Category Archives: Collaboration and Engagement

Three thoughts for better collaboration

Posted on by
Reply
Two dogs in a puddle in the park. One is growling at the other as if they don't want them in the puddle.
Otis & Saul not practicing collaboration.

Three thoughts for better collaboration

I spent the first part of my career in the Advertising business. In the middle I was an educator until the internet lured me away. Now I am a public servant, working for the federal government, trying to make things better. 

I look back at my career as a series of projects. Some projects took years, others months or days, still others are decades long.  Marketing, product, web development, courses, innovative programs, lots of different kinds of projects. I have been part of formal committees, advisory boards, ad hoc gatherings and close partnerships.  Three lessons have emerged from this experience on how to practice successful collaboration between humans.  

  1. Have a common goal

If people don’t share a desire or need to accomplish whatever it is you are trying to do it is unlikely they will be present, even if they attend. A good common goal will get folks excited and help them overcome natural territoriality and animosity.  Try to be clear about the goal but leave room for a variety of motivations, this can be tricky with orthodox perspectives in the room. 

  1. Work on clear communication 

Be explicit and specific whenever you can be. This is hard and you have to put some effort into using language that your collaborators will understand. Likewise you may have to put some effort into understanding what others are saying. Assuming that others understand words the same way you do, is a trap. Be pedantic about the definition of key words. The longer you collaborate with the same people the easier this gets. The more diverse the group is, the more work it will take. 

  1. Check your ego at the door 

We all like to do good work and get recognized for it. Our sense of self-worth is often tied up with the products we produce. Sometimes this means that we have trouble letting other views in, or we hesitate to change another’s work because it feels like it belongs to them. It doesn’t, it belongs to the greater good. We need to learn to separate ourselves from the thing and become part of something bigger. 

As it turns out we are actually stronger together. 

That’s my knowledge artifact for today, what lessons do you have to share?

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

Posted on by
1
A painting of a naval battle from the 1700. Many sailing ships can be seen fighting with cannons.

This not a random picture, it is how I envision the government, the Canadian federal 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, we do it today with email and private conversations). Groups of ships are supposed to work together and sometimes they do, but collaboration is difficult with many strong egos and conflicting agendas. The current administration wants the public service to be more efficient and outcome focused, something I can very much agree with, but have also heard before.

The goal of this post is to try and share some of the lessons from an extraordinary experience that I and many others were part of some time ago. The experience was leading the collaborative tools team that created GCpedia and GCconnex across the Government of Canada (2007-2010).

This part of my professional 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, 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. In the paper, I look at how the project managed to transcend cultural and institutional barriers to change. My hope is that as we embark on the next round of public service renewal the lessons of the past will help improve our odds at success.

Reading it today I am struck by a few things:

we need to adapt

The world has changed a lot in the almost two decades since GCpedia was launched, but government has not. A Westminster system that has its roots in the days of sail, is still challenged by the concept of collective instantaneous communication, whatever will we do to adapt to the age of AI?

Executives need to understand complexity

Large organizations of people are complex adaptive systems and not enough senior executives know what that means. In a complex adaptive system, neither use nor content can be fully anticipated, this has serious implications for how we think about management of information, technology, people, policy and services.

CHange is hard

Introducing change to an organization requires a willingness to manage by exception —the long tail does not easily fit in a boardroom (page 20). A senior central agency executive who is willing to risk manage and lightly “govern” can enable wide-spread innovation.

stealth works

Formal approval mechanisms cannot be expected to understand and preemptively approve the specifics of innovation. A small group with sufficient “policy cover” and lean governance can sometimes achieve good enough for next to nothing.

Conflict of interest is real

Governance and funding models are something we should be looking at and talking about to deal with our shared accountability issue (see the governance description starting on page 13). Existing models have inherent barriers and conflicts of interest that should be acknowledged and addressed if we hope to make collective progress.

I would be delighted to hear your thoughts.

Here is the  PDF 

Here is the presentation to accompany the paper.

The icons in this post come from Peter Stoyko’s brilliant systemviz codex. The header image of the sailing ships comes from Wikipedia Battle of the Saintes which took place in the Caribbean of all places.

More articles and stuff.

Effective government engagement – what the humans want to do

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
Reply

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?

Framework for the Virtual Government Network

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? 

Posted on by
Reply

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?

Posted on by
Reply

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

 

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
Reply

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 Storify – Toronto 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

Reply

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

Posted on by
2

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

Posted on by
3

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]

Would you attend a Chatham House party for Blueprint 2020?

Posted on by
2

UPDATE, August 1, 2013

A total of 36 people signed up for invitations. We are now coordinating times and such.
The next update will be a blog post after the event is held.

UPDATE, July 29, 2013

We have reached the magic number of 30 and are now preparing.
The list will close on Thursday, August 1 at noon.

See you soon!

Some blurry people celebrating Canada.

A few weeks ago I posted an idea on this blog about using the Chatham House rule as a way to get some frank and honest input into the Government of Canada’s Blueprint 2020 vision for the public service. I was afraid that some public servants might self censor in an attempt to avoid making a “career limiting move”.

Having barely survived producing the two PS Engage events, I am a little hesitant about jumping back into event management. However the idea generated some interest and as you know I am pretty passionate about making the Public Service better, so…

I have created a mailing list that you can join if you would like to attend a Chatham House event in support of Blueprint 2020.  You can sign up using this form. If more than 30 people sign up, I will organize and facilitate at least one event.  If others decide to organize events then I will let you know what I know via the mailing list.

That’s all for now, lets see what happens!

Three truths to help you change the culture of the Public Service

Posted on by
2

This is one of two posts for the GTEC 2013 blog series where we are exploring what it means to be an Agile, Open, Collaborative and Mobile Government. My focus will be on the Cultural, Organizational and Policy Infrastructure that provides the foundation for public service culture. This is a great time to be discussing these topics as the Clerk has recently announced the Blueprint 2020 initiative with a call to action for all Public Servants to participate in shaping the vision for the Public Service of the future.

Recently 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.

Right now, in the Public Service 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. That kind of change will probably take decades, so maybe in the meantime maybe there is a need for some responsible anonymous input to Blueprint 2020? What do you say, should we throw a Blueprint 2020 Chatham House Party…err… Workshop?

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 it 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 a few years ago 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. 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 human’s greatest capacity is to learn, and we can learn to work together and set aside personal differences if we set aside our ego once in a while 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 one of the conferences I attended recently 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 we 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 —you can’t communicate too much.

In today’s information intense and dynamic workplace trying to get the attention of the 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.

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.

Conclusion

Changing the culture of something as big as the Public Service is a daunting task, I applaud the sentiment behind Blueprint 2020 and encourage everyone to get involved. But it is also important to remember that an organization is people, and an organization’s people are who make the culture. The three lessons 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 this means you have the power to change culture.

A final note:

I am writing this on Father’s day, 2013 and as it happens this date is also the anniversary of my father’s passing at the age of 89. A child of the depression and a jet setter of the 60’s he lived his life with an ethos of “doing the best you can, with what you have”. In these uncertain times it is easy to blame others for inaction, but I say, do what you can, with what you have.

What do you say?

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

A Chatham House Party for Blueprint 2020?

Posted on by
12

Flickr_-_Sasoriza_-_Rays_in_a_dark_roomThis post is about a getting an idea out there.

Last week the Clerk announced Blueprint 2020, this is an exciting initiative that invites Public Servants to participate in shaping the future of a “capable and high performing” Public Service that embraces “innovation, transformation and continuous renewal”. The vision is based on the following guiding principles:

  • An open and networked environment that engages citizens and partners for the public good;
  • A whole-of-government approach that enhances service delivery and value for money;
  • A modern workplace that makes smart use of new technologies to improve networking, access to data and customer service; and,
  • A capable, confident and high-performing workforce that embraces new ways of working and mobilizing the diversity of talent to serve the country’s evolving needs.

I was with a group of indeterminate  public servants during the Blueprint202 webcast and more than once heard hesitation to making a frank comment because it might be a CLM (Career Limiting Move).  Over the years I have heard that term many times and it seems to me that we need to get those frank comments out in the open. This made me think that maybe there is a place for responsible anonymous input into the vision something like a Chatham House event perhaps?

“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”

The Chatham House Rule may be invoked at meetings to encourage openness and the sharing of information.

I like the sound of Chatham House Party, but that is probably because I have teenagers. For a more politically correct approach you could also hold a Chatham House Workshop. A few of the things you might need

  • 5-100 people who care about the future of the public service and are willing to abide by the Rule.
  • A physical/virtual location that can accommodate everyone
  • A facility licenced to serve social lubricant if you are doing the “party” version
  • Facilitator (s) to get the conversation going
  • Recorders who will capture the main ideas without attribution
  • Tweeting from an anonymous account such as @chgc2020 is an opiton

What do you think, would you like to organize or participate?

 

UPDATE:
Please see the new post on this topic

Canadian Public Health Conference: Papers & Keynote Presentation

Posted on by
1

Last week (June 2011), I had the great pleasure of being part of the Canadian Public Health Association conference in Montreal. I attended the three days, participated in two panels, met a lot of great people and generally learned a bunch.  During the plenary panel that I took part in I mentioned a couple of papers that might be of interest. I am putting them here to make them easy to find and to encourage feedback. Apparently there was video of the session as well, if and when I get my hands on it I will share.

Framework for a Virtual Government Network (.pdf)

This is my reflection paper for the course; Information, People and Society from the Centre for Advanced Management Education at Dalhousie University.  Part of the Masters in Information Management I am pursuing. In it I propose a framework for multi-jurisdictional collaboration.

Embrace the complexity (.pdf)

This is my first contribution to the discussion around applying complexity theory to the problem of managing knowledge in the Canadian Health Sector. Here is the KM complexity presentation to go with the paper of the same name.

UPDATE:

I have posted the presentations on SlideShare

Let me know if you have any thoughts.

Thom

Framework for the Virtual Government Network

Posted on by
16

Update

Here is a video of me talking about the VGN at the PS Engage conference.

[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/32839611 w=400&h=225]

————— Original post with a link to the paper.  —————

The following material comes from a paper I recently finished as part of my studies. I took the opportunity to combine what I have learned about Information Management and Collaboration and then apply that knowledge to something that might be practical.  If you want the paper you can find it on the Articles page, here is a somewhat abridged version for your perusal and comment. By the way, if you do comment I promise to get back to you, however my response may not be immediate.

Virtual Government Network Collaboration Framework

The framework elements are generic in the sense that they could apply to any large-scale collaboration network; in this example they have been populated with the Virtual Government Network in mind.

The common goal

Successful communities share a common goal. Sometimes the goal is urgent and short-lived like when responding to a crisis, other times it is more subtle and long-term, like creating a high quality of life.

In terms of government interests in supporting their jurisdictional economy, most would agree with Velez when he says that the ability to create, access and apply knowledge is a fundamental determinant of global competitiveness (Valez E., 2008, as cited by MacDonald, 2010).

From the knowledge perspective, the goal of the network might be one of conceptual integration. Citing Cosmides et al. 1992, Bates states that conceptual integration across knowledge boundaries generates a powerful growth in knowledge because it allows investigators to use knowledge developed in other disciplines to solve problems in their own (Bates, 2005), she continues to quote Cosmides:

“At present, crossing such boundaries is often met with xenophobia, packaged in the form of such familiar accusations as ‘intellectual imperialism’ or ‘reductionism.”

Although she was talking about how the disciplines within behavioral and social sciences should make themselves mutually consistent I think this principle applies to government as a whole and the Virtual Government Network is for people that want to reduce xenophobia.

From a more practical perspective the Virtual Government Network is about sharing and learning, saving time and money by reusing good work rather than reinventing.  The underlying assumption is that more effective and sustainable government is more likely if we work together. This becomes the stated goal because it is the easiest to understand and likely the most relevant to potential users of the network.

Business Model

The network would initially be provided free of charge, paid for by profits that would be generated from the sale of training and associated professional services. As the network evolves the intention would be to acquire funding from governments, perhaps via the Public Service Chief Information Officer Council (PSCIOC) or a Public Private Partnership. The sustainable model will depend on reaction to the proposal and community interest.

Communication

Communication is consistently identified as one of the key ingredients for successful collaboration and an important part of any successful network. In this framework I identify two key characteristics of the communication infrastructure as being in near real-time and transparent and open.

For the network to be effective in responding to real-time events, communication from operators of the network and between network members themselves needs to be fast and accurate.  Messages between members and groups are completely driven by user content and the system simply needs to provide mechanisms for delivering the messages in a timely and reliable manner.  For messages from the operators to the members some crafting of messages and agreement on those messages may be required. This communications process interacts with governance processes and impedes the free flow of information. Careful attention to process design will be necessary to ensure that this kind of messaging can occur quickly.  Fortunately the principles of open and transparent will minimize the amount of messaging that requires “crafting”.

By operating in a transparent fashion and building in opportunities for any interested member to participate in the governance of the network, the number of messages that need explicit approval of a governance group should be kept to a few per year.

Principles

Statutory responsibilities

Governments share similar responsibilities around issues like providing for freedom of information while protecting privacy or ensuring that information is archived for future generations. Intellectual property needs to be protected and disposition authorities applied. The framework needs to respect these in a way that is acceptable to all parties.

Value statements:

Three broad value statements provided as examples:

  1. Transparency
  2. Neutral space
  3. Learning

1. The need for transparency

This idea is not new, in 1948 Urguhart called for government confidential reports to be reviewed periodically to see what scientific and technical information could be released into the general pool of knowledge (Duff, 1997).  Reviewing confidential information is of course an added cost, and as the body of confidential knowledge increases the sustainability of that review decreases. By keeping the body of confidential knowledge as small as possible the system will be more efficient.  Assuming that we believe that the value of information to society increases with access, shifting our mindset from one of “need to know” to “need to share” should be a top priority.

The concept of transparency is considered by some to be so critical to the evolution of democracy that it has been enshrined in legislation.  Canada’s Access to Information Act is an early example while the Open Government Directive from the United States Federal government is a more recent and dramatically more complete example of the transparency principle being applied.

Finally, I believe that transparency is essential for establishing and maintaining the trust between members that leads to a willingness to share.

2. Neutral Space

To mitigate the potential for political dispute the virtual government network should be a neutral space.  Not a place for advocating particular political viewpoints, but rather a safe common ground, where the focus is on sharing knowledge and making government more effective.

3. Learning

The network supports shared learning and sharing of information and knowledge.  As such the values associated with learning must be respected. For the purposes of this paper these values are:

  • Shared Knowledge
  • Respect for diversity (promotion of diversity)
  • Collective responsibility
  • That individuals are best motivated by autonomy, mastery and purpose (Pink, 2009)

The articulation of the broad community values is something that should be undertaken in consultation with the community, so I am not going to try and develop these any further at this time.

Information Architecture

The framework breaks down the information architecture into three categories that might be useful in terms of figuring out the types of information a virtual government network would contain. One of the pre-development tasks is to prepare detailed views for each of the categories. Brief outlines of each type are provided:

Information about people

  • Basic directory information
  • Enhanced profile information (interests, resume, etc)
  • Activity history (contributions, other)
  • Relationships
  • Group memberships

Information about people might be considered private and as such users need to be able to easily understand and control the release of information about themselves.  At its simplest this would mean users agree to a terms of use and simply not provide any personal information. A more sophisticated approach would be to allow users to complete a profile and control who could access various parts of it.  In either case, a clear privacy policy and excellent user experience design is required.

Information about topics

  • Sources of information (libraries, collections, other…)
  • Bibliographies and searchable databases
  • Groups and individuals working in topic areas
  • Documents and user-created content organized by themes of interest to all jurisdictions such as: Coordination, protection, resilience, social progress. (Wilson, 2010?)

Information about topics represents the explicit knowledge content of the VGN.  The intention is to build a repository of shareable stuff. Any information that could help another jurisdiction or links to such information would be valid.  Intellectual property is an issue to watch here, if protected work is posted the rights to that work will have to be managed.  The simple approach is telling users they are expected to only post unprotected work.  In this scenario the VGN will need processes for monitoring for protected material and quickly resolving any complaints. A more sophisticated approach would be to build some kind of digital rights management into the network, perhaps based on the creative commons licenses.

Information about information (meta-data)

  • Dublin core
  • Rankings (votes, links, citations, source value, etc)
  • State (draft, final, archive, etc)

This part of the information architecture is dedicated to developing a sustainable meta data strategy that will support the finding and managing of the topic based information.  An important consideration is that the user not be required to add much meta data-the system needs to do as much of it as possible to ensure data integrity and user satisfaction. A second consideration would be that if the meta-data collected includes personal information that it be subject to the privacy policy. For instance visits or downloads of a document traceable to a particular user.

People

Users

The primary users of the network are government employees at any jurisdiction in Canada. These users are authenticated and agree to a terms of reference that is acceptable to their employer.  The community is broadly defined by the term Public Servant.  An issue arises with the inclusion of consultants, contractors and other suppliers of services; this shadow government is estimated to be worth $25B at the Federal level alone (Ottawa Citizen, 2010).  It may be that there will have to be two types of users and two different entry levels of user.  Another consideration is whether to permit users from jurisdictions outside of Canada.

Roles

Types of users will have to be defined along with various roles that each type can perform.  The following is a preliminary list of potential user access levels.

  • L1 Members are permanent government employees
  • L2 Members are consultants and contractors under contract
  • L3 Members are the general public
  • L1 Operators are god
  • L2 Operators are like captains
  • L3 Operators have some additional edit privileges and can approve certain events like group creation.

In addition to Members and Operators other relevant people are those providing funds and other stakeholders that identify themselves, i.e. Unions, political parties, governing parties, etc.

Processes

Operation of the VGN will involve many processes. For the purposes of this paper I have identified two broad categories that I believe are particularly important.

Onboarding

Onboarding is generally concerned with attracting people to the network and ensuring that their early experiences are positive. Processes might include:

  • Outreach and promotion
  • Registration authentication and security
  • Skills development & support
  • Solutions matching

Gardening

The gardening processes are intended to maintain quality in the network, ensure that terms of use are complied with and generally support users in their efforts to share and collaborate.  Examples include:

  • Content reporting quality (user reports on content)
  • Activity monitoring (looking for irregular behavior, new content requiring meta-data, etc)
  • User communications (personalized based on activity, role or other options, multiple channels)
  • Tension management (see Donnelly, 2009)

The general concept of information value within the VGN is that users decide what is important. Content value could be some mix of attributes such as: source value, user votes, user links to the information, # citations, comments and other empirical and subjective characteristics that can be measured over time. These ideas should be reflected in the non-functional requirements for the supporting platform.

Technology

This paper is not about the technology, however several characteristics have been defined that will provide some guidance when technology choices must be made. These include:

  • Browser based
  • Mobile enabled
  • Open with lots of connectors
  • Both open and secure (how secure?)
  • Acreditable by government agencies (meets whatever standards are most common)

Governance

Governance of the network covers three areas:

  • Decision making

o   Conflict resolution & resource allocation

o   Permission allocations (granting power to users)

  • Performance measurement
  • Strategic direction

Governance mechanisms should be as inclusive as possible and follow the principle of transparency. Provide a forum and guidelines for funders, operators, users and stakeholders.

Conclusion

The framework is intended to be a fairly holistic, top level conceptual architecture that might be used to guide the creation of a Virtual Government Network. It is a broad brush, high level view; there are improvements to be made, both in the generic framework and in the details. To move forward each element needs much more detail and discussion.  Maybe we can build something like this, maybe not, either way; I hope the framework is of use to others. Please comment and build on it.

Why do we collaborate?

Posted on by
10

As part of a presentation I am preparing for a public health  forum exploring enabling technologies, I have created a slide that I think summarizes why people collaborate. It was a bit of epiphany when it came to me so I thought I would share it in case it had value to you.

What I am proposing is  that there are essentially three reasons people collaborate, and these can be connected to  Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs .

A slide showing Maslow's Hierarchy of needs and three motivations to collaborate.

I really should be working on something else at the moment, so here are very brief explanations for the three reasons:

1.  Get’er done!  No this is not just for rednecks, anyone with a specific deliverable or project to complete will collaborate if it helps them complete the work. This is your typical work oriented motivation. I align it with the lower part of Maslow’s Hierarchy because it usually related to work and earning money which is what we generally use to fulfill most of our lower level needs.

2. The second reason is essentially social combined with a belief that maybe many minds are more powerful than one. I align this with the middle of Maslow.

3. The final reason we collaborate has to do with Self Actualization, that nirvana state we presumably all strive for and which is often considered the underlying motivation for continued learning.

Well there you have it, what do you think? Does this ring true? Is it useful?

Letting go for high performance leadership

Posted on by
2

© Chris Lamphear, iStockphoto

In Gov 2.0 circles I often hear that organizational culture needs to change. If you think about that you will realize that people need to change. If you think about that you will realize that you have to change.  Last year I heard the story of a public servant leader who discovered that sometimes by letting go, you get better results. I think it is a good example of the transformation many of us need to consider for ourselves.

Two years ago, Angelina Munaretto took leadership of the Applying Leading Edge Technologies (ALET)  working group within the Canadian government. This horizontal, mostly voluntary group was established to explore ideas around the use of social media and Web 2.0 tools for the government communications community.

At the outset, the group was structured in a traditional way and using government hierarchy:  a  Project Manager, two sub-working groups with co-chairs, and an advisory committee. Work began on defining the deliverables, finding members for the working groups and then working towards meeting the needs of this  defined structure.

What nobody counted on, but in retrospect is not surprising, is the level of interest, passion and commitment exhibited by the entire government community in response to the global trend towards Web 2.0. All areas — not just communications, but programs, IM, IT and human resources — wanted to participate in some way. Those who were involved in applying the tools on a day-to-day basis started suggesting new projects that would help advance their programs, communications and use of Web 2.0 tools. The community grew into 150 people and 36 departments and agencies represented. Five departments seconded employees to work on deliverables for the community at no cost to the project.

Says Angelina: “We moved from being a community of practice who met to deliver pieces of work, to a group of professionals who wanted to make a difference.”

I know which one of those scenarios I would prefer, what about you?

Resources were needed and community members were stepping up to volunteer to help the ALET group meet the needs of the community. More people and more resources called for more management capacity, but there was simply no additional capacity. The working groups could no longer be managed within the traditional project structure. More management capacity was required but was simply unavailable. Angelina soon found herself in a position where a shift was required.

What this meant for Angelina was that she had to adjust her leadership style. No longer would she define tasks and delegate responsibilities  – she could suggest broad areas of work or needs that the community was articulating, but this was highly different.  When community leaders stepped up and offered their expertise and leadership, Angelina moved to providing secretariat support and broad guidance on the overall outcomes sought by ALET. Members of the group were given autonomy to shape the products they were producing.  It became less about leading the group towards the completion of a deliverable to more about facilitating the collaboration and contributing where help was needed . The deliverables were defined by the needs of those working on them, instead of the project leader. In personal terms, Angelina had to relax her expectation of control.  She also had to learn to trust people to do the right thing, sometimes with very little direction  – and learned when to offer help or check in to ensure that people had what was needed to complete a deliverable.

What she found was that when a group of people are motivated and given the autonomy to take direct action, the results can be impressive. What had started as a management team…led by Angelina became a relatively self-sufficient group that produced impressive results including an extensive research document which provided essential input into policy development, a social media toolkit and numerous guides to using a wide variety of social media. The most tangible result though was getting Departments to share key development documents for use of social media so that the community could re-use these for their own campaigns. The work that started with ALET planted the seeds for a vibrant communications community that continues to grow, share best practices and build guidelines to help others.

Angelina has now moved to Library and Archives Canada, where she is the Manager, Digital Engagement and Social Media. ALET continues to thrive under new leadership and the resource pages on GCPEDIA continue to be some of the most visited.

When I look at this case, I see a perfect example of intrinsic motivation as described by author Dan Pink, there is a wonderful RSA animate video that captures the essence of his message on You Tube. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]

The project, in spite of being run differently than a traditional government project, was highly successful – mostly due to Angelina’s ability to stop trying to control the project and instead to facilitate the collaboration and articulate the greater purpose. She gave the members of the working group the autonomy to make progress on something that would make a real difference.

In my mind, this shift is an example of what needs to happen with leaders across the public service; from a mentality of command-and-control to one of creating a collaborative culture. Angelina’s example demonstrates that when people are given the autonomy to work on something that motivates them and is in service to something larger, whole communities can benefit.  And really, isn’t that what being in the public service is all about?

I would like to thank Avra Gibbs Lamey, a communications professional and contributor to two of the sub-working groups under ALET, for co-authoring this post. Avra can be found on twitter  @gibbslamey.  Angelina can be found @AngelinaMunaret .

A friend of a friend of a friend

Posted on by
8

I was part of an interesting information chain the other day and wanted to share it.

No surprise to those of you that know me, I was walking the dogs and received an email on my phone from a colleague who was looking for a freelance contractor with experience with a particular, somewhat eclectic community platform.  While enjoying the sun I read the message and responded that I would see if there was anyone in my network.  First I quickly checked out the site using the mobile browser on my phone.  Then I posted the following twitter message at 3:50 pm

anyone have xp using world cafe? http://www.theworldcafe.com/. might have a business opportunity if you do

I received the first response at 3:56 PM. It was from someone I know and respect immensely and I would have had no reservation recommending him, I had no idea that he had the experience in question. Unfortunately for me, he is also a public servant and unable to take contracts.  A little later, 4:46 PM to be precise,  as I was drying two wet golden retrievers, I received a Direct Message from someone in Ottawa that I follow. He knew of the platform and I offered to introduce him to my colleague. He passed on the coordinates of an expert within his firm. I copied those and emailed them to my colleague, at 5:05 PM, my colleague replied he replied with his thanks at 7:05 PM.

Yesterday, (11 days after the original exchange) I ran into my colleague at the gym and he updated me. The contact I gave him could not do the project but knew someone who could. That individual could not do the project either, but knew someone who could. That individual is now lined up to do the work. I thought this whole thing was kind of interesting and created a little drawing of it.

A diagram of communications related to finding someone with particular experience.

A diagram of communications related to finding someone with particular experience.

There are a couple of things that stuck me about this.

First, the ease, speed and location independence of the initial email/twitter exchanges far surpasses what was possible just a few years ago.  In 30 seconds I shared an opportunity with potentially 100’s of people. Without the ability to instantly access that network, I would have briefly racked my brain and said “sorry, no one comes to mind, if run across anyone I will let you know”, a response that very rarely leads to anything productive. As it turned out a couple of minutes of my time gave him a lead and kicked off a chain of events that led to success.

The second thing that strikes me is the value of loose ties and serendipity. I am not sure what the business case is for serendipity but I do think that the ability of social media to enable eclectic groups of people to connect increases the likelihood of it happening, and I think that is a good thing, what do you think?

What is Public Service culture?

Posted on by
2

Oct. 2013 UPDATE:  You may also be interested in this post which delves a little deeper into the idea of public service culture and Gov 2.0.
———————

I am preparing to facilitate a workshop on overcoming cultural roadblocks to Web 2.0 at the Social Media in Government conference in Ottawa on Sept 27-03.  As part of the background for the discussion, I am trying to synthesize three things.

  1. A working definition of culture
  2. A description of the existing and emergent culture in Public Service (Federal, Provincial and Municipal)
  3. A description of a future culture that we can aspire to create within our sphere’s of influence.

We have had some twitter exchanges about #2 and to provide a little more detail for those that are interested, here are 4 early stage slides for your perusal and comment.

I look forward to exploring this area with you.

Also if you mention my name or code SPK you can save $400 on the conference.

To stimulate adoption, just say no.

Posted on by
Reply

This post originally appeared on the Senior Fellows and Friends blog in June, 2010.

Word No, underlined by red pencil

©iStockPhoto/Kanstantsin Shcharbinski

About mid way into the pilot phase of the open collaborative workplace project, we added Karl to the team.  This is the story of his adoption of a wiki approach to preparing a large document. Karl had joined the Canadian Revenue Agency , (CRA) 6 years before, coming from the Nortel Networks meltdown. He had a background in large-scale learning, development and management and he knew this web 2. stuff was probably a good thing, he just did not know exactly how. This is the story of his initiation to a wiki, specifically the MediWiki install known as GCPEDIA. It is a story you may be able to repeat.

One of Karl’s first tasks was to prepare a formal project charter that would begin the process of taking us from pilot to enterprise solution. As you can imagine preparing a project charter in a government central agency is a significant task. There was a prescribed outline to follow, four primary authors and an executive  level steering committee of 20 or so to be consulted. In addition to the immediate circle there were perhaps 100 or so interested parties.

After obtaining the requisite word processing template from the project management office, Karl came to me to discuss the approach for developing the charter. We had a tight deadline and I told Karl that we should use the wiki to create the document.

Two days later Karl showed up with a draft. As a word processing document. He was in a hurry he said and did not have time to learn how to use a new tool. He would put it on the wiki later he said.  I was keen to see the document, but refused to look at it, telling him to “do it on the wiki”.  Apparently he did not believe me because a day later he was back with another word processed document, this time printed!  I rejected it outright. He left in a bit of a huff, probably thinking I was being unreasonable.

After a few minutes of instruction he was working away in the new tool. Some copy and paste and a little formatting and he had a rough wiki version. Commenting that maybe that was not so bad he sent a link to the small group of original authors.

Over the next few days we all contributed to the document and Karl began to smile as the benefits of writing on the wiki became obvious. No  emails with attachments.  No confusion over what version was the most recent.  A consolidated revision history and immediate notification of changes. We worked on it when we could, in the early morning or late at night, from the office or from home, I even made an edit from my BlackBerry.

In a few days we had created a version that we were happy with as a first draft and invited the larger group of executives to take part. A couple of them did, and we also had comments from interested bystanders.  By the time we got to the committee meeting everyone had had their opportunity to contribute and the document was quickly approved.

Lessons:
Most people will naturally resist change, even when they know it good for them. If there is a familiar alternative they will use it, particularly when they are under pressure. By removing the familiar, users have no choice but to try the new way.

If it is possible to make your collaboration space the only way to do something important, make it so. It will force that critical first step.

What do you think?

Do you have any adoption stories you would like to share?

What makes a community manager?

Posted on by
1

Original post:

I am working on a slide describing the high level attributes of  an ideal community manager and am wondering what is missing. Any thoughts?

image of female with People, Tools and Project skillsRevisions: July 5, 2010

After collecting some comments and some discussion at the first Ottawa Community Managers meetup I have created a revised version of the slide above. What do you think?

Links to other resources:

Cultural risk

Posted on by
6

I was recently asked to create an executive briefing that included a high level assessment of the risks associated with adopting social media in the Government. I segmented the risks by three areas; Policy, Legal and Cultural.  The cultural risks are what interest me at the moment and they relate to the internal culture of the organization. I found myself writing and rewriting these words:
Conflict occurs between hierarchical and network management philosophies when power based on information control is replaced by power based on reputation.
To complete the risk equation, I believe the likelihood and impact of this occurring depends on the degree to which key individuals try and maintain power structures based on information control.
I am wondering if the statement captures the essence of the risk ?
Can the risk of conflict in this situation be mitigated — perhaps it is inevitable, even necessary?
Thoughts?

Overwhelmed

Posted on by
6

Many of you will know that we had a  great time at the #w2p two weeks ago,  it was sort of an informal after party for my three year assignment in the Public Service. Well, tonite was the more  official transition party and between the two events I have to say I am a little overwhelmed.

It was a wonderful send-off with many words of encouragement and several presentations. I will be shopping for technology with my gift card soon, and enjoying the book, Keeper of the Flame, thanks to Sue Kemp for getting me a signed copy.  Special thanks also to Corinne Charette and Peter Bruce for taking the time out of their intense schedules to come by and share some very kind words.

Gary Doucet took a break from chasing his CCC in French to visit, you should know that his support was pivotal in the early days to providing the resources to move forward with GCPEDIA. Without his vision we would not be where we are today.

I was thanked for all the good work I have done and the accomplishments I achieved, but really I am the one that should be thankful. If it was not for the many, many wonderful, committed and passionate folks who supported the concept and wanted to do the right thing we could not have done what some said could not have been done. Some of you were at #w2p, some of you were there tonite, some of you are out there.

It is a remarkable accomplishment, bringing a horizontal social platform to a highly segmented federation but it is not mine, it is ours. It belongs to everyone that participates not just for themselves, but also for the greater good. You know who you are.

A few folks I need to mention include Jeff Braybrook, who along with Ken Cochrane and Chuck Henry are responsible for starting it all way back in 2007,  and Karl Ghiara who has been the backbone of the GCPEDIA team for the last 12 months and will be the go to guy for some time to come.  I should also say that I can’t think of a better candidate to take over the executive leadership than Marj Akerly from NRCan who will be moving to CIOB. Charles de Grasse could not make it, but those of you that use GCPEDIA or GCCONNEX should know that he is the guy that keeps the gremlins at bay.

I am proud to have been part of this effort and to see the Clerk of the Privy Council start using GCPEDIA this week.  I also think that the newly formed cluster of departments coming together to finance and take business ownership for GCPEDIA and other elements of the Open Collaborative Workplace is a prime example of the new attitude and spirit of collaboration we are seeing building across the system.

I could ramble on thanking people, but think I should probably call it a night. It has been a great ride, thank you all.

Now where did I leave that consulting shingle….

Thom

p.s. whoever took pictures, please post!

Persuasion presentation using Prezi

Posted on by
3

I thought I would share my first experience with Prezi , the zooming presentation editor. Last Sunday I create a presentation for the class in Persuasion that I am teaching. From download to packaging up on my USB took about five hours.  This is my report of the experience.

I first learned about Prezi through a twitter post by Nick Charney who you may know as someone that  schemes virtuously. I am writing the first draft of this post using Dragon speech to text software on my iPhone while stuck in traffic.

This particular course has a text book, and the process I followed was one of reviewing the chapters, identifying the relevant concepts and essentially throwing key words and images down on a single large canvas. Prezi makes it real easy to reduce, enlarge and rotate elements and I found the authoring process strangely liberating because I was not restricted by the normal linear presentation format.

Prezi allows you to select some pre-formatted styles which I found to include some very nice font selections. The ultra simple text editing is fast to use but unfortunately lacks any Spell Check which is a serious issue for creative spellers like yours truly.

After getting most of the content in place and sizing it to create a hierarchy of importance and some visual flow, it was time to create a path though the material. This was simple mater of clicking on objects, when I wanted to it was easy to move nodes from one object to the other, thus changing the order of the presentation.

A couple of run throughs in play mode and some adjustments to the path and sizing of objects, (to control the zoom effects) and I was ready to go.  The application allows you to share and present from the on-line version or you can create a downloadable non-editable executable that plays from the desktop. I saved a file to my memory stick and went to bed.

ADV1616 Students enjoying their Prezi

ADV1616 Students enjoying their Prezi

Next day I presented the Prezi twice and must say it was fun. Although my presentation was almost entirely text, the variety in sizes, font and zooming transitions made the presentation interesting and engaging. After each presentation I polled the class on their thoughts and universally they liked it.

And myself, I liked it too!

You can find the presentation on-line, (start by clicking on the picture of Aristotle).   This is a rather simple example, I know that Nick is using it to come up with something much more amazing…maybe even subversive.

Engagement anyone?

Posted on by
9

There is a lot of talk about employee engagement these days. In management circles we talk about strategies and best practices for achieving high levels of employee engagement. Perhaps this is in response to reports of a general malaise and historically high absenteeism, or maybe because we are finally waking up to the fact that we really do need to “do better with less” if we hope to leave the world a better place.

So what is this thing called engagement?

For me engagement is a personal thing, it is an organic network of relationships, messages and memes. It is about rallying around some of the common themes and goals in an organization. It is about giving permission to staff to take responsibility for finding new and better ways of doing their jobs.  It is about demanding intellectual accountability and value for every salary dollar we spend. It is about enabling staff to take small risks and implement ideas directly. Most importantly it is about trusting each other to do what we think is best. Accepting some risk and celebrating early failure.

Engagement isn’t something you can outsource. It comes from sincerity about working for improvement and a tolerance for many points of view.

So how do we improve engagement?

Attitude.

The #1 factor that will determine the success of an engagement effort is the attitude of the people involved. This means that:

  • Staff need to take on their leadership responsibility by speaking up and pushing their organizations to improve.
  • Middle Management needs to accept the fact that control is an illusion and be willing to trust their staff. And they need to define themselves in a away that does not require the control of information. They need to listen very carefully to those pushing for change.
  • Senior management needs to promote leadership at all levels and demonstrate that appropriate risk taking is acceptable.
  • We all need to be tolerant and listen to multiple points of view. Perhaps most importantly we need to approach the monumental tasks in front of us with a positive attitude.

Engagement isn’t something you design and build so much is it something that you cultivate in your relationships. Certainly we can design processes, polices and reward systems that create an environment that is engagement friendly, and we must continually work to reduce systematic barriers to engagement, but ultimately it comes down to the attitude of the people in the system.

And that starts with you and me.