Why a declaration?

The most important political outcome of this event is a joint declaration by all ministers. The ultimate purpose is to task the European Commission with a set of initiatives (and related budget) to launch projects of common interest and facilitate best practice exchanges. Notably e-government is not one area in which the EU has any regulatory authority, hence the importance of the declaration to empower it to take initiative.

This is an important factor in explaining the apparent lack of balance of this year’s EU Ministerial Declaration on E-Government on the topic of Government 2.0.

Main Themes

In its initial part the declaration sets four main themes for 2015:

- Citizens and businesses are empowered by eGovernment services designed around users’ needs and developed in collaboration with third parties, as well as by increased access to public information, strengthened transparency and effective means for involvement of stakeholders in the policy process,

- Mobility in the Single Market is reinforced by seamless eGovernment services for the setting up and running of a business and for studying, working, residing and retiring anywhere in the European Union,

- Efficiency and effectiveness is enabled by a constant effort to use eGovernment to reduce the administrative burden, improve organisational processes and promote a sustainable low-carbon economy,

- The implementation of the policy priorities is made possible by appropriate key enablers and legal and technical preconditions.

The first theme is about government 2.0 and is the most innovative part of the declaration, while the other three objectives relate to initiatives that the European Commission and Member States have already in place (such as large pilot projects for identity management, e-procurement and implementation of the service directive, as well as a large program for the reduction of administrative burden).

Is This the Dawn of Government 2.0?

The first theme is articulated in the five objectives:

Improve eGovernment services to cater for the different needs of users and deliver them in the most effective way. We will develop user-centric services that provide flexible and personalised ways of interacting with public administrations. We will develop multi-channel strategies in order to deliver eGovernment services in the most effective way. We will develop inclusive services that will help to bring down barriers experienced by digitally or socially excluded groups. Efficient eGovernment services built around the needs of users will increase trust in government and contribute to higher user satisfaction whilst achieving efficiency gains.

This first paragraph has little to do with Gov 2.0. It is more about the continuation of traditional user-centric e-government initiatives, as they are measured and celebrated by a series of benchmarking report, the last of which has been issued in conjunction with the declaration

Invite third parties to collaborate on the development of eGovernment services. We will actively seek collaboration with third parties, for example businesses, civil society or individual citizens, in order to develop user-driven eGovernment services. Collaboration with third parties will stimulate the creation of innovative, flexible and personalized services, increase the overall effectiveness of services and maximize public value.

This second paragraph is way more interesting. Although it does not mention communities or social network, it suggests to reach out to third parties and introduces the concept of user-driven services. I hope that this has been somewhat influenced by Gartner positions on citizen-driven vs citizen-centric

Increase availability of public sector information for reuse. We will increase availability of public sector information for reuse, in accordance with the spirit of and the conditions established by Public Sector Information Directive 2003/98/EC. We will encourage the reuse of public data by third parties to develop enriched services that maximize the value for the public. New demand-led information products and services enabled by the reuse of public sector information will support the transition of Europe to a knowledge-based economy.

This paragraph clearly may prelude to the development of something like www.data.eu and the endorsement of similar public data access channels in member states, to facilitate mashups.

Strengthen transparency of administrative processes. We will explore how we can make our administrative processes more transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and trust in government.

This is a rather generic call for greater transparency, which is somewhat subsumed by the previous objectives. And finally:

Involve stakeholders in public policy processes. We will actively develop and promote effective, useful and better ways for businesses and citizens to participate in the policy processes. Increased public engagement through more effective methods at all levels enhances government’s efficiency and effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions and services.

This last paragraph is consistent with previous calls for increased citizen engagement. It does not say anything about how different the “more effective methods” will be and to what extent they will leverage existing avenues, such as social media or service delivery itself (as citizens are more likely to be engaged while they are already interacting with government in service delivery mode).

An Asymmetric View of Government 2.0

Not surprisingly the declaration confirms the asymmetric view that many have about government 2.0: information flows from government to citizens (through reuse of public information) while engagement flows from citizens to government. However, as indicated in a previous post, the reverse flows are equally if not more important. Information must flows from existing communities and social media to government, and government employees need to engage with citizens on the citizens’ turf (e.g. consumer social networks)

Government 2.0 Gets Lost in Declaration

Later in the declaration there are statements such as

We will ensure that open specifications are promoted in our national interoperability frameworks in order to lower barriers to the market. We will work to align our national interoperability frameworks with applicable European frameworks.

which apply to both traditional e-government initiatives and to government 2.0. Unfortunately there is no element to judge whether a new architectural approach will be pursued and whether the use of open specifications is promoted only to achieve interoperability among government organizations, or is meant to address also more innovative scenarios, where government services interoperate with non government ones.

From this point onward the declaration mostly restates concepts and mechanisms that are very similar to those of previous years. For instance:

The Open Source model could be promoted for use in eGovernment projects. It is important to create a level playing field where open competition can take place in order to ensure best value for money.

Without prejudice to the relevance of open source (especially as a mechanism to socialize and co-develop specific vertical solutions), the genericity of the reference above seems to recall behaviors from several years ago.

Also the reference to innovation, although mentioning service architectures and new computing paradigms (cloud?), carries the legacy of previous declarations and reveals one of the fundamental purposes of the declaration, which is to secure resources to continue supporting existing programs and initiatives.

Regard innovation as an integral part of our way of working. We will promote innovation in eGovernment services through research and development, pilot projects and other implementation schemes. We will explore and develop the possibilities offered by new open and flexible service architectures and new computing paradigms. Innovation is a central part of eGovernment and will contribute to the goal of making Europe a leading knowledge-based economy.

In fact the last section mentions studies, programs and initiatives that clearly map on on-going initiatives and interest groups and there is no reference to truly innovative schemes.

There is still hope, or not really?

One should consider that the declaration is a very high-level document and there is still plenty of room for changing the type of initiatives and mechanisms. Unfortunately the publication of the most recent e-government benchmark, which is the first outcome of the renewed contract between EU and Capgemini, shows a disappointing continuity with the old e-government approach.

If government 2.0 is about discontinuity, enabling bi-directional flows and engaging new stakeholders, the EU declaration has failed on every account.

As I’ve always said, government can be relevant in areas where their is no other easier or more natural way to get to its services and information, as well as in cases where government has a consistent tradition of high customer service and intimacy, as it happens in places like Singapore or some of the Scandinavian countries. Even there, though, the emergence of peer-to-peer networks, where information can be socialized before or while interacting with government, is going to have a disruptive impact.

I was not surprised then when I read about an initiative by the citizens of Birmingham in the UK to develop their own web site and to ditch the expensive official one. The council has not been lucky, since their web site went over budget and behind schedule, but this is just a sign of the times.

As citizens have increasing access to technologies, most of which are designed for consumer use, they will be more and more able to self-organize and turn into legacy also the most recent government channels.

One of the (unintended?) consequences of the open government movement and of web sites like data.gov could be to accelerate the irrelevance of many government web sites and portals. Those who do not believe this may be the case yet, better take a look at the Birmingham Do-It-Yourself site.

I have been living in Brussels, Belgium for a few years in the nineties and I can say that the service levels I got from what used to be my Belgian bank at the time (long acquired since) were better than the ones I get from my bank in Italy today, more than 15 years later.

Equally, I still remember the kindness and professionalism of staff at the Belgian revenue office, who welcomed me into a nice office, and spent time with me – I was not very fluent in French at the time – to explain all the procedures I had to follow as an expatriate, such as importing a car or buying some VAT-free goods as a European Commission’s official. My recent experience with a tax office in Italy, although improved with respect to many years ago, is still way below that.

The bottom line is that if your expectations about service levels are low , you are not going to be disappointed. The lesson I learned today is that they are never low enough.

My experience concerns a primary public service provider in Italy (no name no shame), which happens to have a pretty good reputation for the effective use of technology. A few days ago it occurred to me that I had never received a reply to a complaint I had submitted more than three years ago for an excess charge on a service they had provided (or, more precisely, intermediated). I went to the closest local branch office and I submitted a complaint (paper) form with all required evidence . After a few months the branch was closed, then I moved (although in the same area) and totally forgot about this.

Last Monday, as I was preparing a presentation on government 2.0 for an event, I found a copy of my complaint under a pile of paper and decided to try the on-line services on their flashy web site. It took some time to find the right link to then fill a form with my complaint code and detail. On Friday morning I got an email from them with my complaint code in the subject line and and invitation to open the (Microsoft Word) attachment. I opened the attachment with trepidation , which soon turned into disappointment when I read a very brief text:

Answer Description

Dear Client, with reference to your request , please cntact us at the following phone number ……(Mon-Sat 8am-8pm)

Best Regards

I called the number and found the usual automatic voice response system providing lots of options about things to do (various services, commercial information, etc) but nothing about complaints. I typed “zero” and “hash” a few times until when the automatic voice informed me I would be connected to the “first available operator”. Well, I’m sure you guess what happened next: I was kept on hold forever and nobody picked the phone.

So, what’s the point of developing a flashy web site and pretty advanced online services if one can’t even stick to the basics of decent customer care?

I did a similar analysis for my presentation Government 2.0: It Is Not All That Glitters, which I will give at our Symposia in Orlando and Sydney and where I show some quite abysmal number of fans on Facebook and followers on Twitter for large federal agencies and US states.

Why am I not surprised? Back in January 2001 I wrote a much criticized research note postulating that government portals were irrelevant, based on common sense and the fact that government organization were unlikely to be as compelling and attractive on the web than other commercial organizations. There is no reason why this should not be the same with web 2.0. Why should I be willing to follow my human services agency or my health department or even my city? After all, even for local news that are closer to where I live, there are plenty of news sites, search engines or even just a few clever hashtags on Twitter to find out what is relevant to me.

As the post says:

The tough news? Looking at numbers without context can lead to believing that you are more important than you really are. The good news? The fact that you are less important than you think doesn’t mean that you aren’t important at all.

It is important to put things into perspective. While I am pretty sure there will be plenty of comparisons and races to who has the best and the most presence on social media (see my post about future rankings and benchmarks), I am hopeful that government folks will ultimately recognize that web 2.0 is about peer to peer connections more than institutional presence, and they will be able to make a difference when they empower employees to join  communities that care about issues, rather than try to replace those and create their own.

I have to confess that the language barrier makes things a bit more difficult that usual. I can speak English and French, and understand a fair amount of Spanish, but when it comes to German, I am truly hopeless, and this in spite of having married a woman who graduated in German literature and masters German pretty well. On the other hand, the German government has always been less concerned with communication than with actual planning, so there is very limited amount of information available in English.

This being said, there are quite a few activities going on in Germany as well. There have been govcamps and barcamps , and there is an on-going consultation to engage people in the development of the e-government strategy for the next five years.

The on-line consultation is open to anybody, and gives 50 points to be apportioned among 22 priority topics grouped into 7 different areas. Contributors can assign to each topic a maximum of 9 points.

Here are the topics (I apologize for the poor translation, for which I have used automatic tools).

The first four areas address “quality”

1. Secure access

• Multiple, equal opportunity channels
• Availability
• Multilinguism

2. Usage comfort

• Clarity of content
• One-Stop Shop
• Faster user feedback:
• User customization

3. Privacy and Trust Building

• Identity and security standards
• Data Transparency

4. Consultation and participation

• Uniform interaction formats
• Increased interactivity:
• Feedback to users about their input

The last three areas address “efficiency”.

5. Harmonized systems

• Synergies across agencies and tiers
• Service compatibility and interoperability
• International Compatibility

6. Competencies

• Clear governance
• Centralization of IT skills
• Development of employee competencies

7. Framework conditions

• Legal framework
• Political drive
• Funding Schemes
• Quality Assurance and Measurement

This is clearly a simplified and quite superficial translation, and you can get more details following the link to the survey.

At first glance the topics above cover pretty much what is important in e-government. Better, what has always been important. And this is where – in my opinion – this consultation falls a bit short of (my) expectations. After a decade of e-government activities, after two programs (one addressing the federal government and one the integration across government tiers), I would expect questions to be rooted into what Germany has already achieved, gathering input on more specific topics than those above. Most of the above have been tackled in previous editions of the German e-government programs (and – for what is worth – in several EU countries).

On the other hand, it is very possible that the actual user feedback will help reveal differences. I do not know whether and how input from government agencies, third parties, private citizens will be weighed, but it is likely to provide strategic planners with diverse viewpoints to critically review what they have been doing so far.

My sense is that German government people tend to overplan things. Now, this is probably a cultural trait and I’m sure many people may object to an Italian like me making any critical observation about planning (although I have been working mostly outside Italy throughout my career).

A good example is the so-called European Service Directive, a piece of European legislation that aims at creating a level playing field for businesses that want to operate across national boundaries. Among the many provisions EU member state governments need to comply with by December 31st 2009, there is the obligation to provide electronic points of single contact to foreign businesses to help them through the entire process of establishing a company or a subsidiary in a different country.
This does not mean a single point of contact (such as a single portal) but multiple points, each of which should be able to lead through the entire process. Now, while most EU countries have taken this obligation very lightly – and our suspicion is that they will do as little as possible to comply with the December 31st deadline – German government departments at all levels (federal, state and local) have been studying and piloting this very thoroughly for a long time. A good example is a white paper published over 18 months ago by the Fraunhofer Institute, which goes in excruciating details into the architectural requirements to support the Service Directive.

What other countries, such as the US or Australia, are showing is that the next phase of e-government (or – for lack of a better term – government 2.0) requires a different approach, based on pilots, experiments, risk taking, challenging assumptions, or the “Prove Me Wrong” attitude (try first and let critics with the burden of proving you wrong). Of course this more pioneering attitude will soon be blended with more traditional risk mitigation attitudes (see the recent US “Guidelines for Secure Use of Social Media by Federal Departments and Agencies”), but the best approach seems to be to start from the bottom up, without a rigorous three or five year plan, rather than proceeding in a strictly hierarchical way.

Let’s hope the current consultation brings that realization to German government officials.

…she is noticing that some agency websites seem to be slipping backwards, featuring agency news rather than top citizen tasks on their home…

…It appears that agency public affairs staffs are really getting into websites (and web management) – which is a good thing – but they haven’t yet learned this truth: the public comes to government websites to do things – perform tasks – not read the news…

…Successful websites are audience-centered. That’s not an opinion – that’s a fact. So please…let’s get our government websites back on track. Let’s use them for service and engagement and collaboration – not as surrogate newspapers

I have noticed the exact same thing, mostly connected to the growing interest or enthusiasm for social media. Many of the calls I have had lately on government 2.0 were with Public Affairs or Communication officers, strategizing about how to modernize their web sites or how to established a presence on public social networks.

As Candi advises politicians to keep their hands off government websites, some make an even more intense political use of department websites. As she says, this may well be a learning curve and we may be seeing soon a return to citizen-centricity (or, as I put it, citizen drive) in how websites evolve.

The bad news for public affairs officers, though, is that there is very little they can do on their own websites to create compelling content: audiences on the Internet are shifting interest and trust toward social networks and self-organized content.  To succeed in this new game, public affairs officers need to learn how to communicate with and be relevant to a multitude of different audiences, on the audience’s turf and terms.

The topic of the workshop was the conflict between citizens and public administration in government 2.0, and there was quite an impressive line up of speakers, including a minister, CIOs and high level executives from the Austrian federal government and from a neighboring German provinces.

Austria has done remarkably well in the area of e-government, so much so that it has been ranked number one in the EU e-government benchmark: some of you know my position about benchmarks in this area, but still it is the recognition of significant progress. With a solid, process-oriented tradition, and the ability to coordinate on key areas like electronic identity management and common registries, Austria has established itself as an example for many around the world.

However, for the same reasons, it may also be more vulnerable than others to the threats of government 2.0.

During the morning there were a few presentations touching upon some of the achievements (all material is in German, but you can find the proceedings here) and the challenges; these mostly concern better joining up government (the EU Service Directive is an example) and increasing efficiency.

The afternoon segment, where I had the chance to address the audience, together with speakers from Cisco and the Danube University Krems, was a clear discontinuity, presenting examples, trends and possible scenarios of government 2.0. I used material from my “Future of Government is No Government” pitch and stressed a lot the angle of employee-centricity (which raised a few eyebrows in one of my latest posts). The discussion was very lively (special thanks to two of the best real-time translators ever) and ranged from the impact on political participation, to whether government should play a greater role in “policing” social networks and educate people about privacy implications.

Throughout the second part of the day the tension between the planning-oriented attitude used to achieve current e-government leadership status and the bottom-up, outside-in approach implied by social media was almost palpable.

Several topics surfaced, such as demographic divide, rigidity of government organization and processes, privacy concerns by many users, to show that the impact of web 2.0 could not be as deep as some of us were suggesting. I reiterated that web 2.0 and social networks are in no way going to wipe government away, but they will challenge how decisions are taken, how information is managed and assessed, how services are delivered, where trust is placed.  Government organizations and social networks can coexist, but in many areas government will follow rather than lead or control.

There is a concrete risk that governments like the Austrian one, which have achieved good results with e-government in the past, sit on their laurels and do not see this wave of change coming. Thinking that this change concerns only new generations and only some aspects of government is a mistake: focused social networks that have a compelling purpose for prospective participants will grow irrespective of age or geography, although at various paces.

It is important for governments to address the complexity and variety of such changes by holding to their own mission: which means, different departments should develop pilots engaging their specific constituencies, in areas where social networks are most likely to provide a compelling proposition.

And, once again, only government employees can drive their organizations in the right direction.

As a consequence, e-government has always been dealt with as an independent stream of activity.  If one looks at the EU program on information society called i2010 (as well as at the way its successor is being shaped – see the current post-i2010 consultation), it is quite evident that e-government is still seen as a silo amongst other element of the portfolio (learning, inclusion, innovation, environment, etc.).

All this occurred to me as I was having a conversation with a CIO from a European local authority who is working on a vision document for his city’s digital future. As the paper was mostly taking the “information society” angle, there was hardly a trace of “e-government”, as if transforming government operations was not an integral part of a digital future vision. One thing that stroke me was the absence of any reference to the role of government employees as transformation agents or contributors in this vision.

Now, if we accept that the digital future is one where boundaries blur across people, sectors, geographies and roles, then we have to accept that the role of government employees will change in ways we cannot yet anticipate. They will be information creators, assessors, brokers, integrators, analyzers, and will work as much with other official as with volunteers, advocacy groups, service suppliers, and the citizens they serve.

If this is a plausible scenario, then we can no longer treat e-government as a separate silo in a digital society transformation initiative. We cannot consider it as an ancillary element that serves more fundamental initiatives– such as education, content creation or infrastructure deployment. Government employees are likely to become the joints that make this whole vision of a digital “2.0” future work.

It is time for e-government to become more employee-centric and to take center stage in the vision for a future digital society.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Prince George’s County violated the U.S. Constitution when it furloughed 5,900 workers in the last fiscal year, a decision that could force the county to repay millions in wages

[…]

The judge also wrote that the ruling “is not a pronouncement regarding furloughs in general” but applies to the specific circumstances in Prince George’s

This clear casts doubt about whether similar decisions may be taken in other jurisdictions where furloughs have been applied. In January Gartner published a research note (subscription required) on furloughs announced by the State of California, which since then they have increased from twice a month to once a week.

While the ruling does not apply throughout the U.S., it proves that claims from government worker unions may have an impact. What’s going to happen?

It looks like Dave will have his hands full and it is quite possible that priorities will vary soon, given the pace at which the Obama administration is exploring the crucial role of technology in many areas.

Dave spent four and a half great years at Gartner, where he covered primarily IT strategic planning and governance, performance management, portfolio management and BI, plus a variety of other topics, ranging from sourcing to ERP implementation, from cost optimization to cloud computing. He is a seasoned professional, with a wealth of government experience (he was for many years at GAO before joining Gartner), great analytical acumen and management skills, a rare blend of characteristics that make him a perfect fit for this challenging role.

He makes a strong addition to Obama’s dream team of technology savvy executives, as he brings in deep and long experience and the ability to both champion change and understand the intricacies of government accountability and procedures, therefore bridging the bold attitude of US Federal CIO and CTO and the machinery of government. He is both very smart and down to Earth, a key feature for the challenges at hand.

We have been working together throughout his tenure at Gartner, and his insights, thoughtful peer review, willingness to always go the extra mile to help colleagues will be sorely missed. But I guess that, in the big scheme of things, we all have to be happy for his appointment, since the outcomes of what he might be able to accomplish will help us all. He was also my manager for about a year, and that was the year when I got the highest company-wide recognitions of my entire career: this says a lot, as a key characteristic of a good manager is to make his reports shine. And he did this while coaching other analysts, helping sales throughout the US and worldwide and taking loads of inquiries where he advised clients on their strategic plans, product choices, governance arrangements, and so forth.

I wish him all the best. I am sure he is aware of the challenges ahead of him, given the magnitude of his task. One in particular, which I mentioned to him before he left and wrote about in a few posts already, is how roles and responsibilities for government IT get distributed and (re)balanced. He wrote a great note highlighting the relations between CTO and CIO (Gartner subscription required) before Aneesh Chopra was appointed as the US Federal CTO, but neither of us was really sure about the exact boundaries between Aneesh’ and Vivek Kundra’s roles. In various interviews, both of them said they work as a team (together with the Chief Performance Officer), but it is quite clear that there are overlapping areas that will need to be resolved pretty soon. Looking at Dave’s current job description, he will have to join that team, carve his space and – I am sure – add great value.

For all those who think that the choice of a tech star in Washington was either a seasoned executive with long and deep government experience or a smart digital native, here you may have the perfect compromise.

Good luck, Dave!