As usual the blogosphere has been buzzing with enthusiasm and anticipation, but – at least at this stage – my first reaction has been to yawn. Something I shared in a response to a tweet from open government advocate and reporter Alex Howard, receiving his usual slap on my wrist in return.

Once again, I have no problem with the principle behind open data, and I am personally convinced that those exciting scenarios that many have depicted, with entirely new services and businesses stemming from the clever reuse and mash up of this data, will become reality at some point in time.

My problem is with timing and emphasis.

There are formidable problems that Europe and most of the rest of the world have to deal with, such as dramatic budget cuts, unsustainable public welfare, massive youth unemployment, risk (and often reality) of social unrest, the gloomy picture of countries defaulting on their debt and pulling with them most of the financial services industry.

I would argue that there should be an attempt, if not a real impetus, to orient open data initiatives to help with one or more of these problems. This does require focus, planning, execution.

It requires people who understand problems as well as organizational and regulatory constraints, people who are most likely to be working in or for government. Sure, application developers and non-experts can offer new ways of looking at data and spotting partners and solutions that nobody else has been looking for: but their efforts need to be coordinated, if not directed, by government folks who will be accountable for those solutions.

Unfortunately governments keep buying into the “government-as-a-platform” metaphor, assuming that once all data is published in machine readable form, problems will almost sort themselves out. Reality is that, except for few notable exceptions, not much has happened so far.

Open data should not be an excuse for governments to outsource or abdicate their responsibility, nor can they believe that the good will and enthusiasm of people can deliver results unless there is focus and coordination.

It is time for governments to wake up and raise to the challenge. It is time they move from believing that appointing a scientist or a well-respected media-savvy executive from the private sector is enough, to planning for training and rewarding government executives and staff for actually using open data, rather than bean-counting how many data set they have on a web site.

It is key that open data initiatives do not turn into pissing contests between governments around the world. Also because the wind of financial crisis and recession is already blowing against them, and the outcome may be embarrassing, to say the least.

Assuming that this document is the only one that departments and employees will have to deal with when using web 2.0 for external purposes, I have to confess that I am rather disappointed.

There is a good reading of the guidelines by David Eaves, and I share most of his points. The problem with the guidelines is that they try to address different uses (and that’s why maybe we should not expect any further guideline on this topic), and in doing so they miss almost entirely the main value of web 2.0 tools, which comes from their use by individual employees and not by organizations.

Very early on the (rather long) document states very clearly the need for governance and oversight:

Departments should designate a senior official accountable and responsible for the coordination of all Web 2.0 activities as well as an appropriate governance structure. It is recommended that the Head of Communications be the designated official. This designate should collaborate with departmental personnel who have expertise in using and executing Web 2.0 initiatives, as well as with representatives from the following fields in their governance structure: information management, information technology, communications, official languages, the Federal Identity Program, legal services, access to information and privacy, security, values and ethics, programs and services, human resources, the user community, as well as the Senior Departmental Official as established by the Standard on Web Accessibility

and it continues dealing with the communication policy aspects of web 2.0, covering planning and design, rules of engagement with the public (e.g. comment moderation), evaluation and measurement (aptly focused on outcomes, but not really providing much guidance as how to create the connection between web 2.0 and outcomes).

Only after this, the document touches upon the use by employees, making the important distinction between official, professional and personal use.

The official use is nothing else than what the previous part of the guidelines is about. Things become interesting with the “professional networking and personal” use. Pulling them together makes a lot of sense, because the distinction between the two is quite thin and – more importantly – is controlled by the individual and not by the organization. Advice in this part of the guidelines is quite appropriate, reminding staff that the ethical code always applies, suggesting not to use official email address for personal use, and more.

However, the guidelines do not say anything about how employees may be leveraging web 2.0 tools to be more effective and efficient at doing their job. In fact, while the guidelines state at the very beginning that

Government of Canada departments are encouraged to use Web 2.0 tools and services as an efficient and effective additional channel to interact with the public.

they do not say whether individual employees are encouraged to do the same. Further, still in the section on individual use, the guidelines recite

Departments are encouraged to provide training to assist personnel in understanding their obligations when using Web 2.0 tools and services in any capacity, under both the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service as a term and condition of employment, as well as the rights and legal obligations for personnel subject to Part 7 (political activities) of the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA).

Fulfillment of these obligations is expected at all times as follows:

• Public servants owe a duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada;
• Do no harm to the reputation of your employer;
• Maintain integrity and impartiality; and
• Uphold the tradition of political neutrality of the Public Service.

An explanation of what, if any, employment consequences exist when contravening these obligations should be explicitly provided.

So it is all about obligations and risks, and there is nothing about how to encourage, assess, reward the use of web 2.0 tool to improve individual contributions to department’s outcomes.

Finally, back to the departmental use, the document suggests that

An overall departmental strategy (and policies, where required) for using Web 2.0 tools and services should be developed

Whereas developing policies makes sense (possibly rebalancing the risk and the benefit side of the equation, since these guidelines are certainly skewed toward the former), a web 2.0 strategy is a fallacy for the vast majority of government organizations. These tools can be used tactically to deal with unexpected events, or as tools supporting a business strategy or a communication strategy. But they remain means to an end and not an end in themselves.

I suspect that the change in orientation has to do with change of leadership. Marj Akerley, the innovative IT executive who led one of the earliest and most successful wiki deployments in the history of government when she was CIO at Natural Resources Canada, and then appointed to lead the web 2.0 activities at the Treasury Board, left this summer to become CIO of the Ministry of Justice. It appears that since then, web 2.0 have been characterized by the urge for centralization and control that characterized the ambitious plan to centralize IT services across the Canadian federal government.

There is a clear and present danger that this wind of centralization and control will turn the Canadian government from a leader to a follower in IT-driven transformation. The jury is still out on whether this will be eventually compensated by the expected efficiency gains.

The client I was having lunch with had been struggling with figuring out how to engage citizens online to plan changes to quad bike tracks in a nearby park: should they create a community? Should they create a Facebook group for interested people to join? My reaction was that, prior to doing that, it would make sense to figure out whether and where quad bike fans gather online and join them on their turf.

At that point, the senior manager in charge of policy planning had an epiphany and said: “Of course! Actually I am planning to drive a quad bike in the bushes with a group of supporters in order to have a first hand exposure to their issues. Isn’t what you are suggesting the same, just online?”. Sure it is.

It is remarkable how often people forget that what works offline may actually work online too. I suspect that we need fewer social media consultants who offer great Facebook presence strategy and services, and more common sense. And common sense is not a resource that people working for the public sector have in short supply.

Over the last several months I have had several occasions to interact with officials in the Canadian federal government, including executives at the Privy Council, and I have greatly appreciated their willingness to explore the potential of new and disruptive technologies and expose it to the most senior officials, for them to take action.

It seems to me that the fact that the head of all government employees takes a stance in favor of leveraging these technologies is even more important than a prime minister doing so. The message carry a strength that goes beyond the political message and goes to the heart of what public service is about.

In many cases government 2.0 has a strong political connotation. For instance, in the US, the federal government has taken action as a consequence of the President’s drive with his executive orders, and he has appointed executives who were already enthusiastic supporters of open government and social media. In the Canadian case, the message comes from within the “machinery of government” and recognizes the centricity of employees in the transformation process.

This is essential for making change survive to the current excitement of the “openness” season, focusing it on how to make government a more efficient and stimulating place to work, irrespective of the political color of whoever is in office.

In most cases I have delivered uncomfortable, controversial messages. The blurring boundaries between internal and external collaboration, the urgency of empowering employees besides (or rather than) citizens, the need for simple and enforceable social media policy that cover employee behaviors both on corporate network and elsewhere. For many, my examples of how consumer social media are creeping into internal processes were an eye-opener, and so were the calls for a bottom-up approach, where government agencies should let go control to facilitate engagement

What I noticed in every single meeting, also when people came from a completely different perspective, has been the willingness to challenge themselves, to consider alternative viewpoints, to use some of my intentionally provocative views to reflect about where they can improve. Once again, it has been a refreshing experience, with officials at all levels debating issues, bouncing back ideas, drafting roadmaps they had not considered possible before. It has been an exciting experience where I have got from our clients at least as much as I hope I have given them, if not more.

While a typical North American celebration such as Halloween approaches, I can’t but think about how different many Europeans are when challenged on the same topics. I do distinctly remember a guy who sat in a minister cabinet explaining to me why I was totally wrong about suggesting that government agencies open social media access to their employees: his view was one where employees are not an asset but a liability, where management tools are the same as those used in the fifties, where time seems to have frozen at the gates of his agency. He is not alone though. Several officials in European countries that I have been interacting with are relatively dismissive of any advice that runs contrary to their beliefs. I never assume I am right in what I say, but I love to provide alternative viewpoints for people to challenge their own ideas and possibly improve them. While most North American clients will engage and react, most European clients won’t.

Of course there are exceptions. People in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands  or Ireland show similar characteristics as North Americans when it comes to debating issues. But in most other countries I have to be careful not to piss people off or to lower my expectations about the outcome of a debate.

Maybe the world is changing and I will find multiple counterexamples to this as soon as I start my next week at Cannes Symposium. I very much hope so, as I believe that in these turbulent times only those who are bold enough to accept that they may be wrong will thrive.