June 26, 2010 By Bill Schrier
Yet there is a kernel of truth here, not so much in the technology but in the fabric of our society. It is Society 2.0.
First of all, I'm not coining the term Society 2.0. I'm not sure who coined it, but I first heard of it on Monday, June 21st, from Julius O. Akinyemi, Entrepreneur-in-Residence at the Media Lab at MIT. I was privileged to be one of 25 or so folks who came together under the leadership of Zach Tumin of the Ash Institute at Harvard's JFK School of Government. Zach sponsored an executive session at Harvard on the topic "Making the Move to Gov 2.0: Citizen Engagement and Empowerment".
The phrase "Web 2.0" seems to have significant validity. Tim O'Reilly created and defined the term Web 2.0, I think. There IS a vast difference between the World Wide Web as it existed before about 2003, and the kinds of web "stuff" available in the last six years. Perhaps the watershed moment was in 2003 when MySpace was founded by Tom Anderson and Chris DeWolfe. MySpace is a signal achievement, marking the true "social web" where normal people could post information and easily interact with each other. Web 1.0 was about viewing information and doing transactions. Web 2.0 is about social interaction.
And the term "Society 2.0" certainly makes sense to me as well.
Those of us old enough to remember life in 1980 may still remember what life was like in those days of ancient history. Typewriters, secretaries, phones with cords. Film cameras. Giant paper phone directories plopped on your doorstep. Anyone who used a computer or talked about bits or bytes (much less gigabits or terabytes) was an uber-geek who must have a pocket protector and be one full bubble off the level of normal.
Today, most human beings in the United States feel naked without at least a cell phone, but preferably a smartphone. Anyone using terms like "typewriter" or "secretary" will make listeners smile like they are humoring a very elderly relative who is suffering from dementia. Many of us have to check our e-mail constantly. Most of us use text messaging or multi-media messaging as a matter of course. And who uses a film camera or even knows a retailer which develops the stuff?
Welcome to Society 2.0. The technology-enabled society.
Government 2.0. Now that term is foreign to me.
I certainly understand "government", as I am one (sorta). Or at least work for one.
This morning I attended Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn's regular cabinet meeting. Did we talk technology? Hardly. Indeed, except for the specific details of the subject matter, this could have been a Mayor's cabinet meeting from 1980 or even 1950. We talked about jobs - the overriding need for people in Seattle to have living wage jobs and how we, as a government, can help businesses large and small make that happen. We talked about the South Park Bridge, which will close in five days because it is rickety and dangerous, and that closure will isolate a whole neighborhood for over two years until we can find the money to replace it. We discussed the need for people to feel safe and secure on the streets, and how our departments - not just police, but transportation and neighborhoods and the electric utility - can work to help people downtown and in neighborhoods feel safe.
Sure, technology was there and it permeated the meeting - in the background. Three people, including the department director sitting my right, took notes on their iPads. I took notes using Microsoft One-Note on my HP Mini which uses Windows XP and which sat on top of the table - I've not yet become a fanboy for Apple technology. But I used my BlackBerry to set an appointment with the FCC and text message my deputy. Everyone else at the meeting surreptitiously checked their BlackBerrys for e-mail.
But Government 2.0? Whatever that is, it wasn't present there, and it certainly should not have been.
Now don't get me wrong - Government is doing a lot of innovative work with technology, and Seattle is a leader. You can follow the tweets of the Seattle police department and fire department and transportation. We've got a set of 15 interlinked blogs for up-to-the-minute information. You see any account balance and pay almost any bill or tax of the Seattle government online. And we do really cool stuff like a Traveler's information map and posting Fire Department 911 calls on a map within a couple minutes of dispatch. Anyone can download a ton of information from data.seattle.gov. On Monday, June 28th, you be able to view a map showing crimes in your neighborhood and download redacted but pretty complete reports on any of them, a service probably unique in the nation.
But if websites are Web 1.0 and Facebook is Web 2.0, and typewriters/corded phones are Society 1.0 yet smartphones and ipods and email or text messaging are Society 2.0, then all that innovative stuff in Seattle is probably Government 1.5, not Government 2.0.
Government still has not quite figured out how to harness mobile phones and Facebook and LinkedIn. We still conduct public meetings with presentations by officials followed by citizens trooping one by one to the microphone to deliver a two or three minute diatribe to elected officials. We are not gutsy enough to allow even moderated comments on our blogs, or to establish a free-wheeling social network of citizens, much less a smartphone app for interacting with elected or senior government officials.
But there are glimmers of hope for Government 2.0. Mayor McGinn's public meetings often include a display of tweets projected on a screen. The Seattle Channel has figured out ways to live-stream video from almost every major public meeting in the City. The Channel's Ask-the-Mayor show includes interaction from constituents via e-mail, telephoned and even videotaped questions from citizens. IdeasforSeattle gives people an opportunity to suggest and rank ideas, and we'll have a new, improved Idea generating tool later in the summer.
A true Government 2.0 needs to be more interactive. Government 2.0 will be about inclusion: elected officials having the ability to listen to a large number of constituents, not just the NIMBYs (not-in-my-backyard) folks who can show up at a meeting, or the lobbyists with the clout to get a face-to-face meeting with an official. Government 2.0 needs to be about drafting new solutions from a wide variety of people ("crowdsourcing"), not just those who have the time or media attention to relentlessly push forward their own agenda. Gov 2.0 will be empowering people on their own blocks and in their own neighborhoods to have more control over and take charge of their safety and quality of life. Fundamentally this requires a change in culture in government from "we'll collect the data and make the decisions, and let you review them" to "let's collaborate and work on this together".
Technology has a role in this. For example, by using tools to harvest @replies from Twitter. Or to engender comments and discussions on Facebook or blogs without having the conversation degenerate by a few anonymous people using four letter words to viciously attack government and elected officials, a problem old and new media outlets face every day. We need ways that a "public meeting" can span two days allowing everyone to attend and discuss the topic and voice and debate ideas with online and video tools, without the need to travel downtown to City Hall for a meeting at fixed time.
And we - government - need to harness the tools which the "normal" people of Society 2.0 use every day. Their mobile phones, and smartphones and Facebook. We need to harness those tools, so that our constituents don't have to come "downtown" or come to government to use services or give input on policy. So they can use tools they already use - the Internet and Facebook and mobile phones - to interact with officials at meetings or to give feedback to elected official.
Interacting with your government should be as easy as posting to your Facebook wall or texting on your smartphone or adding a comment to a blog. But it will also be hard because it will require every constituent - as well as our officials - to listen to the ideas of others and interact, discuss and collaborate in new ways beyond giving a two-minute speech at a public meeting or writing an e-mail message. When our culture changes that way, then perhaps we'll have "Government Two dot Oh".
(And we'll be talking about Gov 3.0!)
June 1, 2010 By Bill Schrier
There are fads and trends in information technology, just like in the world of clothing or hairstyles. One of the latest fads is pie-in-the-sky computing (PITS), otherwise as "cloud computing" or software-as-a-service - SAAS (pronounced as in "sassy").
But I'll call it pie-in-the-sky (PITS) computing, just to be different and even a bit contrary.
PITS computing is only the latest in a long line of sea-changes in IT. Electronic data processing (EDP - now there's an old term) was the very first of these trends, appearing on the scene in the 1950s and 1960s. EDP was a world of punch cards and paper tape. EDP was the era of "glass house" data centers and a computer "priesthood". Computers were far too expensive and esoteric for normal human beings to comprehend or touch. So there was a "priesthood" of specially anointed and trained computer specialists whose job was the programming, care and feeding of the electronic monsters.
But the development of computing technology continued relentlessly. Along came mainframe computing (green-screen). personal computing, local-area-network computing, client-server computing and Internet or web computing.
Each one of these phases was driven by some significant technological advance. The development of microchips and the Intel 8088 processor, for example, drove the personal computing trend. (Thank you Intel and IBM!) The development of Ethernet standards drove networking which allowed individual computers to talk to each other.
And then computing, of course, became part of the mainstream culture. Any human being in a developed country knows "windows" doesn't refer to that wonderful device for seeing through walls, the "glass window", but rather the portal into the world of computers, an operating system developed and marketed by Microsoft. And almost no one thinks of the "web" as a home for spiders or the "net" as a tool for catching fish or butterflies.
In this context, PITS is the latest fad in computing and technology. PITS is driven by the appearance of more-or-less ubiquitous and reliable high speed networking. Networks today, thanks to fiber optic cable, the router/switch revolution (thank you Cisco) and advances in wireless (wi-fi and 3G telecomm networks), are virtually everywhere. Or at least everywhere where human beings live and companies and governments do significant business.
And these networks are reliable. The wired networks almost never go down, although the signal can get weak or strange with wireless. In my house for example, our Wi-Fi network connected to a wired DSL Internet connection has 105 megabits per second of throughput. Yet my commercial telecomm provided cell phone only works at a certain specific spot in the kitchen in front of the microwave!
Most enterprises now operate with giant central servers which store data and applications. At the City of Seattle, for example, we have computer aided dispatch systems which reside on central servers at a "highly secret" police department location. The police data resides there, but cops on the street can access criminal records and license plate information which reside not only in Seattle but also on the other side of the nation or even on another continent.
Our water utility manages pumps and valves and dams and reservoirs across the entire county and up into the Cascade mountains. City Light, our electrical utility, manages an electrical grid which spans the entire state of Washington.
We all routinely use the web to find information and read the news. But we also increasingly use it to store spreadsheets or photos or documents on our own websites or using servers such as Google apps. Microsoft is embracing the trend, with its Office 2010 now available "for free" in a PITS cloud.
So if Microsoft Office can be in a "cloud" somewhere on the Internet, why can't our payroll system or e-mail system or financial management system be halfway across the State in a data center in Grant County, Washington (next to giant hydroelectric dams to supply the power) or even halfway across the United States, well outside the Seattle earthquake disaster zone?
Of course the applications and data can be almost anywhere. In the past, I've been skeptical of PITS / cloud computing because I didn't trust the networks to stay up in a disaster, and I was concerned about the security of information stored in a non-descript data center in a distant location outside my personal control.
But with today's reliable networks, the network is not the issue. And major companies like Microsoft or Amazon or Google handle the management and security better than most governments or small businesses. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the World Trade Center disaster, the data could actually reside in multiple different locations around the nation, increasing our ability to withstand a disaster like that 8.0 magnitude earthquake.
It will be a while before we in government embrace PITS, because the loss of control is a big cultural change for governments and many large companies to swallow. Just like people were concerned when their data moved off their desktop computers to a server, and servers moved out of the closet on the same floor to a centralized computer center in the government complex, so it will take us some time to embrace having those computers in an unnamed nondescript but super-secure location, possibly right next to the bunker where Vice-President Dick Cheney hung out after September 11th.
But embrace it we will.
This Digital Communities white paper highlights discussions with IT officials in four counties that have adopted shared services models. Our aim was to learn about the obstacles these governments have faced when it comes to shared services and what it takes to overcome those roadblocks. We also spoke with several members of the IT industry who have thought long and hard about these issues. The paper offers some best practices for shared government-to-government services, but also points out challenges that government and industry still must overcome before this model gains widespread adoption.