TANYA: On January 25, 2011, President Obama gave a stirring State of the Union address.  In the address he used the words ‘innovative’ or ‘innovation’ nine times, and he used the word ‘economy’ seven times.  Yes, we have to get innovative, but I think, in some respects, Obama has the wrong end of the stick—it’s not just the US private sector that needs to get more innovative, it’s the government.  And I don’t just mean the US government.  See Sheila Fraser’s departing comments on the state of the Canadian Government.  Among other things she warned the government faces long-term fiscal pressures that will mean “very hard choices” between raising taxes or cutting programs, as she bid farewell to a decade as the country’s top financial watchdog Wednesday.

Governments around the world are sinking in debt and are failing to meet the expectations of their populace.  For some reason, everyone seems to be in support of the idea that if we explain how the money is spent, either through some government sponsored portal (see Recovery.org) or open data (see Edmonton’s Open Data catalogue), that it somehow makes it okay to carry on as before with little thought as to how we can dramatically change the game.  I say it’s not okay; it’s time for a transformation and to become innovative about how the government delivers services and spends our money.

DELANEY:  I think a lot of people are saying this.  The recent growth of Gov2.0 conferences and proliferation of articles found using the search term ‘government transformation,’ certainly indicates a growing dialogue around this topic.  Governments are also talking about their need to be innovative and this seems to hinge on the topic of technology in government, such as at the recent Gov2.0 conference in British Columbia at which former Deputy Premier Alan Seckle ‘unveiled’ his vision for the BC Government to put ‘citizens at the centre’, and be innovative and use technology for transformation.  This sounds great, but I am certain we have heard this before.  How much of this is just talk?  Certainly there are examples of innovation in government that is truly transformative.

TN: There have been some interesting attempts to invoke Web 2.0 technologies to drive innovation, for example, Challenge.gov is an online challenge platform, administered by the U.S. General Services Administration(GSA) in partnership with ChallengePost, that empowers the US Government and the public to bring the best ideas and top talent to bear on the United States’ most pressing challenges. While just deployed in September 2010, some would say ‘give it a chance’ and ‘this is just the beginning.’  I would say it is a beginning, but it misses the mark.  Our problems are bigger than ‘what kids are eating in school for lunch’ and ‘how social security has changed your life’ which are two of the challenges listed on the website.  I believe we can use technology to transform ourselves and make a real difference, but we need to think bigger as a start.  I think Chris Vein, the CIO for the City of San Francisco, covered this well in his GovFresh.tv interview.  He said that to be innovative in government, you need to think big, work hard, inspire, and be in an environment that has a tolerance for failure.

Similar sentiments are expressed by Douglas Merrill, CIO of Google Inc, in a YouTube video.  He says that to be innovative you need to create a climate of innovation.  You need strong leadership that can build diverse teams, and find and foster innovation.  As well, you need to be risk tolerant and not punish failure.  You need to allow for a little chaos and allow projects time to develop and not cull them too early.  Most importantly, you need to live out loud to discuss and share diverse perspectives, otherwise, everyone will see the problem the same way.  Sounds a lot like the government, don’t you think?

DT:   Well, no, it doesn’t sound like the government, but I don’t doubt that, in general, a culture of openness and tolerance is desired by many within government.  However, the very structure of government, and the inherent competing interests, makes openness difficult to achieve; furthermore, it must look like an overwhelming change management project. And then there is the issue of the anticipated fallout that transparency could bring.  I can understand the reluctance to dive into innovation for the sake of transparency, or the sharing of the types of information that historically have been used to gain favour or access budgets.  Who is brave enough to dive into the task?  And realistically, who in government has the time to spare when the current inefficiencies are increasing government employees’ workload.  Is there an appetite for change when the risks are high and the tolerance for failure may be slim?  Perhaps.  There is the case the US Intelligence Community is using a suite of social software technologies (Intellipedia) to move towards ‘living intelligence’ across the agencies that make up the Intelligence Community.  However, I don’t think the US Intelligence Community has fully embraced the possibilities and continues to silo information.

The culture of government is the place to begin.

TN: So where to start?  In his State of the Union, Obama also mentioned that “the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black-and-white TV,” and I can imagine that the Canadian government is not so different.  So start we must.  I think the culture of government is the place to begin; it is going to take strong leadership and amazing fortitude to try to inculcate a culture in government that rewards risk and encourages diversity of perspective. 

Interestingly, I think it will also take a change in attitude on the part of the voting public.  Back in 1979, in his book Unbridled Power, then law lecturer, Geoffrey Palmer, infamously called the New Zealand Parliament “the fastest legislature in the west”. I lived in NZ during the 80′s and yes they did have a penchant for fast legislation and perhaps there were some downsides to that, but the upside was that NZ was extremely innovative, and the voting public was tolerant of the idea that their legislators were not going to get everything right the first time, but they would accept some failures as long as there were also remedies.  During the 80′s, New Zealand went from a highly regulated and subsidised agrarian economy to a more free market economy.  This was accomplished with some pain, but with huge success.  The point being, I think regulators suffer a little too much from fear of reprisal if they get it wrong, and I think this is something we need to work on as a society.  But I digress.  What can technology do?

What can leadership do?

DT:  Tanya, I think the first question, as you suggested earlier, is what can leadership do?  Technology is just the tool.  The enabler of any innovation or change is the leadership and the culture engendered from that leadership.  I work with companies wanting to be more innovative and have learned, both on the ground and through my research, that innovation only occurs in a culture of innovation.  So what is that?

This is a very well researched topic with the researchers and innovation gurus (T. Amabile, M. Sinetar, Tom Kelley, Luke Wilson, D. Tesluk to name a few) all in agreement that a culture of innovation hinges on just a few key ingredients:

• An appetite for risk and failure;
• Team members who are flexible to others’ ideas and diversity;
• Strong leadership that is not directive and celebrates well intentioned failure;
• Clear rules of engagement and adequate resources;
• Experimentation and independent thinking are promoted; and
• Time for idea generation and a process for vetting ideas and moving them into implementation.

Innovation does not happen by accident.  According to Lafley and Charan (The Game-Changer: How You Can Drive Revenue and Profit Growth With Innovation), innovation must be continuous and pursued at all levels of an organization.  This may come as a surprise, but much of the magic of innovation is actually just process, backed up by specific leadership practices that enable the culture towards innovation. 

So, can this translate well into the environment of government?

DT:  Tanya, we’ve been discussing Government 2.0 and the use of Web 2.0 technologies.  According to the Australian Task Force on Government 2.0, Government 2.0 refers to:

• Open Data, which provides for freedom of information rights, and building upon those, additional rights of access to freely reuse, republish, repurpose and otherwise add value to government information.
• Open Consultation and Community Engagement.
• Collaborative Work Environment – the application of Web 2.0 collaborative tools and practices to the business of government particularly.

TN:  Yes, I think it’s time to define/redefine what Government 2.0 is. With the recent Wikileaks scandal and a lack of real value to date from “open data” I think it’s time to look at how government can be innovative, transparent, save money and produce better value for its citizens.  Despite all the discussion and hype I have yet to see a real game changer or transformative innovation  from Government 2.0 initiatives.  The open data proponents might argue that the whole initiative is just getting going; I would argue, show me the vision of how open data is going to dramatically change the lives of citizens.  When I look at the following site, for example, that lists 59 open data apps from around the world, I see a lot of nice to have and fun to have apps, but nothing that makes me go ‘Wow, that’s transformation!’. 

This view is supported by others; see the comments from Mark Drapeau on 5 Questions for 2011 on Government and Social Media.  He asks, “where are the open government entrepreneurs?” and further goes on to say, “…seems to me that if a resource is valuable, then the consumers of that resource will want it, and indeed, compete for access to it. This is a basic law of ecology. So, in the open government space, is the data being provided (“opened up”) valuable? Are consumers rushing to it? Are entrepreneurs competing to monetize it or otherwise use it in meaningful ways? And if not, why not?”

DT:  I would agree the topic of open data is getting a lot of airtime from a number of groups and citizens and from within governments.  However, I wonder if open data is really the place government and citizens should be focusing their energies.  You raise the point of the value of the data and that you don’t see how open data would help the critical issues of government, such as financial ability to provide the services promised.   What is the value that we want from open data? With governments on tighter budgets and even some of them going broke, would making data open really save money and provide citizens with better services? What do you think is the basis of the argument that, yes, it would be better for citizens?

TN: A few thoughts have come to mind. I think things have gotten confused between the need for transparency, which I do support, and the concept of open data. Data, in and of itself, does not provide transparency. Let’s remind ourselves what transparency is in a social context. Transparency is the extent to which those who are participating in a process or dialogue can view and act upon the contributions of other participants. Openness is the extent to which the process or dialogue is open to varied participant holders. Data is simply that, data.

First and foremost the data would need to be in an “intelligent” form for it to provide any transparency into governments’ operations and I am not sure we should be relying on third parties to take government data and make it understandable and contextual because, as we know, things can be “lost in translation”.  There is a case for releasing government data and the whole open data movement.  Weather information is a prime example and a very successful one, and there are some other good examples with health data, however I believe much more could be gained if we got back to focusing on the business value.  

DT:  You sent me an interesting video by Chris Rasmussen of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency in the U.S. that discussed new social technologies to create ‘Living Intelligence” – data that is open across government security agencies in the U.S. and relies on transparency within and across agencies.   I think the discussion on transparency in government may get some people’s backs up, however, in the example of the US Security agencies, transparency is within the community which is collaborating, not transparency to all citizens.  I was reading in Charlene Li’s book, Open Leadership, that the success of implementing Enterprise 2.0 tools, be it in government or corporations, is in first thinking strategically about what needs to be transparent and to whom and designing the system around that.  

I think proponents of open data and Government 2.0 are mixing up the two concepts, or collapsing them to mean the same thing.   Government 2.0 is really about providing people with the tools to better communicate and access helpful information with which to better do their jobs (internally) or access services (citizens/external).  Regarding open data, I don’t think providing data necessarily creates transparency.  As you said, ‘data is data’. I think people are also confusing from whom it is they wish transparency – mixing politics with policy, or politics with customer service.  I raise the point again; does open data really provide us with better services?  And does it provide transparency?

TN: There is a nice summary today from my friend Andrea Di Maio 5 Necessary Truths About Government 2.0. His first comment is that Government 2.0 and politics don’t mix – here, here. He says, and I totally agree, that “Government 2.0 initiatives will succeed when they stop trying to meet political requirements, such as increasing people’s trust in government, and start addressing service delivery and resource management challenges.” And further “that Government 2.0 initiatives must align with business goals. Although it is difficult to make a formal business case for most Government 2.0 initiatives, it is important to ensure that they do not turn into compliance-oriented, nice-to-have activities, but instead remain tightly linked with agencies’ strategic objectives.”  

DT:  I agree that the focus be strategically on how Government can better provide client services in a cost effective way.  I’ll provide an example.  I was helping a client write a business plan which required some research into regulations.  There were various regulations overseen by various government ministries all for one product category.  It was ridiculously difficult, even with one regulation from one ministry, to get the complete regulation spelled out in one document, or on one area of the website.  Nor were the links provided when one policy was referred to.  Phoning the ministry directly proved unhelpful.  The civil servant was unable to easily patch the disparate bits of info into something cohesive for us.  It was a wild goose chase through a patchwork maze of what seemed to lead us in circles and never quite brought us to the missing piece of information.  The government employee I was speaking with, the person tasked with being the go to person with the information, was obviously frustrated. For the citizen trying to do business, it slowed the process down considerably.  It seemed to me that within one department, there was duplication and redundancy and layers of inefficiency. It created delays in launching the product line and in the profitability of the business. How do you calculate the cost of that?  It’s not just about one person’s wasted time and effort. 

TN: Governments are going broke, there is rising expectations of service delivery from the government and a declining workforce. We need to get innovative in how we conduct the business of government. I have a few thoughts, but I’ll start with the concept of transparency. I believe we need to have much more transparency and openness in the act of providing services to citizens and I don’t mean from a compliance point of view. For too long I think government and the private sector, and government and other service delivery agencies, have operated a little like two people standing in a room with their arms crossed lobbing things back and forth with very little co-operation and collaboration.   

DT:  Which seems anathema to what most governments are after – happy businesses creating prosperity for all.  Seriously though, what about when collaboration does go right?  There must be some examples to learn from and build upon.

TN:  Recently while attending a conference I heard of a beautiful example of government and the private sector collaborating which resulted in not only the citizens of the Province of BC being served better, but in meeting the strategic objectives of the government and the private sector banks. The banks apparently came forward and suggested to the Attorney General that they would like to place an office of the Credit Counselling Society, sponsored by the banks, in the Law Courts of Vancouver. Their thought being that if they could assist people before they went bankrupt this would help the banks with the objective of avoiding more bad debts, and it would help those in the legal system before they became even further entrenched in their difficulties by facing bankruptcy.   We need more of this! Where everyone comes together at very little cost to improve the lives of our citizens and the health of our economy. But to get there I think the government needs to be more open and transparent in the issues faced and the possible opportunities to work together.

DT: Yes!  Now that is where I’d like to see discussions on transparency and openness focused – on what the realities are and on where all parties see opportunities and how they feel these opportunities could be made reality.  That is where the stuff of innovation exists.  You have some ideas about how government could be truly innovative and progressive.  Let’s continue this discussion in our next post.

Delaney Tosh is a Certified Professional Co-Active Coach ::  Strategically driven towards innovation :: Guided by humour and an addiction to cash flow statements.