ACT (finally) outlines open government plan

I am writing this piece as a resident in the ACT, with shades of my Gov 2.0 advocacy cap. And I should say, as a partially disappointed resident.

The ACT Chief Minister, Katy Gallagher, has finally laid out the ACT Government's vision for open government.

It's about time. The ACT has been a tailender at the State and Territory level for quite some time in the open government space, with occasional sparks of excitement quickly fading back into embers.

However rather than an auspicious start focusing on the benefits of openness to citizens and the Territory, Gallagher's media release focuses on political benefit.

"The plans outlined in a Ministerial Statement to the Assembly today, are set to make the ACT Cabinet the most open in the nation"

The most open cabinet in the nation... Not the most open government, or even the most effectively and sustainably open government.

I commend the step the ACT government is taking to establish an "open government website" - although a three month timeframe, if the website is starting now, leaves little room to build something meaningful or matching citizen expectations. I hope that the developers can pull off a miracle and develop something of substance, however I feel for them and the timeline they've been given.

I get worried at the announcement of a "commitment to hold a Virtual Community Cabinet on Twitter next month".

Twitter is not an effective mechanism for this type of endeavour. I would prefer to see a liveblog, supported by moderation, through a tool with strong archival and management mechanisms and on a more broadly used medium - such as CoverItLive.

And the step to "release a weekly report on key issues discussed and decisions taken by the Cabinet, starting in the first week in July" is a classic Gov 1.0 tactic transferred online.

The government could have been doing this type of informing at any time using other mediums - newsprint, radio or even television. Placing a transcript or list of topics and decisions online doesn't add much and certainly isn't in the spirit of Gov 2.0.

ACT has the highest concentration of Government 2.0 talent in Australia - with many Commonwealth agencies now launching and successfully managing these initiatives.

We should be the most advanced open government jurisdiction in Australia.

However this announcement by the Chief Minister doesn't support this view.

Read full post...

View summary...

Empowering citizens to lead public governance reforms in developing and developed nations

One of the assumptions often applied to government funding for aid and governance reform programs is that the funding must be granted to established corporations, NGOs or not-for-profits that have hierarchies, governance structures, offices and methodologies for achieving outcomes.

It only makes sense - when investing government money into development activities there needs to be ways to mitigate risks and ensure accountability.

Surely a well-established organisation, with structural integrity and processes, must be well-equipped to manage and deliver change outcomes.

A ten-year research study from the Development Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability (Citizenship DRC), has found that the assumption that an established organisation is better equipped to deliver governance reform is just that - an assumption.

As reported by Nick Benequista in the website of the Institute of Development Studies, the Citizenship DRC's report, Blurring the Boundaries: Citizenship Action Across States and Societies (PDF):

"argues that "the 'good governance' agenda that has persisted in international development since the early 1990s is itself due for a citizen-led upheaval."

Benequista's article, How a citizen-led approach can transform aid to governance, points to over 150 cases highlighted on the Citizenship DRC website where bottom-up citizen-led initiatives have been effective in achieving governance change in different countries, circumstances and on different issues.

Perhaps this is an area we need to explore more of in Government 2.0.

How can we rebalance the relationship between governments and citizens through development funding to achieve better outcomes.

Is giving money to established organisations the best approach, or do governments need to listen more directly to citizens and listen less to intermediaries.

With the emerging knowledge and experience in this area around the world it will be interesting to see whether Australian governments are willing - or able - to reframe their approach to development.

To finish with Benequista's words,

The good governance agenda of the 1990s has already overstayed its usefulness. The question now is whether what comes next will finally give citizens the role they have been demanding.

Read full post...

View summary...

Could the fear of adopting social media be due to a fear of death?

Dr Travis Kemp of the Teleran Group presented at the National Stakeholder Engagement and Community Relations Officers' Forum 2011 in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago.

He provided an interesting view on how people identify for or against certain policies and worldviews, how bad humans are at accessing risks, and illustrated how it was possible to for someone to move from a position of 'this is new and different' to 'It will kill me' in less than ten steps.

He discussed how this type of powerful fear can dramatically influence how willing people are to consider new ideas, accept change or adopt new approaches, as well as how it distorts risk management processes, greatly exaggerating the risks of the 'new and different' and underrating the risks of the 'tried and true'.

One of his points was that the resistance to the use of social media may be due to a fear of death.

Here's an example of how a typical thought process for a senior official in a government agency might go...

1. Social media channels are new and different
2. I don't understand these channels well enough to understand the risks and pitfalls
3. As I don't understand the risks and pitfalls, I could make mistakes, or allow mistakes to be made
4. Mistakes could embarrass or diminish the reputation of the agency or the Minister
5. If the agency or Minister are negatively impacted by use of social media in my area, I will be held responsible
6. If I am held responsible for a social media mistake I will lose the respect of my manager and confidence of my agency and Minister
7. If I lose the respect and confidence of my manager, agency and Minister, I could lose my job
8. If I lose my job I could lose my house, family and friends
9. If I am left homeless and friendless, I am likely to die.
   
10. Therefore, if I use or allow the use of social media channels I am likely to die.

What do you think - is this a far-fetched or realistic explanation for fear of social media?

And what is really at the root of this fear?


By the way - I also presented at the forum (not on as dramatic a topic) and you can see my presentation on Slideshare here.

Read full post...

View summary...

Ignoring social media is a 'strategic error of the most basic nature' - Chief of US Naval Operations Adm

Fierce Government IT reports that Chief of US Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead says Ignoring social media is a 'strategic error of the most basic nature'.

In the US the military has been an active adopter of social media, with online channels seen as a critical theatre of influence. Most members of the US armed forces (with a few necessary exceptions) are encouraged and guided on how to communicate, collaborate and represent their nation and US forces in a effective manner through social media channels.

The article reported that,

"When you empower your workforce to be communicators, you must understand that you won't always agree with what they say or perhaps how they say it. You can certainly set reasonable boundaries--we tell our Sailors not to disclose classified information, and we expect everyone to treat everyone else with dignity and respect. But you can't dictate everything your people say," said Roughead.

The article also touched on the challenges of integrating social media into a hierarchical organisation,

Roughead said leaders must help the workforce navigate the blurring line between professional and personal, set policies that strike a balance between accountability and empowerment, and guard against the temptation of "making it about you," and not the organization.

It will be very interesting to see what the current review of social media use in Australia's armed forces says in comparison - and how they execute.

Read full post...

View summary...

Delib's downunder digital democracy documentary deliberations definitely defining

Delib's Chris Quigly has released the edited Australian digital democracy mini-documentary that he recorded earlier this year with a number of Government 2.0 leaders (plus myself) across Australia.

The nine minute mini-documentary provides an interesting perspective on Gov 2.0 approaches and trends in Australia. It also provides a defining view from the outside - how people in other countries might view what is happening in Australia.

I have not embedded the video below as it is worth reading Chris' post about the mini-documentary for context.

I cannot wait for the blooper reel! (well OK I can)

Read full post...

View summary...