So, What is Gov 2.0?

Lots of people use buzz words all the time. Those in the so-called "Goverati" are using one in particular: "Gov 2.0." Some people are using it to exclude you and I. Others just use it because it sounds cool and is easier to say than "Government 2.0."

But what does this mean to you and I?

Granted some of you might say I am part of the "Goverati" since I founded Gov20LA and You2Gov. That might be true, depending on your view.

However the larger story is a combination of major societal forces that have collided together as if in a bumper car arena. Let's start with the most basic part of this: the human element. People. You and I. Several noted Gov 2.0 leaders have spoken, and written about the idea of Citizen 2.0, such as Adriel Hampton, Andrea Baker, and even myself.

Several others, such as Andrea Dimaio, have written about how technology is at the heart of this on-going, raging debate in Washington, DC and State Capitols across the U.S. as well as Foreign Capitols. Not to mention all the innovators out in the "sticks." Most of the Gov 2.0 innovation in fact occurs outside of the political capitols and inside technology and business circles.

I have written about it being the merger of Government 2.0 and Citizen 2.0. But what does this mean for you?

While others offer out the huge importance; that cannot be denied of opening data and data structures.

But already, I have veared from the point. As Bill Grundfest and I clearly laid out in February's Gov20LA Session we did on "Language in Government 2.0."
By using techno-jargon, I just lost some of you. So what is Gov 2.0? Is it getting that pothole fixed? Is it being able to do things online that you now have to do by standing in some long Government agency line with a whole bunch of other cranky citizens wondering where their tax money is going?

What does all this mean for you and I anyway? It means at the least, that there are lots of people across the country (remember I started with people?) who are working smart and working hard to bring massive societal change to you and I in how we interact with our government(s). It means that there is hope for broken and non transparent government systems and people.

But it also means the dark underbelly of governments get shown the light of day. This brings out defensive, cornered and scared people who see their very way of life disappearing in a digital "poof." The people who are embedded to the old ways of doing business are seeing this social wave of innovation driving both culture change inside government; and a business change outside of government, as a scary kind of revolution.

Indeed, it is a revolution. Only, it is the good kind.

This post is dedicated to a Gov 2.0 Revolutionary Thinker who passed away last month: Martin Bosworth.

 

Follow Alan W. Silberberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Ideagov

Comments

[KristyFifelski]

01:37 AM on 03/17/2010

I've been in government for the past 10 years, and in my line of work I've found one amazing technique for managing this fear of change within our agencies. The trick is simplicity. Basically describing 'Gov 2.0' in a way so simple...even a caveman can understand it.
What's the deal with this social media? Simple - social sites are how people are talking online. It's where the conversation is happening, so that's where our government should be engaging them as well. What's the big hoopla with all this? Simple - social sites are one component, but more importantly we're talking about the bigger picture of "interactivity" with citizens. Interactivity means using technology (like crowdsourcing tools) to get public opinion and adapt based on it. Interactivity means plastering 'share' buttons everywhere so people can spread content that is important to them. Interactivity means partnering with developers to create mobile phone apps so we can offer important services anytime & anywhere people need it.
Shouldn't we be scared of "transparency"? Nah, people aren't interested in how many times you emailed your vet from work. One way governments figured out how to make transparency meaningful is to make datasets public. Take a look at the City of San Francisco - they opened up parks & rec data, and a developer was able to take it and combine it with GPS info and presto - a 'Mom Map' mobile app that lets moms find kid-friendly locations throughout the city. (More on my blog, www.kristyfifelski.com)

[Alan W. Silberberg]

08:24 PM on 03/17/2010

Thank you for the comment Kristy. You make some very important points. I agree. The trick is blending the use of technology with the human needs. Simply trying something new is a good starting point. But also accepting fear as a natural part of change is also a good way to use those fears as strengths instead.

[Alan W. Silberberg]

11:08 AM on 03/13/2010

Thank you for the comment Claudia. Very insightful. I think part of the issue is the fear I described manifests itself the way you describe.

But in order for large scale change to happen, even those practices need to be brought into the light.

[ClaudiaPutnam]

05:36 PM on 03/12/2010

Who can argue with transparency? But how do you make this happen so it's not the people versus the government workers? So it's not bureaucrats just giving workers yet more forms to fill out so they can cover their butts? So that it's not just about even more forms and even less work getting done? And fewer personal freedoms for workers? Now workers can't use gov cell phones for personal calls, even if gov business keeps them working late...they can't call home to say so. They can't send personal emails. Social workers may be asked to transport children, but are expected to carry their own insurance. HR practices are Soviet...everything ever done wrong is documented, so the managers always have a case...they spend years building a case if they want to let someone go, rather than intervening in a positive manner. They don't recognize positive numbers, only negatives...a worker gets written up for not filling out X # of forms by a certain deadline, but not for exceeding some other expectation. This is where transparency and accountability currently get you. This is how workers currently see it. So, why should they see it in a positive light? I think if you want workers to embrace it, you need to understand why they are already upset and find a better way to frame it so they can see it as in their interest. I am not nor have I ever been a gov employee.

[Alan W. Silberberg]

04:55 PM on 03/12/2010

Thanks for all the views. I think this is the first time I have written a blog where all the comments were on Twitter! Thanks for all the re-tweets and comments.