Howdy Folks…we have a new author joining the crack team at e2oh – Marc Vogtman. Content below is his first post. Welcome aboard, Marc!

- Nate

My Deloitte colleagues, Kate Thompson, Nate Nash, Sam Lampert, and I just attended the fourth annual ICEGOV conference, held in Beijing this year. ICEGOV is a fairly new conference series established by UN University that brings together academics, government representatives, and private companies who have an interest in e-government. This is the first year Deloitte has attended and we did so to present two papers we submitted for the ICEGOV 2010 publication.

It was a pretty interesting week. Beth Noveck, Deputy CTO of the White House’s Open Government Initiative, was one of the keynote speakers and she really drove home the challenges and the goals of interconnected, transparent, virtual government. A major theme, across multiple sessions, was interoperability. Needless to say, this is a huge and complex topic. The goal of allowing people to collaborate and share information within and across government entities requires consideration of organizational, legal, public policy, and technical interoperability issues.

In our business, and particularly in Emerging Markets, we spend a lot of time on the first three. The general consensus seems to be that technology, while important to interoperability, is kind of a given; we have the tools, but successful information sharing hinges on people and process. One set of presenters, Professor Jim Davies and Dr. Steve Harris of Oxford, began their talk by challenging this contention. Yes, people and process are a big part of the process, but are there technology solutions we haven’t considered? There will always be human failure around technology and that’s not something over which we, as development professionals, often have a lot of control. So how can technology be better? How can it control for human failure?

The answer, according to the presenters: computational semantics. You may have heard of this sort of work in the context of semantic web (aka web/enterprise/government 3.0). The basic idea of semantics is that systems should contextualize stored information using machine-readable metadata that enable other software to access that information more intelligently. The idea of computational semantics is that this process should be automated and integrated into the development of ICT systems. This will help minimize the effect of human failure from the developer down to the user. Really fascinating stuff and progress is occurring rapidly.

So, is computational semantics the answer to the problems of interoperability and progress in e-government?

YES!

Well, actually, the honest answer is I have no idea. I’ll leave that question to the software engineers and information theory Phds. But the work in semantics is relevant to us. The government may not be ready for the transition to 3.0 technologies for another decade, but the principles of semantics – of a global methodology for contextualizing data for interoperability – are already implicit in the business opportunities being presented to us. As it turns out, one of the papers Deloitte presented at the conference (written by Sam Lampert) was on the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM), a semantic framework created by DoJ and DHS to “develop, disseminate and support enterprise-wide information exchange standards and processes that can enable jurisdictions to effectively share critical information.” NIEM doesn’t yet support the kind of automation described above, but it’s definitely a first step. And it indicates that the principles of semantics are becoming the default way of framing the problem of interoperability and data sharing. We need to think about how this affects the services we provide.

Last week I had the distinct pleasure of flying halfway around the world to attend the 4th annual International Conference on Electronic Government in Beijing, China. A couple folks on the Deloitte team submitted papers for presentation and despite the usual deathstroke associated with giving me an author credit, we were asked to come on down. Even with the mind-bending jet-lag fog of a 12 hour time difference, I had a truly excellent time. Highlights and observations are as follows:

* US Open Government Initiative – One of my favorite trends as of late is all of the data exposition and general geekery that is coming out the of the US Federal Government as a result of the Open Government Initiative. Beth Noveck, Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Open Government gave a pretty interesting overview of her office’s achievements and as well as told a compelling story of how the push for technical transparency (my words) has a vast impact on the quality of citizen services provided at the Federal level. For the 4 of you who religiously read this blog, I suppose it is no surprise that I believe squarely in the transformative power of data exposition. Seems Ms. Noveck does as well and while she was playing to a friendly crowd, the message was still very good.

* Estonia – Do you know about the egov work Estonia is doing? I certainly didn’t (not that my ignorance is all that surprising) and was solidly impressed by the presentation given by the Estonia Academy for EGovernment. I am going to stay far , far away from the political arguments surrounding the implementation of a National ID system, but from a technology perspective, there is some real brilliance occurring. For example, through the aforementioned third-rail issue of a National ID, they rock nationwide single sign on (with two factor authentication) and identity management to/for all electronically provided government systems. They literally turned their government into something of a service oriented architecture and every time you want to auth into the license plate renewal service or health care record database, you inset your National ID and whammo – Big Bro knows who you are, where you live, and what your favorite cereal is. Seems they implemented a bus of sorts (called X-road) and wrapped all of their existing egov services to play nicely with one another. Again, I am not going to comment on the political angle here…merely state that the tech used to accomplish this was pretty hip. One thing – the presenter stated the Auth service allows you to define delegates and permissions for various types of data on the grid. So doctors can see your health records, children could see your tax records if you die, etc, etc. While this struck me as something that should obviously be implemented, I can’t imagine the learning curve associated with these privacy settings. I mean, drunk college kids can’t figure out how to keep their moronic photobombs private in Facebook (yeah kids, when you interview, we look. Sweet bong, flapjack. Somehow, I don’t think you will make the cut) …Can you imagine configuring a privacy scheme for almost all of your sensitive personal data?

* Crispy Bird Skin – Sorry…this wasn’t really a function of the conference, but the Peking Duck was off the freaking map. Best place I went was called Da Dong and seriously, I have tasted heaven and it is apparently carved tableside. That garbage we (or maybe just I) eat in the States compares to this golden-skinned football of glory like RuPaul does to Naomi Campbell.

Turns out next year the conference is actually in Estonia. If you can make it, I highly recommend coming.

So sports fans….tell me. Did you too spill Flavia-powered coffee on your moderately pressed J. Crew button down shirt, curse the beard of Zeus, and fall directly out of your rarely comfortable office chair when the World Bank announced they had built what data.gov should be today? No? Huh. Weird. And here I was thinking I was normal.

Whether you are a data geek, care about transparency, or work in international development, this app is exceptionally relevant and seriously hot. And it’s hot for a whole rack of reasons I would guess the traditional development types will probably miss. In fact, I asked a few today and confirmed this hypothesis. I mean, don’t get me wrong. I heart the multiple advanced degrees out of each and every one of you, but seriously, lemme see some jazz hands at least when the World Bank makes Biggest Loser bellyflop size waves in the choppy wading pool of open government.  Here are my favorite statements so far and a bit of editorializing as to why they are missing the proverbial enchilada.

• “So what? The World Bank Data has been public for years.” – Well ok. That is partially true. But not really and you’re missing the point. Granted, some of it was behind a paywall, but even that isn’t the point. The point is the nuanced meaning of the word available.  Much like the World Bank data, the capabilities of the iPhone were available for years prior to its launch. You could call people. You could sort of use apps. You could sort of watch videos or listen to music. But when the iPhone arrived, the interface, seamless integration, and overwhelmingly usable presentation of functionality fundamentally changed our expectations around a mobile device. And by extension, it changed the way we work. So yeah, the data has been around for a while. But this interface, seamless integration, and overwhelmingly usable presentation of functionality are fresh like strawberries in July. And that positions the underlying data to fundamentally change the way we work.
• “Cool. It’s all in one place now” – Um…kinda. It’s definitely all in one “place” from a presentation perspective, and undoubtedly, that is bangin’. But the underlying data work to make it all in one service is what really changes my oil. More technically, the API made publicly available is the same one powering the app itself. Yeah this is a touch wonky, but stay with me. The World Bank had an API for a while. But it was built for the wrong reasons. It wasn’t built to power an app like data.worldbank.org. I am not sure why it was built, but it wasn’t really used and missed cashing in on why APIs for data are hip. By first building (or extending) the API, then presenting an app on top of it, the World Bank has shown the developer community the art of the possible. They are inviting leagues of people to use their data to drive applications that can benefit the overall mission of the Bank without spending a dime. By creating an API that is shown to be usable (i.e. cool app with stuff in one place), they demonstrate the real power of open data – crowdsourcing the development of innovative (and free) applications to support their mission.
• “It isn’t detailed enough for what I need.” – Ugh. This one really gets me. Come on, have some vision people. Again, yes. The level of detail presented may not be what you need. But frankly that only matters right now. And it really only matters to you. The architecture is what is important. Moreover, the potential impact to the business of international development embodied by the architecture is vastly important. Even if you don’t care about APIs, XML, GTL, or the Biggest Loser, mark my words, this move will present “detail” in the future that you never thought possible. As partners and implementers around the world begin mashing up their own data with the data provided by the World Bank in a usable, open, and transparent manner, the results will be detailed and ramifications will be significant.

So go check it out. Even if you aren’t a data geek, it’s worth a look. Also, I can’t wrap up without a hat tip to my boys at Developmentseed for creating a website that is just plain fun to use. An even bigger hat tip for doing it all with open source tools and proving that open gov data exposition can (and should) be more than just spreadsheets and FOIA streamlining.

This is key. While the drive to do IT differently, more cheaply and more transparently is clearly emanating from the folks now holding the reigns of the government, this notion easily be lost somewhere deep in the opaque depths of the IT procurement process. If there is one thing that some government technology contractors have come to appreciate, it’s that building a system that is expensive, difficult to retire, and complicated can often serve to lock in years of future revenue. As one presenter put it, some companies consider building bad enterprise software “a competitive advantage”. In some cases, this has become the only way they know how to operate. Think of the billions in contracting vehicles now rendered useless by a government who only wants to buy lightweight, open source software built on flexible data exchange standards – software that many of its legacy contracts aren’t able to provide.

Some will adapt. Some won’t. But, this opens a tremendous opportunity for smaller, more agile firms that have concepts like OSS, sound UX design, and web services built into their DNA. At Government 2.0, people like Peter Corbett of iStrategyLabs showed the feds that massive, data-intensive websites can be built quickly, and even crowd sourced to citizens who feel engaged by this approach. His Apps for Democracy project exemplifies this (in fact, Vivek Kundra sponsored this project when he was DC’s CIO). I’m confident that we’ll see the new administration work with IT vendors that can deliver projects that follow this model, big or small.

It can, and agencies are starting to show how. NASA’s Nebula enables project teams to develop and deploy software to meet their needs, and can take advantage of the scalability Cloud platforms can provide. The GSA’s planned “app store” would allow government users to quickly purchase applications and infrastructure, have them delivered through the Cloud, and pay via a credit card. Agencies that want to make their internal Cloud platforms successful should keep the notion of customer centricity in mind; to be successful they’ll need to keep their private Cloud simple, and accessible to end users. Looking at Cloud computing solely from the lens of an IT director or CFO won’t make Cloud computing anything more significant than the infrastructure technologies that preceded it. By bringing users a step closer to the technology that can help solve their problems, Cloud Computing can be as transformative in government as it has been in the private sector.

During our conversation I brought up the idea of bringing data exposition and mashup contests (is that what they are called?) to the developing world. Often times when Jay or I are overseas working within Ministry this or trade association that, the root of our challenges center on getting data from one place to another. Hopefully, that other place being somewhere near Usefultown. (Ever been to Usefultown? Not many people, but there is plenty of parking.)  As such we spend a whole bucketload of our moderately expensive hours trying to solve data-related issues. Either there isn’t any data, the data that exists is bad, or what is produced from the data is typically not citizen focused.

As I spoke about this to Peter, it struck me that we could score a development hat trick by instead of developing these apps ourselves, running a contest sponsored by the IT trade association. 1) The recipient government and citizens would end up with a useful application. 2) An entrepreneurial developer would receive startup funding, spurring private sector growth. 3) The US taxpayer development dollar would have a greater direct impact on the recipient country. I think this idea might be especially applicable for the two projects I have worked on in Jordan. (For those of you just tuning in, one is focused on private sector development and the other on capacity building within a government IT Department.) Within the IT capacity-building program we will implement an executive information system to aid in the development of policy, decision-making, and overall information awareness by aggregating various data sources. As usual, we are slogging our way through the traditional approach of driving requirements, unscrewing data sources, and visioneering (Ha!) what this thing might look like in the end. But, seems to me that if we focused on publishing as much data as possible and ran an Apps for Democracy style contest, we would have a much greater chance at ending up with something spicy. Like I would rather us focus on making the data available and harnessing the collective (and growing) crowd of IT talent, than beating our way through a traditional waterfall, black box implementation.

If I had a nickel for every time I spent months building a “projects database” or “management information system” that ended up serving the needs of 3 people tops, I could buy Montana. Or maybe just a Big Montana. Whatever. Too many nickels either way. It strikes me that the spirit of something like Apps for Democracy applied to international development makes a huge amount of sense. We should spend our nickels exposing government data (within reason) to its true owners, the citizens. Give them the tools to create useful applications and you will outrun any consultant-only driven model. Inspiring constituencies to participate in government and the resulting decisions will prove the centuries old adages of democracy by leveraging the years old approaches of all things 2.0. That, in my opinion is true development.

Best I can tell, the difference or relationship or commonalities or whatever between Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 kind of look like this:

From Blog Pics

From the point of view of an enterprise, the E2 stuff typically engages people inside some sort of organizational boundary.  Like our internal Confluence implementation. The Web 2.0 stuff, while using the same technologies typically engages people outside an organizational boundary. The Web 2.0 stuff can (and probably should) engage people inside an organization, but it is not necessarily as deep or pervasive as the E2 stuff. An example of this might be something like my company’s corporate blog. We author, but the majority of the readers and commenters are supposedly outside the firewall. Also, there can be some crossover between the two. Twitter might be an example of that, but the jury is still out for me. Yeah I know…this is a gross oversimplification and “stuff” isn’t the most technical of terms, but (hopefully) you get the point. 

But in listening to round table discussion on Government 2.0, it sounded like this was the concept.

From Blog Pics

There was seemingly a mixing of “stuff” engaging both sides of an organizational boundary at once. Maybe this is less confusing to some, but to me I think it tended to get people bogged down in technologies and approaches, rather than community engagement. For example, a particular audience member was turned off by the entire 2.0 concept, merely because she thought every taxpayer in the world would see her mistake if she ever incorrectly edited a wiki. While this is a valid concern, it sort of depends on where that wiki is, what it is used for, and who it is engaging. To have a potential convert write off an entire concept because of this minor misunderstanding is unfortunate, and might possibly be avoided by drawing some corrollary Web/Enterprise 2.0 lines for the public sector.

Who knows though….Maybe I am trying to put too much structure around something that is inherently unstructured and emergent. What do you think?

All in all, the event was a bangin’ good time. In addition to my blathering and Jay’s wisdom, Ken Olofsen was on hand from the Atlassian mothership to give product updates, company overview, etc to the attendees consisting of government and private sector types from around the Beltway. Also, shout out to the guys from Blackboard who gave a neato rundown on their Atlassian stack to SilkCentral integration. 

Thanks to everyone at Atlassian (especially Jessie Curtner!) for throwing down a righteous shindig in the District. Well…as righteous of a shindig that can be had with a bunch of geeks like me. Looking forward to doing it faster, better, and with even more consultanese at the Summit.

Today’s Morning Edition has a segment on Obama’s plan to appoint a government-wide Technology Czar / CTO. The story also describes his administration’s plans to make government information more accessible by citizens.

Will the next administration treat technology differently then what we’ve seen in the past? Will the push for added transparency provide opportunities for BE? Take a look at the contrast so far – both the Obama Transition Team and the GSA have websites designed to help enable the smooth transition of a presidential administration. The difference between the says a lot about Obama’s staff and aides will see the role of technology in government:

GSA Transition Website vs. Change.gov

My resolution was to “listen to more talk radio”. (I know, I know…far from earth shattering. But listen, when you start about 25 degrees south of “somewhat informed”, any news will help.) And in keeping my resolution, I had the chance to hear Don Tapscott interviewed on NPR about the applicability of Web/Enterprise 2.0 for government. Thanks to that interview, and a rising demand from clients, I have decided to start a series of posts focused on the specific applicability of Enterprise 2.0 for the government organizations I have worked with either directly or indirectly.

I mused earlier on transparent international development work and am happy to see what I believe are some excellent steps in that direction from the Millennium Challenge Corporation. As a baseline, I think MCC has done an excellent job in adding functionality to their website that fosters a sense of transparency as well as enlightens taxpayers to the challenges of development work. One of the most interesting additions in recent months is the posting of the models used to determine a significant funding driver, the Economic Rate of Return. Additionally, the CEO Blog and Poverty Reduction Blog provide insight into the complex and challenging work of executing billions of dollars of international aid with a staff capped at 300. External stakeholders are waving the 2.o flag and sharing MCC content for the world to see. I believe MCC’s web property is fast becoming a popular and effective way to not only educate, but engage constituents from many perspectives. At the very least, odious SEO jockeys think so.

MCC has undoubtedly made strides toward the Gov 2.0 goal line, but I posit that more can be done. MCC can and should engage the international development online community to not only increase awareness, but to harness their collective intelligence in addressing difficult challenges. The blogs and ERR models are a great step forward, but it is almost transparency for transparency’s sake. Use that transparency to foster a community that not only talks to you, but more importantly, interacts with each other to solve your problems.

• What if instead MCC’s blogs expressed various internal perspectives and gathered external feedback on something like Google’s lobbying to include ICCR obligations in their funding determination?
• What if MCC publicly embraced a pre-existing development professional social network, another development agency, and a professional services firm to orchestrate insight around common problems from otherwise disconnected perspectives?
• What if MCC implemented an idea market for to determine funding priorities of US taxpayer dollars or innovate on solutions to what must be the daunting challenge of breaking new ground in the development world?

With private sector examples of the value of crowdsourcing like the Goldcorp Challenge, it is easy to see the potential crossover into Government 2.0. As a government corporation with an emphasis on operating like a business, MCC is well positioned to realize those same benefits for US taxpayers.