Effective government engagement – what the humans want to do

A post about engagement requirements for government systems.

At one point in my career I was in a position where my mission was to “operationalize public engagement”, the context was open government, open policy making, better services and the rest of it. Anyway, leaving that position I felt that I had a bunch of knowledge that should be left behind and I spent some time documenting what I had learned. This presentation was one that I was asked to prepare but never made it out of the gate due to an internal reorganization, instead of leaving it to die entirely I made a little video.

I recently discovered the video languishing in a hard drive and Pia Andrews recent posts reminded me that it might be worth sharing for those that are thinking about engagement as part of better government.

Engagement lies at the heart of the business of government, and humans lie at the heart of that business. I am convinced we can do better with engagement at all levels and that by doing so, we will improve services, policy and trust.

The presentation touches on policy, service, procurement, strategy and human centric approaches. It attempts to outline the requirements for enterprise systems to support sincere and effective engagement in a digital age.

This is all my opinion at the time, unofficial in every way.

On Engagement & Collaboration

A recent conversation got me thinking that over the years I have had the opportunity to dive deep into thinking about platforms for government enterprise collaboration and engagement.

This post is an attempt to gather some of artefacts created to capture and communicate what I learned when thinking about strategy. I don’t claim any ownership over these ideas, I am documenting them for those that want to build something better.

If you find anything useful or would like to chat please let me know. I may update this post with new items as time and interest allow.

Engagement

For me, engagement means understanding your stakeholders, listening to their concerns and building relationships. This is hard enough on a personal level, but to do it at scale across a bureaucracy whose culture is to be non partisan and invisible increases the challenge.

Here are some things I have to contribute to the work to be done.

Engagement Hub Concept

This is the model that was originally posted on LinkedIn which became the impetus for this post. Various versions of it were posted on a wall beside my desk for years.

Here is the link to the post: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/thomk_someoneshouldbuildthis-activity-6819998667840229377-4f3r

GC Stakeholder map

In order to listen to and understand stakeholders at scale you need to have some idea of who they are.
A while ago a group of engagement specialists in GC thought it would be fun to see if we could come up with a shared view of GC Stakeholders – a generic framework that we could use to talk about and understand the many, many different stakeholder groups that the 300 or so departments and agencies serve. This slide and accompanying visualization was as far as we got.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16He4_p2bTLPRl4IpQ-kzI_p5fiUm_OoG/view?usp=sharing

The image is from a slide, here is the stakeholder map part in Kumu, circa 2015  https://kumu.io/thomkearney/gc-stakeholders

The Listening Machine

Between 2014 and 2018 I was part of the public engagement team for open government consultations to develop three biannual National Open Government Action Plans. Each time we did it we tried to make the data collection more transparent and robust. Even conducted some ML experiments to see if that could help us understand what we were hearing.

We got some good international kudos for the work, so I documented what we did as an aspirational case study on open policy making that includes a data management plan and associated protocols.

Title slide for a presentation called Building a listening machine. Includes a diagram of a 1857 invention to show the wave that sound creates.
Here a link to the presentation, which includes links to documents and details. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1NDFgymWM_TkxHPA2yqm24HTMpWaL6CT-ZHJY4PHgp_s/edit?usp=sharing

Collaboration

What does collaboration mean?

The answer to that question is that it depends.
Here is a post where I tried to explain it back in the day.

Collaboration Patterns

Here is an attempt at documenting requirements for enterprise collaboration. It does not feel like those making decisions about enterprise collaboration in the GC are paying attention to these kinds of things…

Connect with me if you want more details on this, I must have them somewhere….


GCpedia & Cloud Governance

Back in the day (2009 ish) our humble little wiki was a world leader in enabling government wide connection and knowledge sharing. This image was the secret governance plan.

I wrote more about governance and the creation experience for the World Social Science Forum.

There are tons of lessons buried in that experience that are often ignored when we purchase enterprise software.

Virtual Government Network?

After the GCpedia experience I was inspired to pursue this idea for a while and documented some thoughts. Apolitical is partially filling this need now, but I still think there might be a place for something like this. What do you think?

That’s all for now

There is more I am sure of it, but if this post is every going to see the light of day, it is time to stop.
Until next time that is.

Please leave a comment if you want to see more of this kind of thing.

Collaboration eh? 

In honour of the FWD50 conference taking place in Ottawa this week, here is a post that seems relevant to the conference theme of “Use technology to make society better for all”.

It is a post about yesterday, today and tomorrow. There are quite a few words and no pictures.

Yesterday

Before the existence of writing, collaboration was strictly a face-to-face affair and probably centred around survival. About 5000 years ago writing came along, and information could now be preserved and shared independently of a human to remember it. For the next 45 centuries, written information was the domain of the elite.

When the printing press was invented, rooms full of scribes were gradually replaced with new technology — machines that could accurately reproduce information at an accelerated rate. Ideas could now spread further and faster than ever before. Collaboration over distance was possible although it took a long time. Information was very physical and real.

Around this time, Information geeks the world over began a quest for the ultimate classification system. Every great power had a great library.

More recently, the Cold War and quantum physics research produced the internet and the web. The “interweb” changed everything if you wanted it to. Information could be in more than one place at once, and it could literally travel at the speed of light. Physical artefacts became digital — making it at once more accessible and more vulnerable. Everything became miscellaneous. Digital networks evolved into complex adaptive systems, and Digimon appeared in popular culture.

The web was a new frontier, unregulated and exciting, a new crop of 20 something techno wizards rose in business fame. Apple was born. The Cluetrain Manifesto was written and there was a boom in tech stocks. At the end of the millennium, we panicked over a couple of missing digits (Y2K) and spent billions correcting the short-sightedness of the previous decades.

In the GC, Government On-Line occurred and the Funding Fairy provided the means for departments to put their information online. Canada became a world leader, but the paper-based mentality that prevailed caused many to completely miss the opportunity presented by hyperlinks and digital logic, instead “brochure-ware” prevailed.

At the top of the hype curve, the tech bubble goes pop and we are reminded that gravity works. After the crash, the Web was reborn as Web 2.0 with user-created content and social networking taking centre stage. The Long Tail made its appearance and command and control hierarchies began to sense a threat, while the educated masses saw an opportunity.

Government CIOs scrambled to keep the information plumbing from backing up while Amazon and Google raised the bar of citizen expectations for online service.

Tagging and folksonomies entered the vocabulary of information professionals, curating became something anyone could do. Librarians and archivists struggled to catalogue and preserve some of the exponential growth while the cognitive surplus emerged to build things like Wikipedia — making human knowledge more accessible than ever before. CIOs were either bewildered or excited at the possibilities.

GTEC played an important role by bringing together examples and people. It became an annual, milestone event. It was at GTEC 2007 that Ken Cochrane announced that the GC was going to build a “Collaborative Library” and it was at GTEC a year later that we launched GCPEDIA — bringing people and technology together.

Today

GTEC is gone and FWD50 has taken its place as a gathering for technology hopefuls. The world is a scary place and we are not sure whom to trust.

High-speed wireless saturates the urban environment and ubiquitous network access is a reality. Digital natives experience continuous instant communication as part of everyday life while Government workplaces seem antiquated by comparison. The web and the collective forces that it enables are transforming all parts of connected society. Recorded information is produced at an accelerating rate.

Open source software matures and becomes a viable option for enterprise applications. Governments around the world join the Open Government Partnership, in Canada, the Federal Government publishes the Open Government Action plan.

Holistic User Centred Design begins to challenge solutions approaches to designing technology. Humanists and engineers are learning to work together.

The digital divide becomes a social issue, web accessibility becomes law and massive resources are assembled to ensure all GC organizations become compliant.

Bureaucracies built to manage people, work and information over the last couple of hundred years are beginning to show their age. New groups emerge in the evolutionary sea of information we know as the internet. Powerful forces compete to control the new territory — Anonymous becomes an entity.

The GC invests heavily in GCDOCS, SharePoint and other technologies designed to manage/control documents. The idea of knowledge as a product of interconnected networks and not just documents takes shape. Social innovation tools appear in pockets. GCpedia, GCconnex, GCcollab and other grassroots tools struggle for institutional support while gaining users. Something called the open accessible digital workplace is conceived.

Agile and Design Thinking is all the rage. Good ideas start to come back again.

Sometime after tomorrow

I originally wrote these words in 2012, it is kind of fun to reflect on the progress since then.

There is no Web 3.0, but something else emerges — a diverse, complex adaptive system, no, a network of complex adaptive systems. What seems to be emerging is a network dominated by motivations other than the public good. The government needs to step up.

Control of information becomes less important, the cultural default is to share knowledge. Government is a platform and publicly funded data is routinely visualized by an army of professional and amateur big data analysts. I see this happening, too fast for some, not fast enough for others.

In the GC, Shared Services Canada provides a reliable infrastructure, we share one email address across government, secure wireless is everywhere, non-government partners can easily and securely collaborate, the government cloud is a reality. Departmental CIOs become focused on transition and business improvement — information plumbing is rarely an issue. The government-wide technical architecture focuses on standards and interoperability, a diverse range of technologies and tools work together in relative harmony, vendors with “lock-in” strategies are shunned. Thrilled to see the idea of open standards and enterprise architecture come back, hopefully, they will stick this time.

GC Ideas is in constant use, the GC App Store is the first place departments look when they need software. Government developers routinely contribute to open source projects. The Open Knowledge policy is promulgated across governments around the world. The Marvelous Mistakes page on GCPEDIA competes with the Fabulous Failures page for most valuable lessons. Risk aversion all but disappears in an organizational culture that embraces experimentation and sharing lessons learned. Meh.

Tablet computers are everywhere, briefing binders disappear. The Golden Tablet program maintains a knowledge connection with departing employees. The GCTools suite is adequately funded. No Golden Tablets and the tools are frustrating to use, but big plans ahead.

Dreams of a digital nirvana don’t come true, but all is not lost. Networks of people who are comfortable connecting virtually emerge and disperse continuously. The definition of Public Service changes as the lines blur between indeterminate employees and partners. Agility is an operational requirement, and government organizations re-invent themselves. @fwd50 is a great example of this happening

Leadership learns to work with the nebulous “crowd.” Connections are made and governance structures adapt to include interfaces to the crowd. The management focus shifts from one of command and control towards engaging with self-identified stakeholders. Early steps being taken by some visionaries some of the time.

Serendipity becomes a business principle, the internet of things emerges, power shifts to those who control the algorithms but a balance is maintained by the digital collective. The Virtual Government Network is an international network 200,000 members strong where new and innovative methods are shared. The Virtual Government Network never became a reality but Apolitical did, the algorithm battles are just beginning. 

Public Servants feel more connected with each other, and with the public they serve.
Most certainly for some.

Global government becomes possible as a global consciousness emerges. The collective intelligence gets a handle on our wicked problems. Technology serves the three Ps of Planet, People and Profit.

Yes, life is good in my fantasy future. What does yours look like?

Service & Program people can I buy you a coffee?

Teacup_clipartThis post is directed to those of you that identify as a service or program person working in government.

Not too long ago I moved from Open Government Engagement to take on the role of Lead for Learning in Policy Community Partnership Office.  PCPO defines its community as anyone in a value chain that stretches from research through to service delivery and evaluation.

I realized recently that my network of policy folks is healthy, but I am not sure who I know with a mature understanding of the service delivery and program side of things.

If you are one of those people I would like to buy you a coffee.

It can be real coffee or tea or a walk if you are in the vicinity of 90 Elgin. Alternatively, we can talk on the phone, have a WebEx or Zoom or Google Hangout meeting. Whatever works.

I would like to learn about how you view this thing called policy and what you think about the policy/program/service spectrum that is sometimes talked about. I would like to learn more about your world and what we need to learn together to make it better.

If you are interested please drop me a line at my GC email and we’ll set something up. I look forward to meeting you.

Thom

 

 

The Crowded Boardroom: When the long tail collides with hierarchy – a true story.

This not a random picture, it is how I envision the government. Each ship is a department or agency. The ships have commanders with considerable authority. Communication at a distance is very bad, (they did it with flags). Groups of ships are supposed to work together and sometimes they do so effectively, but collaboration is difficult with many strong egos and conflicting agendas. My hope is that we can use the current enthusiasm for all things digital, to get better at working together.

The goal of this post is to try and share some of the lessons from an extraordinary experience that I (and many of you) have been part of for more than a decade now. The experience was leading the collaborative tools team that created GCpedia and GCconnex across the Government of Canada (2007-2010).

My journey began with the 2000 tech bubble burst and the ride that preceded it ended. Looking for new consulting challenges I looked to government and found a world of opportunity for improvement.  Over the next few years, I undertook dozens of interesting projects in a variety of departments that eventually led to a three-year executive interchange appointment that changed my life, and I dare say, changed the Government of Canada.

When my interchange ended and I realized that this was a career highlight that would be difficult to surpass. So I wrote a paper about it.  The paper reflects on the origin story of what is certainly one of the most successful government collaboration platforms in existence. I started to update it, but other things keep getting in the way so I am sharing it again now in its original form.

In the paper, I look at how the project seemed to transcend cultural and institutional barriers to enterprise change in the context of Government.

Reading it today I am struck by a few things:

  • Navigating complexity is challenging, but applying the principles of complexity is useful in growing a complex adaptive system.
  • Introducing change to an organization requires a willingness to manage by exception —the long tail does not easily fit in a boardroom (page 19).
  • Stealth works. Formal approval mechanisms cannot be expected to understand and preemptively approve the specifics of innovation. A small group with sufficient “policy cover” but limited formal governance can do a lot for not very much money.
  • A senior central agency executive who is willing to risk manage can enable wide-spread innovation (we had one in 2007 with Ken Cochrane and we have another in 2018 with Alex Benay).
  • The Governance and Stakeholder model is something we should be looking at and talking about to deal with our shared accountability issue (see the governance description starting on page 12).
  • I am intrigued by the idea of viral horizontality (see Table 2, page 16).
  • The basic underlying assumptions of organizational culture are the hardest to change (page 18). These include things like:
    • Responsible autonomy is best
    • Deference to the most respected
    • Shared sense of purpose
    • Free information is powerful
    • Mistakes are learning opportunities
    • Beg forgiveness rather than ask permission
    • Working for Citizens, (it’s a way of life)
    • Challenge the rules
  • The factors that influence governance in table 2 are still true and worth looking at if you are into that sort of thing.
  • “Good enough for next to nothing” I like that line and think that projects that achieve this goal should be rewarded. And improved upon in the next iteration.
  • In a complex adaptive system, neither use nor content can be fully anticipated.
  • There are real implications for our policy planning and service design philosophies as we embrace an agile digital approach.

This paper examines the cultural and internal governance implications of the introduction of a horizontally enabling Web 2.0 technology (open source MediaWiki) in a large enterprise (the Public Service of Canada), in the period 2007-2010. It was written and presented as part of the World Social Science Forum Conference in Montreal, October 2013.

The paper was later published in the scholarly journal Optimum Online Vol 43, No4, Dec. 2013 (registration required).

I would be delighted to hear your thoughts.

More articles and stuff.

You can change culture now: 3 essential truths for public service leaders

stick man on stairs squareThe Canadian federal public service has been trying to change its culture for a few years with initiatives like Blueprint 2020 and the Innovation Hubs. Now we have a new federal leadership that wants to adopt a new and more collaborative approach to governing. One might wonder what is keeping us from our goal…

I am not a millennial, but I am a pretty hip, late baby boomer who has been part of the interweb since close to the beginning. My career has been a little eclectic and I have had the opportunity to observe and participate in a wide range of transformational activities. I am telling you this, because it is that experience that has provided the fodder for the observations that follow.

A few years ago I was deep into an analysis of how governments could realize the potential of collaboration and social technologies. As I was mulling over how to synthesise all of the data into a sound bite that could be easily consumed by a busy executive, I was also thinking about how it connected with what I had learned from working in advertising and teaching consumer behaviour. In a rare moment of clarity while waiting for a red light I scribbled down three truths that seem to me to be both obvious and profound.

1. Sharing is good

Sharing is the activity that fuels successful collaboration, knowledge management and communication, which in turn are fundamental to a “capable and high performing” organization. By sharing we become authentic to those around us, sharing preserves hard earned knowledge and makes us more productive, telling stories makes us real, and helps to build the common purpose which is so important to successful change.

Most of the major research firms agree that the biggest challenge organizations face in implementation of social technologies within the enterprise is creating a culture that supports information sharing. Having been involved with over a dozen enterprise collaboration efforts I can say that my personal experience supports those findings. Culture, as the saying goes eats strategy for breakfast, apparently it also eats technology, and probably has a taste for deliverology as well.

Many people don’t share because they are afraid of making a Career Limiting Move (CLM), while others, (kudos if you are one), consider sharing part of their responsibility. Unfortunately too many seem to equate sharing with a CLM, and ultimately we need to institutionalize ways of rewarding sharing and punishing information hoarding. Maybe we can make sharing part of management accountability accords, it is pretty easy to count contributions to sharing platforms like GCpedia and GCconnex…

2. Ego gets in the way

By ego I mean an unhealthy focus on self. We have all come across individuals that try and withhold information, and manipulate those around them for personal gain or promotion. When combined with a lack of emotional intelligence I believe this is one of the most destructive forces in the public service today. We need to get our self-worth from something other than the size of our empire, we need to get emotional and career points for collaborating. We need to recognize the common purpose, (serving Canadians anyone?), as more important than our personal gain. Not only is the, “I only do what is good for me” attitude, bad for the organization, its beginning to look like it may be bad for your career as well.

I have worked on enough horizontal files to have come across this issue more than once. No matter how you structure a collaboration, the people involved can always sabotage it. While researching the horizontal governance issue sometime in the early 2000’s, I came across an Auditor General’s report examining the lack of progress on the climate change file. Without much reading between the lines it was obvious that the real problem was that the primary departments involved could not find a way to collaborate, mostly because the Deputy Ministers did not like each other. Now I am not pointing fingers at the senior ranks, you see this kind of behaviour at all levels. I suppose we should not be surprised, given the competitive, individualistic socialization most of us have grown up with. But humanity’s greatest capacity is to learn, and I like to think that we can learn to work together despite personal differences—if we set aside our ego once in awhile in favour of the common goal.

3. You can’t communicate too much

“You can’t communicate too much”,  I posted this comment on twitter during  a conference  once and it quickly became one of the most re-tweeted updates, so it seems the sentiment hit a nerve.

Back in my advertising days we used to spend a lot of money on media buys and printing, and one of the worst things that could happen was for a print run or advertisement be published with a mistake. When it did happen it was an expensive and embarrassing lesson. After the first time we began to repeat instructions, in different languages if necessary, we would draw pictures, leave notes on the artwork, call the publisher, even attend press runs to make sure all was understood. Later in my career I worked with a Product Line Manager at a major telecom who told me that for an idea to get traction you had to say the same thing over and over again in as many different ways as you could think of —when you are sick of saying the same thing, it’s time to say it again— you can’t communicate too much.

In today’s information intense and dynamic workplace, trying to get the attention of information inundated executive ranks will take more than a little repetition. Going the other way, management can’t communicate too much with staff, especially during times of change. The mushroom school of management (keep them in the dark, and feed them sh*t), simply has no place in an agile and high performing organization— you can’t communicate too much.

In dynamic times, perfection is the enemy of communication, waiting for a complete and crafted message simply leads to speculation and fear, while communicating often and openly, even admitting you don’t know everything, leads to trust and understanding. Having a clear and common purpose is more important than knowing the details of how you are going to get there— you can’t communicate too much.

Conclusion

Changing the culture of something as big as the public service is a daunting task, sometimes compared to turning a supertanker. But the public service is not a ship, it is an organization made up of people, and it’s people who make the culture. The three truths that I have shared can and should be applied from the top down, but more importantly they can be applied by individuals regardless of rank, when you think about that, it means you have the power to change culture.

What are you going to do with that power?

Image Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triskele-Symbol-spiral-five-thirds-turns.png

Editorial Note:

This post is adapted from one of two posts that was written for a GTEC 2013 blog series exploring what it means to be an Agile, Open, Collaborative and Mobile Government. The original post was entitled “Three truths to help you change the culture of the Public Service.” My focus in the series was on the Cultural, Organizational and Policy Infrastructure that provides the foundation for public service culture.

January, 2014 Update

Some of the things I am involved with this quarter.

1. Leadership Summit 2014, February 25, Ottawa

Canadian Government Executive Magazine and lead sponsor Adobe put on a very informative day last year, and I am looking forward to attending and live tweeting this year’s event. Hope to see you there. http://cgeleadershipsummit.ca/

2. Collaboration Clinic, February 11, 2014, Ottawa

The Institute on Governance and I are delivering this one day session designed to equip you with the skills required to meet outcomes collaboratively. http://iog.ca/events-courses/collaboration-clinic-from-buzz-word-to-results/

3. Change Management Conference, May 5-6, 2014, Toronto

The Ottawa session back in November was well done and this one looks even stronger. I plan to attend and tweet this opportunity to connect with change leaders. Ottawa Session StorifyToronto Session Web Page

If you are thinking of attending the summit or the conference let me know, I might be able to get you a discounted rate.

Other News:

On the consulting front I will be spending a few days a week back at TBS-CIOB helping the GC2.0 Enterprise Collaboration team prepare for the next stage in their continuing evolution. A related note is that Optimum OnLine recently published my paper on the first three years of pioneering Enterprise Collaboration at the Government of Canada.

I will also be spending time with the Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention at PHAC, helping out with their transformation to digital via a learning approach to taking advantage of social technologies.

Finally, I am looking for interesting and meaningful work starting in April, 2014, if you hear of anything.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message, I hope you have a great beginning to the new year.

All the best,

Thom

@thomkearney

The Importance of Open

Image

skycrop3Over the years I have had the chance to reflect upon lessons from quite a few successful and unsuccessful projects.  One of the more significant things that I have been lucky enough to be involved with is helping to bring the Government of Canada GC2.0 Tools (GCPedia and GCConnex) to life in 2007.  Since then, I have continued to work on enterprise collaboration and knowledge management efforts  including several environmental scans of best practices world-wide.

One of the more important insights I have gleaned from this research and experience is that when it comes to an enterprise collaborative solution, open is important.  According to McKinsey and others, achieving the potential of enterprise collaboration requires a culture of sharing, and sharing is a characteristic of open.

Open Door

Any solution that claims to be enterprise must be available and open to all employees, anything that imposes silos or mirrors existing hierarchies degrades the potential for emergence by limiting the number of participants. This is not to say that there cannot be private spaces, only that the creation of private spaces should require a business case if you are serious about open by default.

Open Information

Secondly, the information architecture needs to be open so that users can discover content and other users, both intentionally through search and serendipitously by accident, this enables the self-organization and relationship components of a complex adaptive system. Open information also means that you have to classify responsibly, declaring everything confidential is usually wrong and significantly decreases the value of the information assets.

Open Source

Using open source software is important because it allows a small internal team supported by a global volunteer network, to quickly adapt the technology to changing needs as they arise.

Outsourcing solutions means buying into someone else’s product roadmap and the cultural paradigm that goes with that roadmap. This might make sense in a mature market with global best practices like finance or human resource systems, but web-based collaboration is young, and governments are still learning what they need.

As government reinvents itself we cannot predict what will be required. Using open source software allows the organization to remain agile in a sustainable way. Keeping the expertise to develop and maintain low cost, light weight technology also serves the innovation agenda in ways that outsourcing never can.

Open Innovation

In the Government of Canada we are entering an era when outdated systems are being replaced by outsourced solutions. In many cases this is a good thing, but Enterprise Collaboration is one space where I believe this strategy would be a mistake. The reason is not technical but cultural. The GC2.0 Tools (GCpedia and GCconnex) should remain, low cost, open source, internally managed collaboration tools. Their very existence speaks to the innovation and skill of the public service. Attempting to replace what passionate public servants have collectively built with a third party solution clearly sends the wrong message.

@thomkearney

p.s. Writing this post, I am reminded of a favorite quote, “A mind is like a parachute, it only works when its open” – Frank Zappa, (according to the internet).

This post also appeared in the Canadian Government Executive Blog, November, 10, 2013.

Collaboration Tools the Shirky Ladder

This post originally appeared as part of the GTEC 2013 Blog4549099_HiRes

Collaboration is a word you hear a lot these days, and its one of GTEC13’s theme words.  In the Government of Canada (GC) Public Service context, the Chief Information Officer, Clerk of the Privy Council and the President of the Treasury board have all called for increased collaboration between departments in the service of Canadians.  A few years ago when I had the title Senior Director of “Collaborative Tools” I set out to understand the word better. The short form of the definition I came away with was that collaboration is a group of people coming together to solve a problem.

Of course, there is more to it than that.

Three Levels of Collaboration

One of the most cited books on the impact of the Internet on group dynamics is “Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations” by Clay Shirky, 2008.  Shirky describes  three levels of collaboration:  sharing, cooperation and collective action. These levels exist on a ladder of increasing commitment, risk and reward.  Understanding the levels reveals important nuances in meaning that have significant impacts in making the most of collaboration tools.

1. Sharing is Easy

The first level is sharing. Sharing creates few demands on participants. All you have to do is make content available where others can find it. When I tweet a link or update my LinkedIn status I am sharing. Sharing is a happy by-product of working transparently, and can take very little effort but have a profound impact when a connection is made. My criteria for sharing is that the information be safe and potentially useful to others.  Sharing broadly, across departments, is important because it creates a critical mass of information connections that allows for serendipitous discovery and cost-effective re-use of information assets.  Sharing also sets the stage for the more advanced levels of collaboration by establishing some common knowledge and awareness of individual interests and experience.

Responsible sharing is the single most important thing each of us can do to realize the potential of our collective knowledge and begin the journey to a more collaborative culture.

2. Cooperating Means Change

Cooperating is the second level and it is harder than sharing because it means “changing your behavior to synchronize with others who are changing their behavior to synchronize with yours” (Shirky,2008).  When we agree to meet and make the effort to accommodate busy schedules we are cooperating at the simplest level. Co-creating a document is a more advanced form of cooperating. Cooperating creates community, because unlike sharing  you know the individuals you are cooperating with. There is a degree of shared risk and reward.  Conversational skills are important because we need to  understanding  both the shared goal and who is going to do what.  Cooperating means adhering to some mutually agreed upon standards while remaining flexible. Cooperating between departments in particular is a competency that we need to grow if we really want a more agile government.

3. Collective Action is Hard

Collective Action is the third and rarest level of collaboration. Collective Action is when a group of people truly commit themselves to a shared effort, it is an “all in” kind of thing with shared risk, reward and accountability. In an organizational context, (think Westminster silos), shared accountability can be extremely challenging because of the lack of enabling and enforcing mechanisms between departments.  All too often good intentions are lost in a tragedy of the commons as individuals become motivated by personal gain over collective good. Collective Action may be rare but it is a worthy aspirational goal for those that have mastered Sharing and Cooperation.

Different Tools for Different Levels

In the world of IT systems, vendors and advocates for particular solutions sometimes use the word of the day to help sell their product, and “collaboration solution” is a recent example.  When we view collaboration in the light of Shirky’s levels, it makes it easier to understand the value that different tools bring to the equation.

To share widely you need  open enterprise wide tools like GCpedia and GCconnex that can be accessed by everyone in the Public Service.  For formal cooperative projects you may require document  security and management work flows that proprietary  tools provide.  For collective action, we need changes to the mechanics of government before tools can hope to have much impact.

As the GC gears up for more horizontal collaboration, agility and mobility, it is important to remember that collaboration is not a tool—collaboration is an iterative social process. Collaboration is people, (you know the soft squishy things walking around in the office), working together, often in a very dynamic and ad hoc kind of way.

At its most basic, a collaboration tool’s job is to make it easier for a group of people to find each other and come together to solve a problem.  The design paradigm behind the tool can have a profound impact on the types of collaboration that are possible – some are oriented towards sharing, while others are more about control. A single enterprise collaboration solution may be neither practical or desirable, rather an ecosystem of tools, connected by standards, may be the only way to enable the full range of collaborative behaviours the future demands.

The First Step is Simple

Collaboration can be formal and structured or it can be organic and come together in an informal way. Collaboration can mean sharing, cooperating or collective action. Achieving the highest levels of collaboration is hard, but fortunately the first step is pretty easy, simply do what you learned in kindergarten and remember to share.

—————————

Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin Books.

Image credit: iStockphoto,  Illustration File #4549099, contributor Mightyisland

————————–

The Culture Table – Request for input

The purpose of this post is to share something I am working on in the hopes of receiving some feedback from people like you.

Back in April I wrote a post entitled “Hold your breath, it’s going to go deep”  about the fact that  I was presenting a paper at the World Social Science Forum in October,  well the deadline is approaching and I am now  trying to write the thing.  The paper is to examine the cultural and governance implications of horizontally enabling tools like GCpedia.  As part of that I would like to have a culture table that compares the two cultures with a focus on the divergent points of potential conflict.

To provide a frame for analysis of the conflicting cultures I have elected to use Schein’s three levels of organizational culture. The draft comparison follows.

Table 1: Points of Conflict

Levels of Culture

Gov2.0

Gov 1.0 (2007-2010)

Artefacts

Visible structures and processes

Observed Behaviour

Principle based guidelines

Loosely coupled networks

Communication based on need and interest (not hierarchy)

Collective learning

Constructive debate

Habitual knowledge sharing

Roles and Histories

Respect shown in disagreement

Prescriptive policy and web of rules

Departmental, Westminster system with legislated silos

Vertical communication patterns

Some cooperation amongst the willing

Territoriality

Established methods that have worked for decades

Respect shown by unquestioning agreement

Generic Job Descriptions

Espoused Beliefs and Values

Ideas, Goals, Values Aspirations

Ideologies

Rationalizations

Open by default

Trust and respect

Wisdom of the crowd

Experiment and learn

We is stronger than me

Authenticity

Design to “Fail fast”

Values and Ethics Code:

  • Respect for democracy
  • Respect for people
  • Integrity
  • Stewardship
  • Excellence

Share when ready

Non Partisan truth to power

Stay off the front page of the news

Design for “fail safe”

Basic Underlying Assumptions

Unconscious beliefs and values that determine behaviour, perception thought and feeling

Responsible autonomy is best

Deference to the most respected

Shared sense of purpose

Free information is powerful

Mistakes are learning opportunities

Beg forgiveness

Hierarchy is best

Deference to authority of the position

Entitlement to my job and benefits

What the boss wants

Information Is power

Mistakes are career limiting moves (that end up in the news)

Ask permission

Working for Canadians
(it’s a calling not a job)

This is just a draft and it is based on my perceptions.  What do you think, am I being unfair to the Gov 1.0 or too Pollyanna with the Gov 2.0?  Maybe something important is missing?

You can comment here, or you can comment on this Google doc version that I will be using as my working copy.

Thank you in advance, I look forward to your input. 

Thom

[polldaddy poll=7312241]