- RT @theintercept: Nearly 40 percent of terrorism defendants were caught up in FBI stings. Explore the database: trial-and-terror.theintercept.com htt… 18 hours ago
- RT @HillaryClinton: Happy #EarthDay, and thanks to math and science for all you've given us! March on! 🎉🔬🔭 billmoyers.com/story/neil-deg… 18 hours ago
- RT @ggreenwald: Because only rational response is: "yes." Once you start criminalizing publication of secret docs, all media outlets are en… 1 day ago
- Interesting. Not sure about these predictions, but their guess is as good as mine! twitter.com/kathkeating/st… 1 day ago
- How Child Care Enriches Mothers, and Especially the Sons They Raise nyti.ms/2pFNrfs via @UpshotNYT 2 days ago
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Sleepy Tagsbig ideas communication creativity data design thinking Dyslexia education fatherhood gov 2.0 government 2.0 labels Law layoffs leadership legislative data life linked data management meaning motivation open government open government directive plain english policy rmcamp sematic web SMpolicy socialmedia stereotypes TEDTalks the future of work transparency welcome why words
Tag Archives: government 2.0
The following post is by Tim Brown, author of Change by Design and CEO and President of IDEO. Brown is Mr. Design Thinking. The introduction of design thinking and other methods of design into the public policy realm would have a significantly positive impact on the world. The issue raised by Brown in this post is also addressed by Eggers and O’Leary in there book “If We Can Put a Man on The Moon: Getting Big Things Done in Government”.
Why? It seems like a simple question. but it isn’t? Think about it. Why do you do what you do? Why do you work for the company or person that employs you?
According to Simon Sinek, you might have to think hard because we often focus on the whats in our life. Sinek wrote an interesting book called Starting with Why. The book addresses the issue of how do certain leaders, brands, or organizations inspire devotion or action from people. He points to brands, like Apple and Southwest Airlines, and people, like Martin Luther King, Jr. What Sinek found is that these brands or people start with why. They asked and answered the question of why they are doing the business they are doing or leading the movement they are leading. In other words, they began with their purpose. Sinek says this is not the typical approach. Usually we focus on the what or a result. The message of Apple is more than we are a great computer company. Look at their recruitment site, http://www.apple.com/jobs/us/welcome.html. See some themes, “change the world”, “make an impact”, “Less of a job, more of a calling”, and so forth. Apple is trying to inspire their employees to build the game changers and innovate. A result is not as inspiring as a purpose. As Sinek says, Dr. King didn’t have a 10 point plan for success, he had a dream.
In short, as Sinek would state, people don’t buy what you do, they buy (and keep buying) why to do it. The companies that know their why are Seth Godin’s remarkable brands.
I work for government. As such you would think that purpose would not be a problem. But it really is. Government service (or work) really shouldn’t be short on purpose. After all, we are suppose to be public servants or civil servants. We purport to work for the common good. Of course, anti-government sentiment does not help. But so what?
Dr. King lead a revolution that was not well accepted. Apple is the darling of some, but hated by many. These inspirational few faced the challenges and moved on. It is not about being loved or liked. It is really about something more.
I recently talked to a friend who works for the main CLE provider in Colorado about change. That discussion touched on this topic because she stated that one of the truly important things that helped Colorado CLE was when they focused less on credits and more on education. Or as she would say they started to think beyond credits. The funny thing about that seemingly simple or trivial point is that it is not simple or trivial. That is Colorado CLE’s purpose. They are about legal education and learning for attorneys. They are about practice improvement and growth. It is probably why they produce such high quality products. And that is the point! When employees have a purpose or when a brand has a purpose more than a product then good things start to happen.
So here is all I am asking you, what is your why? Why do you do what you do?
The following is a TEDx talk by Simon Sinek on his ideas. Enjoy! It may just change your day and dare I say life!
What is government 2.0/gov 2.0? How do we define it? Is it the same as open government? Is it about technology? Is it about culture? Is it a buzzword or marketing hook? Is it a word people throw around to seem smart and hip?
Well, I am not sure what the answer is to any of these and for the most part I don’t care. But I have talked to a few non-govies lately and they look at me blankly when I have used Gov 2.0 in conversations. So I found myself trying to explain it. So here is a thought on the definition of gov 2.0. How about democracy? How about what government is supposed to be?
My point here is not to define gov 2.0 or any other term we throw around. It is rather about how we talk and address the topic of gov 2.0 to the non-in coward. The people not on Govloop. People who don’t listen to Gov 2.0 Radio. People who do not subscribe to any gov 2.0 related list serves or forums.
My contracts professor in Law School once asked my classmates and I, what do words mean? A few my colleagues struggled in the law school tradition for a suitable answer. In the end, my professor looked at us wisely and said in his dry midwestern style, “what we say they mean”. It was a funny yet very true moment. If you don’t belief me, ask a lawyer to define consideration for you. (or click here).
Words matter, but understanding is more important. If we confuse our audience with jargon and buzzwords, then we fail. So perhaps, we should use plain and direct language to talk about our movement. If you have to use jargon, make your definition clear. But in the end, do not used jargon. A Colorado Supreme Court Justice once told me and a group of others, relying on jargon is lazy. So don’t be lazy when talking to people or when you write about our movement. Its to important. If it is hard. . . well all I can say is tough.
If you really insist on using all of the in terms and talk, well then go talk and share your ideas with someone else. Because the rest of us are busy doing and getting stuff done.
In the end, we all have good ideas we want to talk about, but innovation requires us to do something with those ideas. And right now our country and communities need us to execute on our good ideas.
So lets get to work and get stuff done. I’ll let you define stuff because you know the definition better than I do.
Dan Pink, author of a Whole New Mind, has a new book out about motivation and what drives (which happens to be the title) humans. I pick up Drive after seeing the following TED talk. This book and talk should get you thinking about what really drives us humans to achieve and get things done. The answer in short is that it is not what you think it is. The world has changed and the traditional rewards offered to people may not get the job done. And the research shows that such rewards may actually retard performance.
If we as a society what to advance and achieve great things, we need to start questioning perceived truths.
Enjoy the talk and pick up a copy of Pink’s book.
Today I am happy to announce that the first Rocky Mountain Gov 2.0 Camp in June 2010. Government 2.0 Camp is a participant driven and group organized unconference about government’s use of social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies. This camp will bring together government leaders, policy makers, scholars, students, contractors, and government employees to discuss and work collaboratively on improving government through technology.
The goal of the camp is to share information about Government 2.0 initiatives that are already in process and to collaborate about how to leverage social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies to create a more collaborative, efficient, and effective government at the local, state, and federal levels. Additional information about the event is available at http://barcamp.org/rmgov20camp (or the shorten link: http://bit.ly/5P14mc) and the Government 2.0 Camp Rocky Mountains group, http://groups.google.com/group/RMgov20camp?pli=1 (or the shorten link http://bit.ly/5QttB2).
The camp is tentatively scheduled for a Saturday in Mid-June. The location is to be determined, but it will be in Metro-Denver-Boulder area.
This event is open to anyone interested in improving government. We plan to provide free attendance for the event. The Eventbrite registration site will be available soon.
If you would like to take a more active role in organizing the event, please go to http://barcamp.org/rmgov20camp and contact the planners. Some of ways you can help are by designing the event logo, arranging for camp t-shirts, meals, and helping with administration of the event. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. As a barcamp style event, the participation of everyone will make the event a success.
In an October 9th article in the New Republic, Lawrence Lessig authored an important critique of the transparency movement. Primarily asking the questions – transparency is all fine and good, but what is the end?
Lessig’s article and a related article by Jill Lepore, which takes a critical look at the history of scientific management, in The New Yorker point out that what seems to be a good idea at one time may not be in the long run, especially if not examined. As the saying goes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Thus, without careful review the rush to transparency may lead to unintended consequence that we do not want and may jeopardizes the good that could have been achieved by opening up government data.
In fact, Lessig points out the non-contextual nature of raw data. Without context, data can saying anything. An example that comes to mind is the Denver Post’s effort to publish the salaries of all Colorado state government workers in the Post’s data center (the information is no longer available). As a pure transparency matter, such publication is not a bad idea. However, this data cannot speak the whole story alone. The data that was release simply stated the name of the employee, the employee’s agency or department, the employee’s state classification, and salary. The data did not say if the employee worked for a full year or not. The data did not say if the employee was promoted or demoted during the year. The data did not say what the employee’s job was. The data was without context. So yes a few department of transportation drivers appear to have huge salaries. Why? They drive snow plows and work lots of over time. Was the information useful? Yes. But without the context it does not tell the whole story.
Neither Lessig’s article nor this post on O’Reilly Radar, which highlights both Lessig and Lepore articles, condemn open government data/transparency, rather they point to the need for goals and to ask the important question of “what is the end?” I support transparency fully and think government does need to open up more information. But we do need to think about what will be the benefits and the costs. And if we are republishing, redisturbing, or mashuping any of the data for use as a policy tool, we must provide context and avoid bias whenever possible.
Finding legislative materials is often have the battle of staying informed on what law makers are doing. Sites like opencongress.org and govtrack.us are aimed at making congressional information more accessible and do a good job at achieving this goal. A new project, legislink.org, recently started with the same aim of making legislative and statutory information more accessible. Legislink goes about this task differently by creating human readable URL that direct the user to the legislative information found on the government’s site.
Legislink is not necessarily a better product. Just a different way of getting to important information. (I should disclose that I have contributed to the legislink project on bring it to the state level in Colorado). What I think legislink does extremely well is get the user to the source of the information, the government. Now republishing the legislative material on a new site like Opencongress or govtrack is fine, but why not go to the source of the information first.
Legislink does this by creating URL that can be cited much more easily than the official URLs provide by legislative sites.
For instance, the official Colorado legislative URL for House Bill 08-1266 (a bill I also worked on) is http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2008a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/A254528A18722054872573D1006E26DA?Open&file=1266_enr.pdf. The legislink URL is http://legislink.org/us-co?HB-08-1266. I think that is easier, but you be the judge. In addition, legislink allows users to go directly to a specific section of the piece of legislation, such as section 8 of HB08-1266, http://legislink.org/us-co?HB-08-1266-8. If a bill of interest is long or if you are looking for a specific section of a bill, this feature is extremely helpful.
As a I state above, legislink is not necessarily the answer. Just as opencongress and govtrack are not the answer. But these sites are a step in the right direction to making government information more accessible.
So in the spirit of Chris Brogan, I must applaud Joe Cramel, a retired IT manager for the US Congress, for getting it right by creating the legislink project. I am also encouraging others to participate in building and expanding legisllink by joining the conversation and contributing to the effort on the project wiki.