The "disenchantment" you spoke of, I believe will be yet another motivating factor. When people have higher expectations, then the pressure is on from several sides. If a technology doesn't manifest within an organization as the expected improvement, then there will be pressure on the organization(s) to continue to fix it. It's an inevitable. The flaw comes from that you might look at "web2.0" the same way many people seem to, that is, a huge shift in gear. Not so. We don't all wake up being on Web 2.0. Every organization creates it's migration into the technology, whether it be a different way things are reported, (trouble ticket stats online for example) or even things like email upgrades and portals, and document repositories that get introduced and new feedback methods. It happens slowly as organizations adapt and drag their feet finding the solution that integrates with the others. Those who make excuses and do migrations too slowly and incorrectly will get dinged for it, either by more public pressure, or by some other failure or blame.

there is a strong need to police the consistencies of public officials and make them accountable. Hopefully we are seeing the last of it. With more records online, more video, more eyes on the work (that we the public pay for) we will catch the flaws and maybe produce more democratic decisions. The next hurdle is some sort of online accountability so that maybe votes and decision making can be done online to make it easier to get information to the law makers faster.

Technology does not drive change, but can be used as a leverage to enable it. I am amazed that after so many billions of dollars wasted on ridiculous and pointless IT projects, we still hear arguments of this nature. Since I know that Don T. is not stupid, I would have to wonder about his professional integrity. The pundits love "new" technologies because they can write more books about it.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

- George Bernard Shaw

Tom, you're spot on here with this one - the US Gov't (or any large organization, NGO or commercial) needs to streamline its processes, and remedy intra \ inter departmental politics, before any of the new technologies (web 2.0, enteprise 2.0, KM 2.0, fill in the blank 2.0) will work.

I totally believe the NPR anectode about not being able to upgrade an old PC - here's an even more Luddite-esque story... I know someone who was a temp in the US Gov't. way back in 1993, and Windows and MS Office was just starting to appear on the rare PC there. The process for creating the simplest documents (like a thank you letter) was typewriter \ paper centric with a lot of photocopying and signature sheets to get approvals \ edits. God forbid if someone made an edit, the whole paper-based process would repeat itself up and down the management ranks, and then you'd have to wait for paper-based approvals from people who always seemed to be traveling somewhere - yeesh! (at least my friend got a lot of long lunches thanks to that experience - and a desire never to work in Gov't again, except maybe as a consultant :) ).

The Gov't needs a lot of Lean (not Six Sigma, just simple Lean) to streamline their processes, before they can begin the digitize anything... implementing wikis would be like "dressing up a process pig" so to speak...!

Hi Tom. I'm hopeful you'll receive a number of comments on this piece. Same argument, different sector (from enterprise to gov't) yes?

A couple points here: citizens are not restrained by the some of the cultural factors that inhibit enterprise 2.0 adoption. Engaged citizens with crowd power have over-turned elections, policies, and even governments. Web 2.0 tools give such citizens new, forceful ammunition.

Second, you say, "Companies and organizations might end up spending more on the technologies than their utility warrants." The cost of introducing 2.0 tools in organizations is minimal-- a fraction of the costs of traditional software and systems. Cost could never (and should never) be a barrier to entry for any size organization.

Finally, it's Anthony Williams, not Williamson. :-)

As one of those government employees who regularly reads the visionary works of Tapscott and his confrères, I'm not certain how to respond to your final question. I like seeing the potential of a new way of doing things, and I like getting fired up by new ideas. But the crash that comes from trying to actually bring some of these ideas to the workplace can be more negative than the initial idea was positive, resulting in a net loss for me.

Perhaps it would be more useful to see more of those "how I did it well" stories - not quite the bleeding-edge, but tales from the early adopters, who have adapted technology to mature processes. I agree with other commenters that slapping tech over a poor process is a waste of money and effort. And it's also a waste of credibility - a rare enough resource in these cynical days.

It's easy to take potshots at hype-intensive book authors as you do here, but there still exists the fundamental reality that citizen expectations about how they relate to governmental and business organizations are changing.

While whipping the big bad Federal bureaucracy and its resistance to any kind of change is an easy target, the reality is that most government services are delivered at the state and local level. If you take a look, you may be surprised at how frequently such organizations are in fact using more social media and social networking related tools in how they relate to the public.

I'm not being an evangelist here, I'm just saying that changes are happening here and there.

(This discussion sort of reminds me of all the talk about corporate resistance to "web 2.0" tools and processes a few years ago.)

I think to some extent we've tapped out on the fundamentals of democracy in our government and any 2.0 implementation will need to see some transformative thinking as it relates to democracy. I'm by no means suggesting radical change, but it seems that democracy in conjunction with our capitalism has somewhat jammed up progress. I definitely see similarities in my business career where startups excel with heavy democracy and more mature organizations come to a halt with too much of it. I really want to see some change in our government but if it’s anything like change in the business, there’s a cultural shift that needs to happen too.

I love the passage in Tom Malone's book, The Future of Work, in which he poses the question of what a peasant, living under feudal rule, would have thought if someone had come along and told him that he soon would be part of a democracy. Of course, any sensible peasant would conclude that that person was describing an impossible utopia, acting as a prophet of disillusionment. Malone goes on to describe how, in fact, within a century, that peasant (or descendant thereof) was living in a democracy. The invention of movable type gave people the ability to communicate in unprecedented ways, and with that communication came -- very rapidly -- new forms of government.

I think its very hard to see how we get from where we are today to where we will be tomorrow, looking only forward in a linear fashion. That doesn't reduce the importance of imagining what tomorrow might look like, or take away from the value of people who stimulate our thoughts about how we might begin to move there.

There's an important role for those who can discern the faint threads of today's trends and weave them into a picture of tomorrow. Will they get it fully right? Of course not, but the best will provoke important conversations.

Don has painted a compelling picture of what a wiki-based world might be like. Will it evolve exactly as he describes? Probably not, but that in no way diminishes the value of the picture, which is, afterall, designed to bring faint changes into sharp relief; to get us imagining something different.

I hope everyone will take time to listen to Don's NPR interview, and consider whether, like movable type, the power of this dramatic step change in communication might not spur a major change in government -- within our life time.

Now, in the spirit of full transparency, I want to say that Don and I are both part of the newly formed nGenera (the founders acquired The Concours Institute, as well). The result is that I've gotten to know Don and his views in greater depth -- and can only say that the vision gets even more exciting upon close inspection.

Best,

Tammy Erickson

Apparently, these folks are fans of the '..and then a miracle occurs' theory of organizational development.

Just How Realistic is "Government 2.0"?
Tom Davenport.
>One could argue that they are helpful because they motivate us to strive for greater impact from new technologies or management approaches.
All well said to this point. To, you, stop here. The subjective clause puts me in a different gear. What exactly is, “That they are helpful because they motivate us”? The cash is the biggest motivator then any IT.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa

Folks,

Believe it or not this is happening in government faster than you think, simply because people that have become acquainted with social media, the Internet and online interactions are now working *inside* of governments all around the world.

We have built an end-to-end grant management system to run an innovative program called Summer Company (www.summercompany.ca) to facilitate this program. We also have dipped our toe in the water in Facebook to see how this program aimed at young entrepreneurs organically evolves. What do you think we should do with such technology? How much valuable technology and processes do you think have been developed inside government? A lot or a little? You'd be surprised.

Alex

Apparently Don isn't familiar with the depressing litany of failed IT programs across the federal government. Just look at our air traffic control system, an antiquated series of airways first laid out during the 1930's when the US aircraft used radio beacons. The FAA's plans despite many years of promised improvements are years from being implemented. Just because technology could change government, does not mean it will, at least at the federal level. There, the cost and complexity of implementing major new IT systems just seems to tax the ability of the feds to deliver systems on time and on budget. Moreover, aside from tax time, the federal government doesn't interact with citizens directly as often as the states and localities. At the federal level, interactions occur much more with interest groups, states and other countries where web 2.0 services are not as helpful

States and localities do seem much better able to deliver systems that allow citizens to interact with them over the web. But they are closer to the taxpaying citizens who vote for their elected officials. The feds are just too remote.

"I.T." is essential for the purpose of ready access information online, through which service delivery in the government sector is enhanced. It would be more expensive, however if the benefits surpass the cost then why can't be implemented anyway. The need to transform into "government 2.0" has a significant impact in terms of quality service delivery system.