What is Government 2.0?

With last year’s Gov 2.0 Summit and the explosion of social networking service GovLoop, “government 2.0” has become a buzzword in technology and government circles. What does government 2.0 refer to? And what exactly was the government 1.0 that we’re improving on? This article attempts to define the term and unearth some of the hidden assumptions and implications that result from applying concepts developed in Silicon Valley technology startups to the complex and age-old problem of governance.

The term government 2.0 is a deliberate reference to the term “web 2.0,” coined by publisher Tim O’Reilly to refer to interactive, social websites like Wikipedia and Facebook, which have revolutionized how people use the web. Before delving into the meaning of government 2.0, we should consider government 1.0, the government analogue to web 1.0. Although less common now, the term most often used for this initial approach to technology in government is e-government.

The Center for Technology in Government defined e-government as having three components: e-management, e-services, and e-democracy. The first two have been largely realized. Governments have adopted, to varying degrees of sophistication, internal information technology systems such as networks, databases, and intranets. As we will see, government 2.0 practices often rely on these underlying systems. Governments have long provided e-services to constituents through websites, email, or APIs, including tax payments, service requests, and digital applications and paperwork. The last component, e-democracy, has been more elusive. In the web 1.0 world, this has most often meant emailing elected officials or signing petitions on topics. These activities have grown, although in the U.S. context exist mainly outside of government websites or structures.

At a lecture hosted by the Kennedy School Government 2.0 Professional Interest Council this fall, Nicco Mele suggested we adopt Tim O’Reilly’s web 2.0 principles as a starting point for government 2.0. My essay builds on his interesting lecture.

1. Government as Platform

O’Reilly’s first principle is “the web as platform,” adjusted for our purposes to be “government as platform.” The most obvious examples of this are where government agencies provide data or host competitions to encourage creative ideas that serve the public interest. The “apps” competitions in Washington, D.C. and New York and sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, are a start to this trend. In these competitions, government provides the data, and an ecosystem of third party developers and tools helps unleash the value for the public, creating new tools, resources, and analyses.

Another example where government acts as platform is the phenomenon of participatory budgeting, pioneered by cities in Brazil and now has spread to a number of cities around the world. This approach puts budgetary decision-making, or some part of it, directly in the hands of citizens, bypassing existing representative models of decision-making. The technical dimensions of this are only now being explored, and in the Brazilian case above deliberation and voting online complemented conventional public meetings.

When it comes to service delivery, it is less clear what “government as platform” means. It may echo a broader political agenda that has sought to re-define the role of government through systematic privatization of formerly government functions, such as education or public services. After all, when governments provide educational or housing vouchers, aren’t they acting as the intermediary, or a platform? The political implications of shifting government from a service provider role to a facilitating role deserves consideration. This issue is connected to a host of issues surrounding contracting and public private partnerships. Governments may want to retain some types of service delivery if the good cannot be contracted for, or the public wants to enforce certain service standards.

2. Harnessing Collective Intelligence

The second principle is “harnessing collective intelligence.” Obama’s Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government identified collaboration as a policy goal for the federal government. In fact, Obama’s Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Open Government Beth Noveck experimented with collaboration tools to create an open government policy last summer. In other areas there are limited successes of citizen-government collaboration. The Peer to Patent program pools expert opinion to speed the patent process. The Next Stop Design project in Salt Lake City, Utah used crowdsourcing to select the design for new bus shelters. One of the people involved in the project, Daren Brabham, is writing a PhD dissertation on the application of crowdsourcing to public problems. In Melbourne, the consulting firm Collabforge ran a wiki as a component of a conventional planning process to generate the new city plan.

Fundamentally, this trend will face several types of powerful resistance.

First, it can run counter to traditional concepts of representative democracy, where elected officials work “down” through an expert bureaucracy to create and implement policy. Archon Fung has proposed “empowered participation” can be deployed as a governance method for specific issues, such as Chicago’s school committees or neighborhood policing committees. However, creating these structures depends on modifying existing forms of governance. Existing projects have avoided this in several ways. The apps competitions aren’t about creating policy, and the government hosts can always disavow responsibility. Idea-generation contests usually reserve final decisions to designated juries. Policy-creation projects retain the final decision-making power with conventional authorities. However, pushing this further into what Beth Noveck calls “wiki government” will require addressing this tension with existing practices.

Second, a host of public problems require technical expertise to analyze or solve. The question of how to integrate technical forms of knowledge with citizens is far from resolved. The cutting edge involves putting modeling tools in the hands of citizens, who use them as “decision support tools,” but this runs counter to existing models of professional practice and the very real need for significant expertise to complete complex analyses.

Lastly classified data and national security, a major governmental function, may never be opened to the public. Interestingly, Department of Defense has been interested in the collaborative potential of internal communication across their vast bureaucracy through wikis, for example launching a wiki to improve the Army Field Manual.

3. Open Data Standards

The third principle is the use of data standards. Expanding access to government data is a major trend, with initiatives underway at the federal, state, and local level to create data portals. The concept of linked data, emerging out of the Wikipedia project, seems poised to move into government datasets. In fact, greater linking and cross-comparison among the expanding amount of available government data will create a positive pressure to ensure cross-compatibility. Within Massachusetts state government, for example, town-level data has become a standard for comparison and analysis. With the federal government in setting metadata and other standards already, this may happen slowly but some signs are already in place. Using this to evaluate government may be misleading: the primary purpose of government isn’t to create data, although it is an important one. The technological viewpoint threatens to be reductionist, viewing the government as primarily engaged in collecting and hosting data. In reality, most money and effort in government is spent on delivering healthcare, education, national defense, grant programs, and regulatory actions, where data can play a supporting role (perhaps as indicators) but is not even always a mandatory input to governance.

In Boston, the author of a recent major report studying the city’s transit agency said in November he wouldn’t ride the busy Red Line due to serious maintenance issues that threaten to cause a train derailment. At roughly the same time, data enthusiasts were demanding real-time data about bus and train arrivals at the MassDOT developers conference. When our transit systems are in real danger of catastrophic failure, shouldn’t we spend all available funds preventing disaster for the existing riders, rather than inventing technology to make use more convenient? How can these important goals be balanced properly?

4. Customer Service

The last principle discussed by Nicco is customer service, based on O’Reilly’s “rich user experience.” An emphasis on customer services is undeniable at all levels of government. Cities have launched successful 311 systems for managing citizen requests, and governments have been subscribing to the “plain language” movement make government information more understandable and usable to citizens. However, just like “government as platform,” this principle too often reduces government to a consumer-producer relationship where the government provides services just like private firms might in the marketplace. Customer service is important, but so is engaging with citizens to generate ideas and implement solutions. In exchange for expecting service, citizens have the responsibility to understand the resource and legal limitations of government.

5. Incremental Policy

O’Reilly has several additional principles: end of the software release cycle, lightweight programming models, and software above the level of the single device. Of these, I think the principle for government is the advent of more iterative forms of policy making. The field of planning has developed theories of incrementalism or “muddling through,” to reflect the real-world pace of change. The web supports both short bursts of activity but also long-term archiving, and professionals are only now learning how to use the tools to develop sustained interest and engagement through ongoing conversations and communications.

Conclusion

What do we learn from this exercise? First, I’m not sure government 2.0 is yet a new type of government, instead a collection of promising trends. The adoption of new social and technical approaches of idea creation and governance don’t resolving age-old questions about what government should be doing, and how it should approach principles of equity and justice. In fact, what could emerge is a new, technically-enabled model of in the tradition of the “developmental state,” the concept that the state itself is engaged in economic and community development. This is perhaps the most important lesson of these trends: existing government processes should be examined and where they are not working be re-invented to take advantage of the ability of technology to expand the activity of governance beyond the institutions of government.

Virtual Reality for Stakeholder Engagement: A Conference in Second Life

The Alexandria, Virginia-based group Public Decisions offers a variety of training materials and events on how to involve the public in public policy and social issues.

A longtime user of Internet conferencing technology for their training class, they have taken the leap and are sponsoring the online conference on “Using Virtual Reality for Stakeholder Engagement: An Online Conference in Second Life®” The one-day conference will be held on Thursday, July 16th, and feature a group deliberation on global warming, field trips to Second Life islands where “stakeholders are being actively engaged on issues related to land, air, or water quality,” and a panel discussion on the best practices for using Second Life. The conference is $75 with membership to their free “Circle Club,” or $35 for students.

Although requiring users to join and learn how to use a proprietary virtual world, Second Life is increasingly becoming a popular venue for conferences, including the one on education shown in the illustration.

With urban planners and other policymakers increasingly interested in using Second Life — or other immersive, 3D virtual reality environments — to support visualization and public engagement (such as the Hub2 project, or the Participatory Chinatown project some of my MAPC colleagues are working on), this topic will only increase in importance in the years to come.

Vacant Property Website Wins Round 2 in ‘Apps for Democracy’ Contest

A website inspired by my idea for a vacant property database has won First Prize in Round 2 of the Apps for Democracy-Community Edition competition sponsored by D.C. government. The site’s creator, Shaun Farrell, will receive a $3,000 cash prize and now has a chance (along with other contest apps) at a $10,000 Final Round prize.

My proposal for a social vacant property database website (originally posted here), caught the eye of a Shaun Farrell, a developer in the DC Apps for Democracy competition. His app, VacantDC, allows users to view a map of vacant properties in the city, view easy-to-read information pages for each property complete with photo, and even submit their own reports. Since it’s in “pre-alpha release,” being developed under the extremely tight limits of the competition, it’s a bit rough around the edges but clearly headed in the right direction. In an email Shaun explained the data in the system is from June 1, 2009, but DCRA has agreed to provide him a monthly set of current vacant properties.

I’m really excited about the site and wish Shaun luck in his development sprint for the final prize. Hopefully he will release the code under some kind of license so it can evolve into a resource for any city struggling with abandonment issues.

White House Launches ‘Open Government Initiative’

On January 21st, President Barack Obama issued the first memorandum of his presidency on “Transparency and Open Government,” charging the Chief Technology Officer, Directory of the Office of Management and Budget, and Administrator of General Services to coordinate the creation of an Open Government Directive. The memo articulated a tripartite analysis of the topic, discussing transparency, or disclosing “information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use,” participation, or government giving “Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information,” and finally collaboration, or “actively engaging Americans in the work of their Government.” Someone pointed out at the Princeton Summit I recently attended the three form an interesting logical hierarchy, with transparency required for good participation, and collaboration the culmination of the process. (Of course it leaves off the level included on some other participation scales, citizen power)

Today, the three individuals charged with creating the Open Government Directive launched the Open Government Initiative to “experiment with mechanisms for effective citizen participation” while developing the government’s policy, dividing the task into three parts: brainstorm (now), discuss (starting June 3) and draft (starting June 15th). The process includes “From the Inbox,” a collection of contributed comments, and “Listening Sessions,” or notes or recordings of meetings. Already in the inbox is collection of interesting documents mostly from established interest groups like GWU National Security Archives, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and AmericaSpeaks.

Also today the White House launched Data.gov, an effort to provide a central repository of government data, and the start of a forum on improving Regulations.gov.

Reviewing the suggestions from the Kennedy School’s Transparency Policy Project, this suggestion (PDF) for an experimental project caught my eye:

The Departments of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation could create a customizable platform to allow cities and towns to quickly deploy web sites that allow residents to report local problems (e.g. broken streetlights, abandoned vehicles, potholes, tunnel and bridge problems) in a geo-coded database and display system with mark up features. Cities and towns could deploy the platform on a voluntary, and perhaps incentivized, basis and integrate it with their 311 (non-emergency) incident reporting systems.

The project idea raises several issues. First, despite the fact the initiative is for the federal government as a whole, this suggest leaps all the way to the hyperlocal level. There seems to be something intrinsic about Internet technology that makes it particularly well suited for local initiatives, perhaps due to some of the factors I discuss here. Second, it raises the issue of to what extent government should attempt to create new technology. There actually already is a website that does more or less what the Harvard folks describe that I’ve been meaning to write about — SeeClickFix. In fact, here’s some potholes, broken streetlights, and other problems already reported on this private website:

Some have argued the government should focus on data sources nearly exclusively, but I’m more of a moderate on the issue. After all, the private sector may not develop technology that suits the unique characteristics of government. Lastly, this local suggestion implies the subtle ways the Obama Administration’s innovation in transparency, participation, and online engagement could trickle down to state and local government.

> White House Open Government Initiative
> Data.gov
> SeeClickFix

Highlights From Princeton Planning and the Internet Summit

I recently returned from a conference on “City Planning, Civic Engagement and the Internet” held in Princeton, New Jersey co-sponsored by Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Center for Information Technology Policy. The conference was planned largely by Christian Peralta, the former editor of Planetizen, who did a great job assembling a fascinating group and making sure everything ran like clockwork. For the benefit of those who couldn’t attend I thought I would write a short description of some of the highlights..

Best Practices in Local Government

An employee of an independent government agency, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, I took particular interest in the representatives from local governments. Representing the City of Toronto’s Public Consultation Unit were Mike Logan and Robert Davis. Their unit has evolved since its creation in the late 1980s into the city government’s go-to resource for public involvement. I think this is a model that could be replicated elsewhere: one office maintains the expertise about all the approaches to involve the public, and works with the project sponsors to create and implement an appropriate and resource-efficient approaches. It also creates one central place at the city for citizens to approach with questions. They presented on some of their work to use Facebook to reach communities (it required special permission from the IT department), and discussed the unusual challenge of working in Toronto’s highly multicultural environment, which requires extensive translation. Public consultation coordinator Mike Logan even handed me a business card with the information imprinted in braille on it, which itself was a statement to their commitment to excellence in accessibility.

Another particularly noteworthy presenter was Mark Elliott, whose consulting firm Collabforge set up a wiki for a recent planning process in the City of Melbourne, Australia. As you might expect from someone who earned a PhD with a dissertation on “A Theoretical Framework for Mass Collaboration,” Mark impressed me with his thoughtful approach to integrating collaborative technologies to planning. In general I think advocates of wikis underestimate the technical complexity of the technology, as well as the limitations to a radically flattening technology. Mark’s work on FutureMelbourne was apparently successful and he’s definitely someone to watch.

Also attending was Seattle’s Chief Technology Officer, Bill Schrier, who blogs about technology and government at his blog Chief Seattle Geek. Mark Bosworth, a GIS expert from Portland, Oregon’s regional planning agency Metro gave a whimsical presentation on the history of GIS and highlighting some of their many customized web applications including a bicycle trip planner (of course), and a “build your own” transit system tool.

Private Sector Innovation

Several consultants attended, presenting on a wide range of topics. Edward Andersson, from the UK consulting firm Involve, gave a thoughtful presentation on the history of participation in the UK and their firm’s approach. The company’s website PeopleandParticipation.net is a rich resource on the topic. Rhiza Lab’s Josh Knauer and Jeff Christensen presented on their firm’s powerful online data and mapping tools. It was a wonder they made it since Josh explained they’ve been working nearly around the clock on their FluTracker website. Lastly Jocelyn Hittle and Jason Lally from PlaceMatters displayed some amazing touch and light-sensitive technology made using two Wii remotes and a lot of ingenuity.

View from the Academy

The academic speakers provided interesting perspective and a glimpse of their latest research. Ohio State’s Jennifer Evans Cowley presented on her research analyzing the use of social networking in urban planning, and has even created a Facebook group dedicated to the topic. Hunter College’s Laxmi Ramasubramanian presented on the theoretical context for public participation, and Iowa State’s Chris Seeger presented on his extensive background in participatory GIS.

Out of the Box

Of course, some of the presenters fit none of these categories. Adrian Holovaty, founder of the totally unique Everyblock.com, presented on his work harnessing the web’s geographic data to create a hyperlocal news source. Although I missed the presentation, Matthew Golas from PlanPhilly.com described that website’s civic mission to foster dialogue on planning in Philadelphia. Also presenting were John Geraci, from DIYCity, a project to imagine a new interactive “DIY” urbanism, and Nick Grossman from the invaluable Open Planning Project, the folks behind Streetsblog. (Aside: We need a Boston Streetsblog) The Sunlight Foundation’s John Wonderlich and Ali Felski are working hard in D.C. to improve government websites and access to data. (My friend Tom Lee is also with their lab).

For much more see the #ccisummit Twitter tag. The sessions were also recorded, and they will be eventually posted to the conference website. Attendees: what did I miss?

Preservation Funds Distributed By Internet Vote

“Help … give away $1 million in preservation grants to Greater Boston historic places” boast advertisements I’ve seen recently in Boston about a grant program sponsored by American Express and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The ads invite the public to visit the program website to vote for which of 25 historic sites should receive funds for historic preservation work.

Although the amount of funds guaranteed the winner is limited, the Partners in Preservation program is an interesting example of private example of online participatory budgeting, the growing practice of allowing the general public to determine funding priorities. Until May 17th, the general public can register online and vote once per day for which site deserve money for preservation. The winner is guaranteed funding for their preservation project (up to $100,000), and an Advisory Committee will determine how to distribute the rest of the $1 million, taking into consideration the voting results, “along with each historic place’s preservation and monetary needs.”

The top three leaders so far are Nantasket Beach’s Paragon Carousel, Old Salem Town Hall, and the Crane Estate. Other sites in consideration include a historic schooner in Gloucester, Paul Revere’s House, the New England Aquarium, and St. Peter’s Church in Dorchester (seen above). Although the website only contains a ranking, the Paragon Carousel seems to have drawn the most attention since Julian Koster, enigmatic head of the band Neutral Milk Hotel, has been campaigning for the funds to go to what he describes as a “beautiful machine that has been my dear neighbor for many moons.”

> For more information or to vote see: Partners In Preservation Boston

Photo of St. Peter’s Church in Dorchester uploaded to Facebook by Jillian Adams

Urban Planning Conference Sessions

I’ll be attending the American Planning Association 2009 National Planning Conference in Minneapolis next week. It’ll be only my second visit to Minneapolis so I’m excited to explore the city. However, that will have to fit around some of the conference sessions. Here’s a few that have caught my eye so far, including some sponsored by the group’s Technology Division.

• An Interactive GIS Tool: “Get an overview and online demonstration of Local Decision Maker, a GIS-based decision support system for comprehensive planning developed by Purdue University”
• Automated Land and Zoning Management: ‘See how planners … are using an automated system that manages land-use and zoning cases and provides access to numerous other data layers that can be seamlessly imported to provide additional decision support.”
• Using Motion and Touch Sensitive Applications: “This session provides live demonstrations of several motion-sensitive, touch-sensitive, and location-aware tools that can make the public participation side of planning more interesting and interactive.”
• Does Citizen Participation Matter?: “This session helps planners learn the differences so they can advise others about what citizen participation model fits the case at hand.”
• The 10 Best Free Web Applications: “Explore the leading Free Web 2.0 technologies that can be used immediately and freely to support planning.”
• Hiawatha Light Rail Line: “This session focuses on the technical and political factors that shaped the plan for the Hiawatha Light Rail and Central Corridor Transit Line, including the plan’s implementation and performance.”
• Community Indicators: “Learn to create a vibrant steering committee [that can] serve as the community touchstone for data prioritization and analysis of key comprehensive planning elements such as transportation, health, and housing.”

In addition to the sessions I’ll be attending some of the happy hours and receptions, including the Next American City reception on Monday 4/27 at 7:30 p.m. in the lobby of the Hotel Ivy.

What sessions are you attending?