What does the much discussed movement from Web 2.0 to Enterprise 2.0 -- and now Government 2.0 -- mean you should be doing about "massive collaboration"? Should blogs, wikis, social networking, and more powerful search and prediction markets, etc. become front-burner items for you?

The short answer, as for many new technology applications, is "perhaps" or even "probably," but not always. What you need is a good framework for sifting and prioritizing your options, and stacking those up against the status quo.

A short framework-oriented report from our recent Collaboration Roundtable has been posted on the Governing Magazine website. It argues that the priority for collaboration:

1. increases with benefits from the wisdom of crowds and the increased commitment and legitimacy that come from active engagement and inclusion, but
2. decreases when those benefits are outweighed by additional complexity and sub-group conflicts.

Finding the right mix requires knowledge of the specific community/problem under consideration. We can often find the right collaboration rather easily by "bottom-up" exploration. This approach is made easy by the low costs of the new tools. This is what is getting the most attention and action.

What we haven't done much of so far is explore on a more strategic "top-down" basis for collaboration on critical "cross-boundary" challenges like health care, counter-terrorism, the green agenda, etc.

More on this can be found here in the brief article at the Governing website.

And here is a good blog on related issues from our colleague Andrew McAfee. Andy has explored Enterprise 2.0 (his term) for some time and in depth. 

All the best,

Jerry

P.S. What do general managers in government need to know about massive collaboration and other technology-enabled innovations? To learn about this, come work with us at Harvard on April 14-16. Here's more.

Using words we can easily describe the losses from simply hunkering down as "serious," "strategic," even "HUGE." But what numbers can put things in perspective?

Let's turn briefly to recent research about tech-enabled productivity and the costs of making it happen.

Note that 0.5%/year is a commonly-used measure for recent IT-enabled productivity improvements for the U.S. economy as a whole (technology is credited with about 1/4th of the 2 percent jump in productivity lasting through most of the 1990s). That would translate today to $69 billion in annual productivity bonuses. The government sector share would be about $23 billion, or the rough equivalent of adding 2/3rds of all farm income to the economy each year. On a per capita basis, government IT-based productivity should be worth about $80 -- for every year on an ongoing basis, for everyone in the country.

What's especially powerful is this productivity has been opened up by the relatively small amount of government IT spending that goes for new systems. New IT systems in government each year -- for federal, state, and local investments combined -- cost at most about $18 billion, or $60 per capita.

So… Should we be willing to lose $80 per capita in ongoing annual productivity benefits for a one-shot $60 savings?  The answer: Of course not, if that's the real choice, and if we can avoid it.

If these rough numbers are in the right ballpark, we clearly need to keep pushing for IT-enabled productivity. Given the economy, there's no way to avoid pain for the next few years, so we might as well invest to get something useful out the other end.

Granted, there's lots of room for argument with these estimates. Spending on government technology won't generate productivity on its own, and we'll need focused and effective leadership as well as other resources. On the other hand, without new technology systems -- and the efficiencies that technology will enable -- we simply won't get the lower coordination costs we can use for more efficient service delivery (online, not in line, with 24/7 access from anywhere) and/or for more efficient service production (networked collaboration and integration with greater economies of scale and innovation).

Losing $80 dollars every year in the future to "save" $60 today is crazy. But is that what we're about to do? Does anyone out there have better numbers for measuring the costs of foregone government IT investments?

All the best,

Jerry

P.S. We will be working these issues also at our April 14-16 event at Harvard. More here.

The "big three" values that government should strive for have long been productivity (or "efficiency" as the economists would call it), equity (or "fairness" as the kids in day care would call it), and legitimacy (or the degree to which the government is trusted to competently advance the public interest, not the personal interests of those who happen to be exercising it's power).

Legitimacy is fundamental and, of course, doesn't flow from technology alone. But it does requires transparency so principals (in this case the public) can hold their agents (in this case their government servants) accountable for properly carrying out their responsibilities.

If governments are too complex, too hidden, or too remote from scrutiny, history shows they all too often have swerved away from the public interest. The central idea of democracy -- imperfect as it is -- has been to create a stronger link between the public interest and governmental action. Votes are crude tools, but better than not having votes.

What's possible with the new technology is much more transparency and fine-tuned feedback. Can we use it to make democracy work better? There may be dangers, of course, in letting transparency squeeze out too much of the confidentiality and privacy needed to preserve diversity and personal freedom; but these concerns should not stand in the way of aggressive yet responsible exploration of the new possibilities.

My personal sense is that a next move in governments throughout the world -- possibly even THE move -- may be to extend beyond customer service (success with 'online not in line' -- which still has much room for improvement and extension) to civic engagement (where Web 2.0 approaches as used in the Obama campaign will move towards the real work of governing).

Several related links:

• The work of the transition technology teams, particularly their focus on engagement and innovation -- from our previous Harvard programs we particularly note the ideas here of Dan Chenok and Vivek Kundra.
• Yesterday's Executive Order on Open Government.

If we ARE extending beyond customer service to civic engagement, what are the primary options to consider and criteria for analysis and prioritization? Who out there is moving ahead on this front?

All the best,

Jerry

P.S. We will be working these issues at our April 14-16 event at Harvard. More here.

Legitimacy, or the belief that government can be trusted to competently advance the public interest, not the personal interests of those who happen to be exercising it's power.

Information technology is, of course, a major tool for legitimacy -- primarily by making activities transparent so those in government and elsewhere can be held accountable for their responsibilities.

And the new Web 2.0 tools of "massive collaboration" can make transparency, accountability, and legitimacy far more readily available.

Today's first full day in office suggests that President Obama fully intends to use those tools:

"Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.

Our commitment to openness means more than simply informing the American people about how decisions are made. It means recognizing that government does not have all the answers, and that public officials need to draw on what citizens know. And that's why, as of today, I'm directing members of my administration to find new ways of tapping the knowledge and experience of ordinary Americans -- scientists and civic leaders, educators and entrepreneurs -- because the way to solve the problem of our time is -- the way to solve the problems of our time, as one nation, is by involving the American people in shaping the policies that affect their lives."

President Barack H. Obama

History has been made. And it looks like the right time to make some more.

All the best,

Jerry