Government in the Digital Age
Over the past five years, I’ve watched as the public sector has become more comfortable with, and in some cases has even embraced and pushed forward, the use of “social media technology” and “enterprise 2.0 software” to transform the way government work is done. The promise of technological conveniences is truly enticing, especially to an increasing impatient, technology equipped workforce, who have grand visions for the future of government. A large part of the change is lead by “Digital Natives” – people who have grown up in a connected world and have different attitudes, approaches and habits than those in preceding generations. And, while there is no doubt that the way we work in government is changing at a speed that is increasingly uncomfortable for many digital skeptics, a number of questions remain unanswered about what the future of government truly looks like in this new world. For example, what are the implications of growing up in a society that always remembers and never forgets? What are the ramifications for organizations navigating a world with more and more digital interactions and communications? What does this mean for government leaders who are trying to cope with the information overload, which is only amplified by each new wave of technology?
These are a few of the questions we will be discussing at the Nobel Public Services Summit in Stockholm this December. In a session called “A Public Sector Where Digital Natives Thrive” we will be exploring how the public sector will evolve in the Digital Age and we will compare and contrast the roles of the Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, and Digital Skeptics in this new digital landscape.
We hope to create an interactive, technology-enabled session so that YOU can participate alongside (digitally speaking) with the public sector delegates to collaborate, debate, and vote on a number of discussion related questions. During the event we will use #PSS09 and #PSS09DN. But, in preparation for the session, we are asking for your participation in helping us answer three questions related to the future of government in the digital age which are included below. We’ve setup three easy ways for you to share your input – a simple web interface, a twitter poll, or texting capability. Additionally, we hope that you will share your thoughts with us by leaving a comment here.
So, what do YOU think?
1. Should privacy be sacrificed for transparency?
Vote one of 3 Ways:
a. Online poll
b. Twitter – tweet @poll 46463 for Yes, @poll 46464 for No
c. Text to +447624806527 – 46463 for Yes, 46464 for No
2. Should the integration of devices, workplaces and “boundary-less” organizations be a top priority for the public sector?
Vote one of 3 Ways:
a. Online poll
b. Twitter – tweet @poll 46462 for Yes, @poll 46465 for No
c. Text to +447624806527 – 46462 for Yes, 46465 for No
3. Should public sector workers be allowed to post content in real-time using social media technologies without management approval?
Vote one of 3 Ways:
a. Online poll
b. Twitter – tweet @poll 46466 for Yes, @poll 46467 for No
c. Text to +447624806527 – 46466 for Yes, 46467 for No
5 Responses to “Government in the Digital Age”
Leave a Reply
Peter on November 29th, 2009
Questions on your questions:
wrt to Question 1) Are you referring to govt privacy vs personal privacy?
wrt to Question 2) Information technologies may speed up the rate of information transfer and integration but they are not an end in themselves. The role and top priority for the public sector is performing their function – not just adding technology for its own sake. You need to show that the addition of technology will solve the problem. It may not. It may be the people whose hands are on the levers.
wrt to Question 3) You did not identify any guidelines which would govern the public sector workers to disseminate information. One role management plays is to filter the content wrt to constraints. Taken to the extreme should you be able to post encryption keys for commanding satellites, or post troops movements or post scientific data before it has been analyzed by principal investigators
lad on November 30th, 2009
It's all about balancing what you know with what you do with it, without abusing it, but sharing it in appropriate ways using appropriate avenues. Just like it's wrong to correct someone with an email, when it should be done in person, social media etiquette will have to be taken into consideration by management teams throughout not only public entities, but private ones, as well. There's already plenty of abuse in the media, but I believe the public sector has a higher level of responsibility of being good stewards of information and how it is disseminated. This will give policy makers a whole new set of ideas and issues to consider, and should be integrated both horizontally and vertically as policies progress. Certainly, the legal profession will weigh in – but as responsible citizens, public sector employees can take the lead and set the standard.
Chris on December 3rd, 2009
1) No, privacy should not be sacrificed in the name of transparency. Perhaps we should examine the purview of what is considered "privacy" in this day and age, but it should not be sacrificed in order to be more transparent. In my experience, the goal of transparency is noble, but its implementation is nothing more than re-organizing a website or database to bring previously-assumed "private" information into the public eye. We live in an age where instant gratification is essential to success. Translation: If it's not within our immediate view, we assume it doesn't exist. Rather than remove privacy, we should examine what information is already available. Privacy has been around since the beginning of human interaction. To propose eliminating it, or significantly reducing it at any level, for the sake of transparency is over-extending the power of any government or group of individuals.
Chris on December 3rd, 2009
2) Yes, but with significant consideration for the result in productivity it would create (see Tim Ferriss' "Four Hour Work Week" for a great distinction between productivity and efficiency). Anyone who uses an iPhone or personal computer can testify to the increase in efficiency these items provide in our daily lives. We now have access to Facebook/Twitter/e-mail anywhere and everywhere, along with the capability to accommodate instant changes in plan with minimal difficulty.
The Blackberry revolution is a great example of how efficiency is increased, but productivity is sacrificed, due to device integration. Consider a weekly staff meeting or technical conference. Think about how many people have their heads buried in their Blackberry devices rather than listening to the conversation for which they were all gathered. Yes, you can check your e-mails two seconds after they are received, but unless you can provide a one-word answer to that e-mail, you will end up re-reading that e-mail at your desk before providing a response because its content has been replaced by other information that has been absorbed by your brain.
Integrating devices that increase productivity can yield significant results, but devices that only increase efficiency are often-times nothing more than productivity inhibitors.
The integration of workforces and boundary-less organizations is a desirable goal when the scope is sufficiently limited. Integration with the intent of eliminating "excess spending and contract duality" is a wonderful idea. Integration that focuses on removing agency-level boundaries for multi-focused agencies such as NASA may do more harm than good. The many directorates and varied research efforts within NASA are too broad to open completely. Having worked with the agency, I found that I had quite open access to a broad range of people outside of my immediate field of focus. However, the difficulty was in accessing people within my own directorate and program. The immediate area of concern, in my opinion, is removing the boundaries within specific programs before removing boundaries at the agency level.
Change the way of doing business in a bottom-up, not top-down, manner.