External Collaboration: Lessons Learned (So Far)
•Télécharger en tant que PPT, PDF•
2 j'aime•661 vues
Slides presented by Dan Munz at Open Gov't & Innovations conference 2009 (http://opengovinnovations.com/)
![Why We’re Here ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
Similaire à External Collaboration: Lessons Learned (So Far)
Similaire à External Collaboration: Lessons Learned (So Far) (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
External Collaboration: Lessons Learned (So Far)
- 1. Lessons Learned (So Far) Open Government & Innovations Conference July 22, 2009 External Collaboration
- 5. A National Dialogue on… Fall 2008 Health IT & Privacy Spring 2009 Recovery & IT Solutions Spring 2009 OpenGov Dialogue Summer 2009 DHS QHSR Review 50K 300K 600K 100K 10K 31,982 288,224 587,573 4,413 34,195 175,211 620 1,872 31,331 3,993 6,339 Legend Pageviews Hits Ideas & Comments
- 7. Think It Through Problem What problem is driving the need to collaborate? Community Who is the community I need to engage? Tools How can I assess their ideas and priorities?
Notes de l'éditeur
- So, why are we here? We’re all at this conference because we think we can do better than this . In fact, we know we can do better, because almost all of us have an example where government hasn’t looked worked this way.
- The point is, we know we’ve come a long way When I started thinking about this presentation, I thought about what I would have said if I had given this presentation a year ago I probably would have said things like the following: Collaborative tools are quickly becoming mainstream – It really seems like people are starting to adopt them Some early adopters have figured out how to use them for government – In fact, some early adopters are realizing that this could have advantages for doing the work of government – bringing more people in, stuff like that We think there might be some legal and policy challenges to doing this – However, we THINK there might be some challenges to doing this, around culture, policy, legal issues, etc. More people should try it! – But nonetheless, we really think more people should overcome those fears, and just get out there and do something.
- What’s really most amazing is how mundane this presentation, a year ago, would have seemed today. So, since I am giving it today, how has all this changed? First, collaborative tools are mainstream Thanks to that, we’ve moved to a place where their use in government has become clearer and much more widespread We know there are some serious legal and policy challenges, and we’re running into them every day But more and more, we’re running through them, too. Now, we’re past the point where more people “should” try it. Now, everyone is trying it, and it’s my contention that we’ve now got enough lessons learned, best practices, and accumulated smarts that we should focus on doing it right . I’ll talk in a minute about what I think I mean by “doing it right.”
- But first, let me talk about what we’ve been up to at the National Academy. Over the past year or so, we’ve partnered with government to host a series of what we call “National Dialogues” collaborative, web-based conversations designed to introduce citizens and stakeholders to their government and to each other Find key ideas, themes, and priorities In fall 2008, we teamed with OMB, GSA, and the Federal CIO council to do a dialogue on Health IT & Privacy. Issue that has national importance but also deep personal relevance Learned a lot about the issue, but also about how to do this and what works NUMBERS In spring 09, we teamed with the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board to help build Recovery.gov “2.0” Tried to find what vendors and solutions were out there – kind of an expanded and better RFI process Tried to find out what people WANTED from Recovery.gov RFP for Recovery.gov recently issued and awarded NUMBERS Also in spring 09, we did a slightly different kind of project – teamed with WH OffSciTechPol to do OpenGov Dialogue First stage of innovative three-stage process Learned a LOT about the importance of seeding and engaging the stakeholder community Still, numbers were good NUMBERS Starting summer 2009 – in 2 weeks, actually – we’ll be running a series of 3 weeklong dialogues with DHS to inform their first-ever Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Exciting because it’s an innovative, iterative process It feeds directly into a major internal policy review Bring stakeholders to the table and show someone they’re listening Since the 16 th , signup page alone has gotten nearly 4K visits and over 6K pageviews
- So those are some of the experiences we bring to this. Based on that, what I want to do is share a few lessons and hopefully provoke some discussion, about what we’ve learned so far in terms of external collaboration and engagement
- The first thing I’d say is, THINK IT THROUGH – before you start out, understand three dimensions of what you’re doing: WHAT is the reason you’re collaborating? What end do you hope to achieve, or what process or question would be better if you could bring more people to the table around it? WHO are the people you need to bring together to make that happen? What level of experience/engagement do they need to have? Can it be anyone off the street, or do you need people with some prior expertise? How many people do you think are in that universe? HOW can you get feedback from all those people, while still making sure it’s actionable and you can respond do it? How can you avoid just setting up another suggestion box, where engagement goes in and nothing comes out? These three questions are the stakes in your tent poles. Having clear answers is what makes your overall vision durable, even if you encounter strong resistance or major challenges.
- Even when you have those three questions answered, it’s important to zoom in a little bit and make sure that you’re asking people to engage in something they can actually DO. We hear the phrase “wisdom of crowds” a lot – tap it, harness it, etc. But it’s important to be clear about what “crowds” can and can’t do: Do crowds have deep policy expertise? Some members might, but if you bring enough people together, you’re invariably going to get a pretty diverse range of backgrounds and knowledge levels People usually don’t have the time to learn to speak “government” just so they can talk to their government. When you’re talking to real people, use real language. People probably don’t know about your internal processes or functions. If you ask, “What do you think of our process for budgeting,” you’re probably going to get the online equivalent of a blank stare. Finally, people generally don’t realize that this review you’re working on is due to the Congress and it’s gotta be done next week and so you need input TODAY – it’s not their problem. So what CAN crowds add? In general, not everyone has the kind of expertise I list here But everyone is an expert in: What they want and need from government What they want it to be like when they interact with government What best practices or ideas are working in their lives and communities What outcomes government needs to accomplish Ask questions that focus on those things – things everyone can really grab onto and engage with – and really see a much higher quality of user feedback.
- Once you understand what you want from people – how do you get it? Remember, you’re asking a lot from people, most of whom probably have a day job other than engaging with government So what do they get? A chance to participate – maybe, but I think we can do better Maybe a chance to engage with government, and with others in their community – to find other people out there who care about this, in and outside government A real report back on how their input drove policy or changed minds would be great Recognition among peers is great – this is what powers Intellipedia and Apps for Democracy. Everyone wants to be the best sharer, have the best idea, etc. If you can build this dynamic, that’s a huge win. And worst-case, plain old fashioned bribes never hurt
- Whenever people do public engagement, I think there’s a lot of focus on “what will our website look like”? That’s important but I’d encourage you to think this way: Build a process, not just a website To illustrate this, I’m turning to a pioneer in civic engagement and accountability: FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT One of my favorite stories about FDR involves a group of lobbyists who had come to lobby him on some measure they thought he opposed They read him chapter and verse on why it had to be done, and NOW, and it had to be his top priority Finally, he silenced them and said, Gentlemen: I AGREE WITH YOU In fact, I WANT TO DO WHAT YOU’RE PROPOSING Now, MAKE ME DO IT I think that’s the moment we’re in now. The best public collaboration starts not with a website, but with a clear theory of: How will this action enable people to hold me accountable? Maybe it’s giving them data and seeing how they use it Maybe it’s ensuring that you’re looping back and completing that value exchange
- So who’s the 21 st century, tech version of FDR here? I’d argue it’s this woman. This is mitchell baker, CEO of Mozilla – the folks who make Firefox browser – and chair of the Mozilla Foundation Now, Mozilla has one of the most-used products in the world – but almost no one goes to their website What Mozilla has done is design a process – “We’re going to make code free, ruthlessly monitor the best innovations people make with it, and incorporate those into our supported builds.” That’s an incredibly strong public engagement process CLICK – And it has an incredibly strong value exchange. But they’ve built a coherent community that stays together over thousands of different websites, networks, and communities. When it comes to external collaboration, THAT is victory.
- So in wrapping up, it’s clear that collaboration is making new things possible: Can government start acting as a platform for innovations, rather than a “lone problem solver”? Can we move from “transparency as an output” – I put it on our website, in a PDF! – to “accountability as an outcome,” where we are really making things transparent enough and usable enough that citizens can force government action? And now that we don’t have any excuse not to reach out to all our partners, stakeholders, and citizens – how can we make sure we’re focused and deliberate about how and why we do that? In the context of all of these, some things don’t change: Governance is the job of government. Ultimately, people trust and believe that government is going to get done what it has to get done, and just ask them what it needs to know to do that job. Part of the reason is that people are busy! Use their time wisely when you ask them to engage. Ultimately, you can’t delegate leadership. Strong external collaboration can be incredibly powerful, but it doesn’t mean much without someone focusing its purpose, hearing its results, and calling the play about what to do next. That’s another thing crowds can’t do – leadership. So my call to everyone here today is to learn how to get smarter and more intentional about building incredible communities, and leading them to incredible results.