I believe is a world first, the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing has launched its new US$100 note, featuring Benjamin Franklin, via an online video in YouTube.
Brought to my attention by Nicholas Gruen, the 82 second long production provides a clear view of all the security provisions included in the banknote.
There is also an interactive video quiz available for people who wish to learn about how to recognise the note.
The approach offers an innovative vision as to how countries around the world could market and communicate the features of their currency and stamps to their citizens.
Benjamin Franklin, as a former printer and scientist (one of the early pioneers in electricity), would have been proud.
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Launching banknotes via online video | Tweet |
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Why does government struggle with innovation? | Tweet |
The Public Sector Innovation Network email list (run by the Department of Innovation - you can subscribe from their website) sends out some very interesting articles about innovation every week.
This week one in particular caught my eye, a piece entitled The Biggest Obstacle to Innovation that looks at inertia and how this may have greater impact in a public sector context than in other situations.
The article's author, Tim Kastelle, argues that government has many disincentives to overcome inertia. With no profit motive, no threat of organisational failure (an agency going 'out of business' - rather than the threat of a front-page news item) and where there is often a deeply entrenched non-innovative culture, there's simply no pressure for government to innovate.
I often wonder how it would be different if departments were established on the basis of profit - with the government paying multiple departments to provide services and the departments competing to offer the same services at the best possible price.
This has some equivalents - governments frequently pay commercial providers to deliver services on their behalf based on value and service levels and in many jurisdictions pays not-for-profits on a similar basis.
Of course it could lead to duplication of effort and greater instability both in employment and departmental survival - but aren't these key factors driving innovation?
A stable, monopolistic environment doesn't tend to lead to innovative behaviour and tends to increase its bias to inertia over time - actively preventing innovation to maintain the status quo. We've seen that again and again both in the commercial and public sectors. Civilisations have failed due to their institutions being unable to respond rapidly to environmental and social change.
Perhaps a hybrid model is feasible - having departments with core responsibilities and then having 'fringe' services bid on competitively by departments for management rights. Whoever gets the rights would be responsible for delivering that service and would be 'paid' for delivery in a way that allows the department to take excess funds and funnel them back into core activities - and appropriate compensation for staff (personal gain - whether monetary or through social credit - is a key factor in innovation).
This hybrid model already exists in Australia in some ways. Often a lead agency is appointed as the manager and budget holder for cross-government initiatives. However there's unlikely to be a competitive bidding process whereby departments compete to demonstrate they can deliver the best value.
If innovation is becoming a core attribute required by government organisations, merely to keep up with the rate of change in society and the development of new ways to deliver services and fulfil public needs, perhaps we need to rewrite some of the rulebook, sacrificing part of our desire for stability in return for greater change.
Maybe this won't be such a large sacrifice anyway. Government departments often restructure due to internal or external pressures and already need to react to our fast-changing world. Stability is becoming more and more of an illusion and constant change more a reality. The need for public servants to be biased towards action, as Tim discusses, is becoming greater and greater.
Constant change has negatives and can be very uncomfortable for individuals used to stable environments, but if we can harness it to drive innovation in our policy development, service delivery and in how we organise and operate the instrumentality of government it may also uncover some major benefits.
What do you think - should we trade public sector stability for innovation?
Friday, April 09, 2010
Open Gov Day - 30+ US Federal agencies release their Open Government strategic plans | Tweet |
In the last 24 hours, over 30 US Federal agencies have released their Open Government plans in a strategic outpouring that demonstrates some of the best whole-of-government Gove 2.0 leadership in the world.
Govloop has published a complete list of these Open Government plans via the free online public database service Socrata (a 3rd party provider of data.government sites), so you can review all the plans in a single location.
Reading through some of these plans I am very impressed at the level of strategic thought and time that has gone into their development. They are a fantastic reference for Governments around the world seeking ideas and structure in their own strategic planning for openness and transparency.
To me this release also brings home one of the major challenges that I see in Australian government - we don't consistently resource for online strategy.
In my experience Australian Government Departments are funded for the bare minimum level of effort on web - maintaining existing websites to some level of currency, accessibility and quality. Often online teams are fully occupied with content changes, and as 50% or more of the content of a Government website is likely to change each year this a big task in its own right.
Departments receive occasional bursts of funding for new technology, usability and content reviews or for the launch of new websites. However ongoing funding for strategic planning to craft and shape Departmental online channels over time or lead continual innovation is, to my knowledge, uncommon.
Many Departments employ ongoing IT Architects to lead the strategy and ongoing development of Departmental IT infrastructure (a critical task). Few Departments employ strategists for leading the strategy and ongoing development of their online channel from a business perspective.
In my opinion this is a business role, not a technical one as it is not about the 'plumbing' but about how the overall 'building' (online presence) is structured and presented.
Also it doesn't simply involve Communications-type areas for outbound messaging via the web or intranets. HR, Procurement, Legal, Policy, ICT and other business areas also have major stakes in online channels for a variety of business needs, both outbound and inbound. An online presence enables virtually everyone in an organisation.
Existing website maintenance remains a very important task and needs to continue to be appropriately funded and maintained.
Equally critical is funding strategic online planning. The ongoing development, implementation and adjustment of comprehensive Departmental online strategies, particularly for Departments with large families of purpose-driven websites that need to meet changing audience needs.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Innovative government use of Twitter highlighted in case study | Tweet |
The GovTwit blog has put me on to the latest case study in Twitter 101 (where they showcase how organisations are using Twitter in innovative ways).
It's on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), who are using Twitter to monitor earthquakes as they occur - an early detection system that is proving to be much faster than seismic instruments (at least in populated areas).
The case study, Science for a changing world, reflects some of the discussions I had with Geosciences Australia last year. Geosciences Australia were looking at how they could use social media to detect the human impact of natural disasters and perhaps even identify small earth tremors in populated areas where there are no seismic instruments nearby.
In the USGS's case they are simply listening for mentions of earthquake related words and using them to map the extent of human-felt earth tremors. They also say that,
In sparsely instrumented regions, they can be our first indication that an earthquake may have occurred.
There are many other examples out there of ways that government agencies are using social media in innovative ways to serve the public good.
I just wish I saw more examples of Australian governments putting these uses into practice rather than largely finding them used by overseas jurisdictions.
Many Australians tell me that we are early adopters of technology, highly creative and innovative. Those statements only become true if we prove them every day.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
BarCamp Canberra 2010 - LiveBlog | Tweet |
I will be liveblogging as much as possible of BarCamp Canberra 2010, however note that I am also speaking and the other two rooms may not have wifi - so I will post my notes later.
This year BarCamp is standing room only, with around 90 attendees at the start of the day, and more likely to come - and go - through the day.
If you want to drop in yourself, we're at the Computer Science Building at the Australian National University in Canberra, or for the geeks, at GPS: 35° 16' 34" S 149° 7' 14" E.
Sessions are 20 minutes long with 10 minute changeovers between talks, with 5 minute lightening talks at the end of the day in the main room.
Audio is being recorded and many presentations will be put on SlideShare. Plus there is a video livestream in the main room at: www.livestream.com/barcampcanberra
A coffee van is outside, there's water, power and wifi inside, and lunch is on the way, so let's start....
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Victoria launching $100,000 'Apps my state' competition to create open data applications | Tweet |
Following the lead of the Gov 2.0 Taskforce's MashupAustralia and NSW's Apps4nsw competition (which runs until 24 March), Victoria's Minister for Information and Communications Technology, John Lenders, has announced the 'Apps my state' competition.
In his media release, Minister Lenders said that,
"App My State is a competition to encourage software developers and members of the public to create web or mobile applications using Victorian Government data.Victoria already has range of data available that would be usable in the competition, hopefully with more to come.
"We’re looking for the cream of Victoria’s innovative and hi-tech communities to come up with new and helpful ways to use this information – an added incentive for local talent to develop their ideas for fellow Victorians.
"Applications will be judged for their innovation, design and development, usefulness, accessibility and general excellence."
The competition will launch in late February at the Victorian Premier's website.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Google to end support for Internet Explorer 6 during 2010 | Tweet |
Google has announced that it will progressively end support for Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 during 2010 - beginning with Google Docs and Sites in March. Youtube, another Google company, is also phasing out support.
Announced in the Google Enterprise blog post last week, Modern browsers for modern applications, Google Apps Senior Product Manager, Rajen Sheth, said that the web had evolved in the last ten years from simple text pages to rich interactive applications and that very old web browsers cannot run these new features effectively.
This approach isn't limited to Google. A number of companies have already dropped support for Internet Explorer 6.0 in their online applications and more, including Facebook and Digg, plan to drop it in the near future.
Microsoft (up to CEO level) have also advocated dropping the IE6 web browser for their latest version, Internet Explorer 8.
Nick Hodge, a Microsoft staff member, has commented on this post that Microsoft is also progressively dropping IE6 support, saying that Microsoft has,
dropped support for IE6 in Sharepoint 2010 and the forthcoming web versions of Word, Excel, Powerpoint and OneNote 2010; plus live@edu and other web properties.END EDIT
However, to support its customers, as there are a number of major corporations still tied to the ageing browser, Microsoft recently extended support for IE6 until April 2014, when all support for Windows XP ends.
Given the recent severe security issues reported with IE6 and the increasing proportion of the internet unavailable to those using the 2001 vintage web browser, I hope to see the remaining organisations migrating away from the browser in the near future.
It is estimated that only 20% of web users - predominantly workers in large organisations - still use IE6, however up to 50% of Chinese internet users are still on the web browser.
Reportedly Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser has been losing market share at least 2004, when it reached 90% of the market. According to Wikipedia's Usage share of web browsers article, it is now estimated (through tracking subsets of internet users) that only about 60% of internet users are on one of the Internet Explorer variants, with Firefox 3.5 having overtaken IE8 as the most popular browser by version.
Some commentators expect to see Microsoft's share of the web browser market fall below 50% by mid-2011.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Australian Labor Party launches social media website | Tweet |
In a first for a major political party in Australia, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) has embedded blogging, tweeting and video in the heart of its website, relaunching www.alp.org.au as a Politics 2.0 website.
Termed 'Labor Connect' the redeveloped site aims to foster active policy debates, stating that,
We know we won’t always agree about issues and it would be pretty boring if we did. Labor Connect will not always be endorsed policy and its aim is to create debate and discussion about progressive policy development in the Party.The ALP calls its relaunched site a 'beta' and says there are many additional social media features yet to release. Their comment moderation process is very simple, with four basic guidelines:
- Stick to the topic
- Be respectful
- Be honest
- No Junk Mail
Besides the site's value in an election year, perhaps it is also an example of what the government is looking for from the public service in departmental engagement.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Over 110 people registered for free BarCamp Canberra on 6th February - have you registered yet? | Tweet |
If you're in Canberra - or live down the road in Sydney, don't forget to register for BarCamp Canberra at http://bcc2010.eventbrite.com
The free community-run event is being held at the ANU on Saturday 6th February. There will be great speakers on topics ranging from technology and software through to social media, e-Democracy, progressive policy and social innovation.
So far over 110 people have registered to attend, so it's likely to be a big event.
Don't know what a BarCamp is? There's a description on the registration page:
BarCampCanberra is a free-to-attend community-run conference where anyone can come and watch, participate or present on anything they are passionate about - either something interesting they've been working on, an idea they'd like to present or to brainstorm the solution to a problem with a bunch of like-minded smart people.
BarCampCanberra is part of the BarCamp network of conferences which started in Palo Alto, California back in 2005. BarCamp originally started with a focus on technology, open-source programming and data but has now grown to encompass more topics.
On February 6 2010 we'll be holding our third BarCamp in Canberra and will be inviting people to attend and present on topics ranging from technology and software through to social media, e-Democracy, progressive policy and social innovation. We will be holding both presentation and collaboration style events so people can either come with a 20-minute talk or a 5-second idea that will seed futher conversation.
We already have some fantastic sponsors on-board who will be providing us with a venue for the event along with facilities, food and drink, prizes and giveaways.
Coffee and agenda coordination will start at 9, with the first presentation starting at 9:30.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Microsoft 'strongly recommends' customers upgrade web browsers from IE6 to IE8 to solve security issues | Tweet |
In their strongest advisement yet, Microsoft Australia has issued a "strong recommendation" through its Government Affairs Blog that customers upgrade from the nine-year old Internet Explorer 6 web browser to Internet Explorer 8.
This is because the security flaws now being discovered in Internet Explorer 6 are such that they leave organisations more vulnerable to successful co-ordinated hacking attacks - the potential theft of confidential or sensitive information and intellectual property.
The risk isn't from a 17-year old hacker in their bedroom, but from crime syndicates, corporate interests and, potentially, other governments.
Google and at least 33 other companies have experienced co-ordinated attacks, originating from China, in the last week. Google believes these attacks were launched, or at least endorsed by, the Chinese government - although they cannot prove it beyond doubt. However the concern is great enough that the US President has asked the Chinese government to comment on the attacks and Google is considering leaving China.
These attacks exploited a security flaw present in Internet Explorer versions 6, 7 and 8. Microsoft reported that attacks only seem to be effective against IE6. Information out of Google agree with this, as do comments by other security specialists.
This security flaw has no fix at this time and it is unclear when a fix will be available.
Defence Minister John Faulkner was recently quoted in the media (including this Brisbane Times article) as saying that cyber attacks were a worsening global problem. "Cyber intrusions on government, critical infrastructure and other information networks are a real threat to Australia's national security and national interests."
Both French and German governments have advised their citizens to stop using Internet Explorer 6.
In Australia some government agencies are still using Internet Explorer 6 as their standard web browser.
So why do government agencies (and some large commercial organisations) still use a nine-year old web browser with dubious security, that isn't compliant with modern web standards and is soon to no longer be supported by major websites (including YouTube and Gmail owned by Google and Facebook)?
I can't speak for any agencies, however while most modern web browsers, such as Internet Explorer 8, Firefox 3.5, Opera 10 and Chrome are free to users, there are often switching costs for organisations to change even free software on a large scale.
They may have designed internal software around a particular web browser or have costs associated with rolling out new software across thousands of computers.
Switching from IE6 in particular can be quite involved as it has a number of features (developed in ActiveX) that may be exploited by organisations in websites and other software. South Korea in particular built around Internet Explorer 6 and has had difficulties in migrating to modern browsers or operating systems.
There is also the need to test how modern browsers work on a network and ensure that their security models are understood so new vulnerabilities do not arise. This costs time and money - at a time when Australian government departments are expected to save money in IT as a result of the Gershon Report. It's another choice they have to make on where to allocate their limited funds.
Plus as many government agencies block sites like YouTube, Gmail and Facebook, citing concerns over staff wasting time (as previously was the concern over access to personal telephone calls), improving agency capability to engage in social media may not create any urgency to upgrade.
However, given the clear and present dangers linked specifically to Internet Explorer 6 I'm hopeful that 2010 will be the year where many Australian organisations still using this old, less accessible and insecure technology decide to implement modern web browsers.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Australian Gov 2.0 Taskforce publicly releases final report - and most project reports | Tweet |
On Tuesday afternoon the Gov 2.0 Taskforce released its final report, Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0.
As stated in their blog post, the Taskforce handed the report to the responsible Ministers who immediately authorised its public release - a sign of great confidence in the report!
The report generally followed the recommendations and included the content from the draft, released for public comment two weeks ago, with some reorganisation and clarification to improve readability. If you read the draft there are no surprises, however it is worth re-reading for the tighter and clearer language and structure to ensure you understood the original context.
Alongside the report, the Taskforce has publicly released the reports for most of the 19 projects it has contracted out over the last 6 months. This adds up to a lot of reading, which I expect to be wading through over the next few weeks.
As currently the Taskforce site requires people to visit multiple web pages to individually download the project reports, I've provided quick links to download the RTFs and reports below. I also included links to the project pages as they all contain a brief on the project from the authors and allow public comments and feedback on the project reports.
I strongly recommend reading and commenting on the reports that resonate with you.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Gov 2.0 in Australia podcast from Gov 2.0 radio now available | Tweet |
I've just finished chatting to Adriel Hampton & Steve Ressler on Gov 2.0 radio about some of the great Gov 2.0 initiatives in Australia.
You can now listen to the discussion online at Gov20Radio.com or get it on iTunes.
OpenAustralia team launches PlanningAlerts (with financial support from the Gov 2.0 Taskforce) | Tweet |
The team responsible for OpenAustralia has, with the financial assistance of the Gov 2.0 Taskforce (via a Microsoft-backed fund), launched PlanningAlerts.
This free new service allows Australians to sign up to email alerts for planning permission requests in their local area so that they can know what is being requested and lodge their views. It is based on the UK version, PlanningAlerts.com.
PlanningAlerts relies on councils making their information available online - preferably in machine-readable format. Therefore it currently doesn't cover all Australian councils.
It's now up to the Australian councils who do not make this information available online to do so, and I hope we see a wave of them come online soon.
If your council doesn't make this public information available online, perhaps it's worth asking one of your councillors why...
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Catch me on Gov 2.0 radio next week. | Tweet |
I'll be chatting with Adriel Hampton on Gov 2.0 radio early next week to give US Gov 2.0 people some operational insights into Gov 2.0 happenings in Australia.
Gov 2.0 radio is a weekly podcast on collaborative and transparent government hosted by Adriel, a noted US-based Gov 2.0 and new media strategist.
I expect the discussion will cover topics ranging from current Gov 2.0 initiatives in Australia, the Gov 2.0 Taskforce's report, National Broadband Network and mandatory internet filtering.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Managing the future adoption of Gov 2.0 in Australia | Tweet |
We're beginning to see significant activity in the Gov 2.0 space across Australia, and with the impending release of the Gov 2.0 Taskforce's report there's likely to be even more activity in the coming year.
This is definitely not a time for Gov 2.0 proponents to rest on their laurels as there are still many challenges to face before Government 2.0 is firmly embedded within the culture and practice of the public sector.
From discussions I continue to have across agencies and with the private sector there are still many people who aren't quite sure whether Gov 2.0 is simply the latest fad or a fundamental shift in the culture and operations of the public sector.
Last week I attended one external meeting where senior public sector managers were discussing how Web 2.0 worked perfectly well in the laissez-faire world of the internet, but was very difficult to implement successfully within a purposefully structured and highly governed organisation.
Some believed that public sector governance frameworks designed to increase public visibility could limit the use of Gov 2.0 in improving public visibility - making it a more expensive and slower option by requiring costly security and privacy hurdles.
From an ICT and security management perspective some considered Gov 2.0 a 'problem'. In many cases they felt that business teams were still treating Gov 2.0 as a shiny new toy. Experiments lasted only until the first big issue or the driving personality left the agency - at which point ICT had to 'clean up the mess'.
These are understandable viewpoints and reflect some of the issues that will need to be managed as we move to adopt Gov 2.0 approaches. Embedded knowledge and expertise for Gov 2.0 is still low in many agencies and may be confined to specific teams or individual 'experts', although enthusiasm for its use is often more widespread.
The level of buy-in at senior levels also varies. In many cases senior management simply has much bigger fish to fry in meeting the outlined policy goals of the government in an apolitical and diligent fashion with limited resources. Whether and how Gov 2.0 approaches may help them do their jobs more effectively isn't always clearly communicated.
While I know many of these executives would like to experiment with approaches that would improve the cost-effective delivery of their programs, they are limited in their tolerance for experimentation due to the potential social, financial and political consequences of failing to deliver key departmental services. They simply cannot afford the risk.
This discussion is also taking place elsewhere in the world. Federal Computer Week in the US recently wrote Is Gov 2.0 just another passing fad? ...Or do collaborative initiatives represent a true advance in the way government works?
This long and in-depth article considers the topic from a number of perspectives, asking the question,
But is Government 2.0 a true advance in the way government works, or it is just a passing fad? A year from now, will all these initiatives have matured to the point that a government agency could use them to generate useful ideas, streamline operations, improve accountability, deliver services and even save money? Or will agency leaders and their employees revert to the old ways of doing business, muttering the bureaucratic equivalent of, "Who was that masked man?"
The article draws the conclusion that Gov 2.0 may be more than a fad, but hedges its bet by suggesting that the change could be long and will require significant ongoing commitment from heads of state and other political and public sector leadership.
It also highlights the need to build the experience base and move from Gov 2.0 as a project tactic to 'how we do business around here' - a culture.
Whether Gov 2.0 is a fad or not, it is likely to be a bumpy journey. By its nature Gov 2.0 exposes more of the machinery and thinking processes of governance. For example, imagine stepping behind the beautiful vistas of Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory where the Oompa Loompas sing as they work, to a 19th century sweatshop where the chocolates are really made.
While this is a deliberately strong contrast, the fact is that all organisations are 'messy' inside to some extent. Exposing how an organisation's actual processes work can shatter public myths and views. For the public sector this can mean damaging the public perceptions of government - previously (and currently) a hanging offense in some organisations.
Another way to consider managing the future adoption of Gov 2.0 in Australia is by using a modelling tool such as the hype cycle, originally developed by Gartner. This is is a technique used to attempt to outline and explain the adoption curve for new technologies, approaches and concepts.
While it is only a model, and there's no reason to assume it will apply for Government 2.0 in Australia, it is useful to reflect on where Gov 2.0 might be currently placed in order to avoid foreseeable pitfalls.
Drawing from the Wikipedia article,
A hype cycle in Gartner's interpretation comprises five phases:
- "Technology Trigger" — The first phase of a hype cycle is the "technology trigger" or breakthrough, product launch or other event that generates significant press and interest.
- "Peak of Inflated Expectations" — In the next phase, a frenzy of publicity typically generates over-enthusiasm and unrealistic expectations. There may be some successful applications of a technology, but there are typically more failures.
- "Trough of Disillusionment" — Technologies enter the "trough of disillusionment" because they fail to meet expectations and quickly become unfashionable. Consequently, the press usually abandons the topic and the technology.
- "Slope of Enlightenment" — Although the press may have stopped covering the technology, some businesses continue through the "slope of enlightenment" and experiment to understand the benefits and practical application of the technology.
- "Plateau of Productivity" — A technology reaches the "plateau of productivity" as the benefits of it become widely demonstrated and accepted. The technology becomes increasingly stable and evolves in second and third generations. The final height of the plateau varies according to whether the technology is broadly applicable or benefits only a niche market.
Based on the hype cycle model, I believe Gov 2.0 is still on the initial incline, which means we do need to guard against overstating its importance until the capability is firmly in place across government.
Otherwise we run the risk of fulfilling the prophecies of those who believe it only a fad (whether it is or not), simply by building Gov 2.0 up too high and leaving ourselves open to a fall in confidence when it doesn't reach the stratospheric heights of cost-effectiveness expected.
So, in conclusion, I believe we're still in the very early stages for Gov 2.0 in Australia and it will take a number of years to embed it fully within government processes and build the experience required to manage its integration into agency cultures.
2010 will be a watershed year for Gov 2.0 where many of the first stumbling steps of the last few years will have to demonstrate their value and begin to integrate into normal business processes.
We will also see a great deal more experimentation and hype around Gov 2.0 - including criticism in the media when it doesn't fully live up to the espoused potential.
For everyone working in the Gov 2.0 area, use the holidays at the end of 2009 to regenerate your energy, rekindle your passion and growing a thicker skin.
Next year will require us to work twice as hard and communicate the benefits ten times as well in order to support the government in improving community engagement and agency effectiveness through Government 2.0.
Friday, November 27, 2009
How much should a government website cost - are we over-engineering our websites? | Tweet |
These days when I personally need to set up a new website, I either hop onto Wordpress or download one of the free open-source content management systems, purchase space on a decent US server and follow the installation instructions.
I use a design template found online, customising it with some style tweaks where required, then spend a few days writing content.
It's not very hard and doesn't take very long (normally under a week).
However in government we have very strong governance structures around website creation - with good reason - to ensure that the platforms we use are secure, reliable and effective. We also have extensive content approval processes which can require a number of steps before words reach the screen.
This places a great deal of overhead on the process of creating and managing government websites, adding significantly to IT and resourcing costs.
I don't question the need for public organisations to guarantee the reliability and security of their websites. However I do wonder if we're placing a disproportionate level of cost onto this process - so much overhead on our websites that they may be slower to deliver and less cost-effective than other communications channels.
I also wonder if departments spend much time scrutinising their governance arrangements to see if they can reduce the burden, and therefore the cost and time to market, (without compromising the outcome) by either planing ahead or working together better.
If we are really one government shouldn't we be able to - as a group or via some central agency - security assess and review a group of web technologies then pick and choose between them as needed - depending on our internal platforms and needs?
Why not compare our departmental content management processes and learn from the organisations who are most effective and efficient?
Food for thought.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
US engaging in offensive as well as defensive cyberwar | Tweet |
Nextgov has published a very insightful piece on the US's cyberwar endeavours, including their use of it as an offensive tool to locate and knock out the organisational capabilities of their enemies and even kill foes.
The article, The cyberwar plan, not just a defensive game, also covers the Russian attacks on Estonia and Georgia and China's use of cyberwarfare techniques to gain economic advantage over foreigners (I also continue wondering about the attack on the Melbourne Film Festival earlier this year).
It's a very well-researched piece and provides a lot of food for thought.
Given that most wealth and knowledge is stored electronically and most organisation is done via digital channels, the impact of a successful attack on our communications systems or finance sector would be catastrophic to our economy and potentially to our ability to cope with a physical attack.
Australia's defense force has traditionally been very quiet about a domestic cyberwar capability and I wonder whether we are adequately defended and able to respond to attacks on Australia's digital sovereignty.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Embracing serendipity in government - we now serve citizens best by collaborating with them | Tweet |
Government runs on rules. Policies, processes and procedures designed to address every contingency and plan for every possible risk in order to provide equity, stability and certainty.
However, as experience has shown time and time again, we cannot predict the future.
While we continually attempt to plan ahead, largely these plans are based on extrapolating past trends and experiences.
This has served us well in times of relatively stable and slow-changing societies and provides enormous capability to mobilise and focus resources towards a few large and separate goals.
However it doesn't work as effectively during rapidly changing conditions where there are a myriad of interlocking issues. The approach can also neglect large and important changes, which are often discontinuous and almost totally unpredictable.
History is littered with enormous societal, economic and cultural shifts brought on by unpredictable innovations; gunpowder, the printing press, steam-power, radio, television and, most recently, the internet.
Each of these - and other - innovations profoundly changed how societies operated, destroying industries and creating a stream of new inventions, professions and both political and cultural challenges in their wake.
In hindsight we can often see very clearly how these changes unfolded and they can appear historically as an evolutionary process. However when living just before or during these enormous shifts it is virtually impossible for most individuals or organisations to predict outcomes ten, five, two or even a single year ahead.
I believe we are living in this type of time right now. The invention of the internet, progress in nano and bio technologies and in alternative - hopefully sustainable - sources of energy is in the process of increasingly rapidly reshaping our world. At the same time we are facing the consequences of previous disruptive innovations - most notably climate change, fuelled by enormous levels of fossil fuel use over two hundred years and population growth, fuelled by improvements in food technology and medicine.
This becomes a time of enormous challenge for governments. How do we extrapolate trends, develop policies, acknowledge and address risks which didn't exist a few years ago?
How do we continue to serve the public appropriately when the time required to plan, develop and implement national infrastructure is greater than the effective lifespan of that infrastructure?
How do we let go of faltering systems to embrace new ways of developing and implementing policy without losing continuity of governance?
And how long can we continue to govern incrementally when living in an exponential world?
We're in a place where there are many more questions than answers. Issues are ever more complex and multi-faceted and can no longer be in silos. Our organisations need to be more flexible and adaptive in response to an increasingly assertive community who often have better tools and information than the government departments servicing them.
Fortunately the disruptive technologies we are developing also allow us to approach many of these challenges collectively on a national and international scale.
We have the means to mobilise the brainpower of a nation - or many nations - using the internet and simple crowdsourcing tools.
We've already seen communities emerge online where companies ask their insolvable questions publicly, allowing scientists, academics and the general public to discuss and provide suggestions.
We've also seen governments willing to ask questions of their constituents, rather than rely on traditional stakeholders, academics and bureaucrats to have all the answers.
I hope over the coming years we see Australian governments embrace serendipity rather than attempt unsuccessfully to chain it. I hope we see bureaucrats and citizens working collaboratively to address major issues, working in adaptive and flexible configurations rather than rigid silos, stepping beyond 'consultation' towards participatory policy development and evolution.
This will require courage on the part of elected officials and senior public servants alike. It will require different types of leadership and thinking, better communications and a broader focus on connecting people over managing fixed resources.
Can we achieve this step from where we are today?
I'm optimistic that we can, but it will take significant work and pain to achieve.
Friday, October 30, 2009
The growing mobile internet landscape - but where's government? | Tweet |
2009 has been called the year of mobile internet - and with good reason.
The iPhone has become the fastest adopted consumer electronics product in history. Google's Android has become a serious mobile platform and smartphones of every shade have continued to multiple exponentially.
The mobile internet has been growing faster than any digital platform in history, as the below chart from Morgan Stanley as reported in TechCrunch's article, How The iPhone Is Blowing Everyone Else Away (In Charts), demonstrates.
So how is Australia's government getting involved in the mobile revolution?
We have seen the first smartphone games - from the Department of Defense and VicRoads.
We've also seen applications that mashup government data such as FoodWatch NSW using the NSW Food Authority database and the National Toilet Map.
However to my knowledge no state or federal government services have - as yet - been delivered on a native smartphone platform.
I wonder when we'll see the first. I don't expect they are far away.
By the way, while Australian governments haven't developed many applications, efforts are now underway to classify the thousands that already exist, as reported in the ITnews article, Classification board seeks to censor iPhone apps.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
UK thoughts on adopting WCAG 2.0 for government websites | Tweet |
Jack Pickard has written an excellent post regarding How should the UK public sector adopt WCAG 2.0? which touches on many of the themes required for adoption in Australia.
If you were thinking about shifting your Australian government site to a WCAG 2.0 level of accessibility, this is welcome contribution to the discussion.
Sometimes I wonder if across government we have enough conversations on these types of topics - and my conversation I mean free and open exchanges of views and information in shared spaces, rather than formal responses to defined criteria (with no correspondence entered into).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
