Aucune remarque pour cette diapositive
Let’s consider word association.
My goal is to explain how Government 2.0 will transform Government Performance with a few nuances: How Government 2.0 will fulfill the promise of e-government The linkage between Government 2 and performance How corporate performance management techniques are only partly helpful How it helps transparency And links with back-office systems With a touch of semantic web Driven by global trends All working together for transformation And what your favorite Ottawa-based government resource planning vendor is doing about it.
How about trolls and unicorns cavorting in Atlantis? Perhaps something even more unrealistic?
Remember those exciting dot com days? The computer analysts provided a crystal ball about how electronic government was going to transform government. There were slight variations, but they tended to follow 4 steps.
The first step of e-government is broadcasting information.
Followed by the ability for citizens and business to interact – such as filling out a form.
With the possibility of handling an entire transaction such as applying for a license on-line, paying for the license electronically and then receiving the license.
The notion was that the government would be transformed through e-government – but this never seemed to have happened. Why?
Providing a single view to an integrated back office is required to improve service delivery. Identify management was thought to be the problem here. Was it? Maybe it was a lack of integration among back-office systems. After all, interaction in procurement, grants and contributions swamped a few systems. Maybe it wasn’t technical.
It’s difficult to provide a single face of government when you aren’t collaborating with other departments, provinces and municipalities. The connection to government remained opaque, but something happened. Government 2.0 used for internal collaboration.
Helping to create a collaborative culture that extends beyond government. Government 2.0 is open government-transparent. That is where government will transform.
We looked at e-government as structural – an extension of formal government services to the internet. Not social, not collaboration. Don’t let it fool you: Government 2.0 is as much about internal transformation as external. And there are technology enablers: Cloud computing, leveraging Web 2 infrastructures like Ning and Google, using open-source like MediaWiki, Drupal, Wordpress is making collaboration a dirt cheap proposition. Mobile computing is providing a new and compelling channel for government And semantic web is helping to simplify complex government information to make data understood and extending beyond web pages to the so-called deep web of linked-data – access to databases as part of data discovery.
There seems to be 3 views about government automation. One view is that it’s all about documents and records. A purchase order may be a transaction, but it’s also a document. Another view is to follow the money – transactions A third view is to follow the conversation. These 3 views are all partly right. You really need all 3 to effectively audit. Most commercial-off-the-shelf software was designed for one of these things. It is difficult to extend traditional architectures to support this. Yet, Web 2.0 software seems to do this quite well. You can load pictures on Flickr, pay for usage, get royalties, enter discussions, join groups.
Meanwhile we were talking about government performance management.
He’s the only US President to earn an MBA. He used the Balanced Scorecard as the President’s Management Agenda And went through a process of evaluating every American government program over a 5 year basis. At first, “results not demonstrated” was the most frequent rating.
It was meant to be easy. Corporate Performance Management with Key Performance Indicators and Balanced Scorecards were all the rage. The budget plan was the input - let’s say the customer service department The actual money spent was the outturn The people affected was the output – numbers of customers handled, number of calls, average weight time, case severity, average fix time etc. Which affected the outcome – customer satisfaction that can be measured through surveys And this all links to profit through customer retention, customer referrals, up-sell Except government has no objective measurement for success
In government, the outcome is the result. And there are often many outcomes. That’s linked directly to mandate. Once again, mandates change – there is no objective measurement like profit. And, it’s linked to budget. Budgets control, unlike in the private sector where a budget can be exceeded in order to achieve a higher profit. That’s only part of the problem.
The reality is that Government Performance Management, as practiced today, is structural in nature. Governments start with objectives and a budget plan and measure outputs and outcomes directly related to programs.
There are winners and losers in any government program. That’s why we call it politics. The impact of any program can be much wider than anticipated. A high tech education program in Newfoundland can result in improved economic development in British Columbia. We can think that our program is working, when it isn’t Or that it isn’t working, but it is Because we might be measuring the wrong thing
How do we improve measurements? Leverage the wisdom of crowds. We make more information available. We make it mashupable – put it in XML. Documents aren’t dynamic, but if it is in document form, post it to Scribd. Let people embed it in their blogs, get a discussion going. From within government Leverage collaboration tools to extend to stakeholders outside government Who can help identify impact, improve measurements, improve results And accountability
How do you do this. There are many Web 2.0 metaphors that can be leveraged. First, we have to make sure that we align our goals with the chart of accounts. We need to measure results against costs. The back-office technology needs to be flexible because Web 2.0 adapts to user needs + you can’t fully predict this impact on the back-office The wiki metaphor is ideal to help build policy. This could be internal or among experts or open to interested parties. Wikis are leveraged for more flexible knowledge management – capturing explicit knowledge more interactively Making data accessible enables insight. Look at a problem in a different way. Social networks can help track impacts and opinions – from existing networks like Facebook + LinkedIn to specialized networks to gain the wisdom of experts This is how to achieve a 360 degree view of government performance
Meanwhile, back in Atlantis. Great theory, but it’s not going to happen. We can’t release data Secret data Anything that can compromise privacy Can we trust the technology, can we trust non-experts? After all, there is a strong culture of expertise in government. Public servants go to university, spend years in service and continually learn. Where is the return on investment? Who is using this stuff? The most risk adverse groups you can think of. I was at a conference in Washington where a panel member from the US military said that open source web 2 was the most secure because they can read the code. All new technology fails the ROI calculation of the previous technology. Telephones, fax machines, computers, PCs, the Internet.
Maybe we need a broader perspective.
Globalization is creating pressure on governments. Canada is competing for automobile factories, Hollywood productions, smart phones, regional jets… Investors and citizens are demanding transparent and open government – and, the more transparent, the more attractive to business As long as there is accountability. Technology innovation: Web 2, smart-phones – has created expectations. Citizens want a Facebook experience with government. These pressures has created for more change that Web 2.0
Organizations are changing from vertically integrated where all functions are managed by the organization
To virtually integrated so that organizations can stick to core competencies. In government – this results in shared services, outsourcing, privatization
The command and control structure is
With the emergence of matrix structures. More government organizations are creating project and program structures that includes team members from across the government
How does this affect public servants? Command and control is changing
To a more bottom up focus
Where public servants are seen not relative to their position
But their changing role
And from the notion of specialization
To generalization. Governments are trying to make the civil service a career choice for the best and the brightest. This is changing the entire nature of recruitment and retention in the public service.
Government will not achieve change using technology developed to be: Structured – following “business processes” Controlled, scrutinized, restricted Catering to specialists – requiring significant knowledge to operate, high training costs 2.0 is very difficult to achieve when enterprise software is delivered with integrated technology stacks, proprietary middleware and applications designed explicitly for something that is not quite what you wanted So, there is a new design required that will augment 1.0 or replace 1.0 depending on the circumstances that is: Social Flexible Easy to use, leveraged by anyone And component-based to more easily integrate within your infrastructure This type of technology can support culture change My point is that this change is happening anyway – so don’t blame Twitter or Facebook
There are many success stories, but I think that Intellipedia has become the “meme” for Government 2.0. We’re at, to paraphrase Churchill, “at the end of the beginning” in Government 2.0 – and the linking of traditional and new forms of governance.
The Government of Guatemala trains journalists to provide oversight through the e-procurement site, Guatecompras.
The Government of Kosovo provides comprehensive budget information on-line.
And, the notion of participatory budgeting was first developed in Porto Alegre in Brazil.
Or a cabinet level post for transformational government in the UK. These examples are interesting. The important thing is that they are demonstrating a trend.
The lesson is to start here. The poster child is Intellipedia – an adapted version of MediaWiki used by the American Intelligence community.
Of course, everyone knows that FreeBalance has always been on the leading edge of technology. We’ve been quietly innovating over the past 4 years. And, we saw the implication of Web 2.0 over 3 years ago and we charted a path.
There’s a notion that Web 2.0 will impact collaboration technology and some document or content – but not transactions.
Key point is that the government had an objective that cascades across all transactions, documents and discussion threads – following the business process with numerous flexible activities that could not be anticipated – resulting in outcomes. So, Government 2.0 is necessary to enable back-office functions because it goes beyond structure and beyond a single application metaphor.
There is a gestation period for any government financial transaction: Beginning with government policy That is discussed by Treasury Board and Departments To create a budget document That is approved by Parliament That forms the budget plan and budgetary controls in the government resource planning system That enables an internal requisition – say for IT equipment That references the IT plan And is discussed and approved Resulting in a tender document managed by PWGSC That receives proposals That are evaluated – a proposal is selected And a purchase order created Enabling goods to be received Resulting in payment And the vendor is evaluated – and so on. This is really a simplified version because there could be many discussion thread. There’s the contract document and the invoice, the transfer to asset management.
Marshall McLuhan suggested that humans became less social thanks to the book and printing press, but that technology was bringing humans closer together.
Imagine this – transforming from the notion of government as a service provider to government as enabler
Don’t blame Google Technology can prevent change Web 2 is metaphor. You can buy a professional subscription on Flickr, upload and manage content, discuss pictures with friends, purchase printing, join groups. It’s high time – you should be able to do this at work. Government Performance Management requires social interaction because of the problem of unintended consequences So Government 2 is an enabler So, consider FreeBalance as one of your vendors – come to our booth – join our customer exchange The lesson: begin with internal social networking
My last thought is about government transformation. Really: does the culture of government prefer top
Down, when the alternative is much more attractive.