“I will have to send you the tracker.”

“We have developed a tool that helps us track things.”

“You have the wrong version of the tracker.  I am sending a new one out now.”

“Did you get the tracker I sent last night?“

Ugh. Head butt me with a barbed wire bust of myself. I really do have a visceral reaction to the word “tracker”. It pains me greatly. I immediately have nightmarish visions of being buried alive under reams of awkwardly-printed spreadsheets. I peer up out of my Office-borne grave while a lifesize Excel icon cackles madly and continues to shovel.  No thanks (unnamed) friends (quoted above). Keep your trackers. I’m opting for sanity.

Seemingly, the act of “tracking” things is important. But the tool of choice for execution is almost always an utter failure. I mean no disrespect to the people I have come to know that use these tools. For the most part you work off inertia, inheriting endless scrolling and eye-scratching color schemes from some former POC. You toil madly to maintain the false reality of “up to date”, applying cryptic file naming conventions that no one understands but you, all the while crushing your co-workers’ email with multiple meg attachments replete with animated gifs and 18pt Comic Sans. Super. Please send more.

I thunk on this for a while and tried to figure out what about this practice bothers me so much. Here’s what I came up with:

1. The information is never current. Never. The sheer mechanics of emailing requests, receiving and consolidating information, and then sending out again is too slow to keep up with the velocity of life. Every time I get a tracker briefed to me, there are always caveats that x,y, and z, have changed since the time of publication. Alrighty then. So what’s the point? Thanks for letting me know what life was like last week.
2. The information is presented in the way the “collector” believes to be logical, understandable, and efficient. Unfortunately, this thesis is rarely true for anyone else. There are discrete professions dedicated to making information consumable and meaningful. 99 times out of 100, you are not one of these professionals. Therefore your use of color, presentation, and the basic tenets of usability are about as informed as my understanding of dairy farming or snake handling. (I love me some Dirty Jobs, but you definitely don’t want me to milk anything.)
3. Spreadsheets are great for accounting. But drop dead awful for faking workflow or including narrative. Creating columns to be filled in with dates that signify actions is not only the technological equivalent of building a house with an shoe-last celt, but completely ridiculous for conveying current status. And don’t get me started on narrative. Spreadsheets can handle a word or two here and there, but if I have to read another center-aligned, 6pt font excerpt in cell AZ154 I am going to blow a major artery.

So what is the alternative you ask? Simple:

Anytime you think you might need to track something with inputs from multiple people, say one word out loud: WEB-BASED. Start there and you will probably be miles ahead of where you are today.  I am a big fan of Confluence and JIRA for things like this but there are literally thousands of applications out there that will remove you from the hellish existence of spreadsheet trackers.

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.

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.

As I stare out of my hotel window at the aged, white boxes of the Amman skyline submersed in the passing clouds, my thoughts wander to my latest assignment. I am in Jordan to start a project focused on merging three separate IT organizations into a single, private, shared service provider. During the upcoming years, a team comprised of expatriate and local consultants will aim to build the people, processes, and technologies of a government ministry toward world-class standards. 

The project began with the age-old tradition of gathering all of the soon to be affected for a kickoff meeting. Slowly they arrived in a room sized for triple the number invited, cautious not to sit to close the front, to the back, to the other departments. With some jovial goading from the presenter, the crowd eventually moved toward the first row. I stood at stage right, watching the fluctuating social dynamics ripple through audience, attempting my best “I am here to help” face.

The meeting went as all kickoff meetings go. There was a presentation that by all accounts was a touch too long, followed by pointed questions with answers that were a touch too short.  However, the overall theme of the project was presented in no uncertain terms. The change you asked for, and need in order to function, begins today.

Just as the integrity of buildings and roads is tested during a rare storm in Amman, this emerging IT department will also undergo a unique and infrequent event that tests their mettle. The change they seek will not come without the equivalent of leaky windows being exposed or unplanned infrastructure causing floods. As a fellow “IT guy” who has done his fair share of trench work, I can understand what my brothers and sisters are going through. Change is hard. Change can be painful. But change is necessary. Change must happen in order to survive. 

We think Enterprise 2.0 can help. Is your organization ready for the rain? 

He asks me this as I blink into the unbelievably bright sunlight filtering through the eerily still, gauze-like drapery and curls of smoke rising slowly from his cigarette. During the time it has taken him to ask this question, I have been served what seems like my 12th cup of tea and he has answered a cell phone call, signed a requisition for a printer, and seemingly fired someone. I am somewhat distracted.

“Have you ever heard of Facebook?” I say, cautiously waiting to tip my E2 hand.

He chuckles, lights another cigarette, and adjusts his position in the comically oversized chair. His squint and deep drag of the Marlboro Red fronts his clear contemplation of whether his amusement/annoyance is caused by my youthful response or my youth itself.  I am used to the reaction, having added the translation of “very young” to my limited Arabic lexicon long ago. Despite the incredulity of my question, he bites.

“Facebook…very popular. Is this your solution?”

“Somewhat. Seems to me a vibrant, online community of practice dedicated to the open exchange of ideas and problem solving between the private and public sector would be more valuable than a survey with respect to collecting economically significant information about disparate constituents of the IT industry. How accurate do you think your survey data is?”

The half finished cigarette is put out. Barely visible but ultimately unnerving beads of sweat appear on my forehead. He leans in, looks at my business card again and smirks a bit. In a good way, but a smirk nonetheless. On the fence is better than out the door.

“Interesting…Go on,” he says, eyeing the ever increasing delta on the clock between my scheduled end time and now.

“Imagine a website where individuals executing within an IT discipline can connect, discuss common questions, find answers, and establish an online reputation. In the same way you think about Facebook using social means for social ends, this community would leverage social means for professional ends. Furthermore you forget the silos of government, private sector, and academic institutions and drive the community around the focal point of practice. Tupac lived the ‘Thug Life’. Well this is the ‘IT Life’. Topics ranging from daily troubleshooting to industry mobility can be surfaced and addressed at the personal level, before they reach the departmental or ministerial level.”

He orders me another beverage to make my daily tea count an even baker’s dozen. It’s 11:17 in the morning. I am convinced that I can flap my arms fast enough to opt for the aerial route back to the office. Despite my teeth performing jumping jacks from the caffeine, I know he is sold with his next question.

“What do I get from this website?”

I pause. Mostly for effect. Partly scrambling for an answer.

“You get more and better information about the IT industry than was ever possible with a survey.”

Another pause. I lean in. Mostly for effect. Partly because my spine is going numb. I go on.

“Each participant in the community must register to participate. You ask some very basic questions to establish a profile and learn a bit more about the user. Nothing too difficult or overbearing, but enough to create a baseline. As they interact with the community, two things will happen. One, their content is rated and they ascend to arbitrary levels of expertise within the IT community. Two, you can analyze whether their stated area of expertise is congruent with their demonstrated area of expertise. Next time you want to analyze the industry, you mine the profiles according to your desired parameters. Spot trends, focus growth initiatives, identify sub-industries ripe for foreign investment or impending unemployment. As the system advances you may want to consider only mining the profiles of users at a certain reputational level. This way you will get seemingly more accurate data, as verified by the community at large. Seems to me this would be way more valuable than a survey with limited participation and unverifiable results.”

He puts his cigarette out. I finish my last gulp of tea. A minion of sorts escorts in the next meeting party. We both stand. He reaches across the table to shake my hand, lowers his voice and asks a question.

“What do you call this concept?”

I smile and proudly state “We call it Enterprise 2.0.”

He smiles as well. “You have my support”.

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.

I digress…back to the ones and zeros…

As my French friend is contemplating my financing of his next vacation, I started to think about the possible connections between recent press on Wal-Mart’s buyer blogging, my post about transparent development, and Jay’s post about sound corporate blogging. And henceforth the following idea came to mind:

Buyer blogging for government. More specifically, stakeholder blogging for donor-funded international development work.

In the same vein that Wal-Mart’s buyers are openly sharing opinions as to the quality or usefulness or value or whatever of consumer products, what if recipient countries, government contracting officers, or implementing partners could openly blog about their project experiences? Couple this with an exposed representation of project execution and I believe you start to truly realize transparent government. It would almost be like a preemptive FOIA request.

While MCC has taken a novel step (for a US Government Agency) with their CEO blog, they may suffer from the same early criticism Wal-Mart did for their Working Families for Wal-Mart efforts.

“Critics dismissed both as thinly veiled extensions of Wal-Mart’s P.R. department, and Wal-Mart shut them down The lesson seemed clear: create an authentic blog or don’t create a blog at all…” (NYT)

By expanding the scope of their blogging to project managers and recipient country stakeholders, MCC has solid ground to stand upon when defending burn-rate criticisms. Well, at least their defense is less “tell”, and more “show”.

Interestingly enough, I think my industry may institute a widespread fear-mongering campaign in response to something like this. Similar to the irritation of Wal-Mart suppliers, the massive government consulting machine might look unfavorably upon government contracting officers openly discussing their inability to execute a project or the latest empty solution. Perhaps if professional services firms were to seriously think about decaying IP combined with sound blogging policies, the government wouldn’t be unpleasantly surprised by “proprietary incompetence”? Expectation management is consulting 101. If you are a transparent consulting firm, the government will know what they are getting in advance. By extension, if they knew what they were getting in the first place, they have little ground to stand upon when complaining about it later. Maybe you wouldn’t have even been hired in the first place? (Sacre bleu!)

I assume there are multiple legal reasons this is impossible, but I still think it is a neat idea. What do you think?

It seems to me that there has been some difficulty in convincing western businesses/governments of the “value” of social networks. Multiple bloggers far more savvy than I, have taken a crack arguing for and against but at the end of the day, I get the feeling people are still waiting for a tipping point. Maybe it’s the right tool? Maybe it’s generational? Maybe it’s cultural? All could be true (and probably are), but so what? Jumping those hurdles sounds like it might take some time. How do you operationalize social software, within the context of business or agency now?

My answer…Pick a business model that 1) already determines success and failure by the strength and pervasiveness of social ties, 2) consistently blurs the lines between personal and professional life, and 3) could care less about competency or “SMEness”. Focus on empowering this existing business model with social software and let them do what they do best. Socialize. There may be at the end of the day, some uptick in traditional value metrics, but who cares? They certainly don’t.

Typically, the Ministries I have worked with in the developing world are relatively high-context organizations. If I had a nickel for every project status meeting I sat through which consisted of nothing more than tea-drinking and pleasantries, I could buy Larry Ellison’s boat. Well…maybe the dinghy. Nonetheless, that’s a serious amount of nickels. I have spent an inordinate amount of time explaining the value of the financial management system I am there to implement (or whatever), but without fail it is consummately greeted with a smile, a nod, and a refill on my tea. (“That’s nice sir, more sugar?”)

The pace at which these projects progress is slow. Like plate tectonic slow. Almost imperceptible the human eye. But honestly, it seems to me that they could usually care less. As long as we are drinking tea, talking about respective families, chatting about the weather, the project status dashboard is all green. In fact, if I do a good enough job hamming it up, they tend to regard me as a hands-down expert on all things IT. (Now you and I know that this is hyperbole at best, but who could deny such a compliment? “Why thank you kind sir, and yes, more sugar please.”)

My problem or frustration is that I come from the world of different metrics. I consider an encounter with my counterparts to be a success or failure based on how much we accomplished, not how much better we know each other at the end. I look around the Minsitry and I am confounded as to how there are so many people working there who are clearly unqualified. But none of that matters in these places. It is all about who you know, how long you have known them, and how much they know about you. That is power. That is the business model. This is where social software within the enterprise can and will thrive almost immediately.

This world of different metrics may be a stumbling block to true adoption in the US, but should be embraced and fostered in environments where social ties are questionably the most important thing one can have. Give Ministry X some form of internal Facebook, and you become a water walker. Not to mention the fact that understanding those social ties would help me immensely in trying to achieve my goals of figuring out who actually runs the IT Department or who the real Director of Accounting might be. Google thinks understanding these ties is valuable. I tend to agree. Even more so in places where not much else matters.

I pondered this predicament, read (and agreed with) the MCC CEO’s response, and got to thinking…Hmmm…what could help this situation? I understand international development work. I understand technology (debatable). Surely, there is a solution out there…

How about large-scale reporting on the progress of development efforts within the recipient countries? Maybe…but that sounds like a harrowing “enterprise business intelligence” implementation. Not my first choice, as I tend to share the opinion of 37singals on those sorts of things.

How about modifying the structure of the organization to better “shift our focus and speed implementation of those Compacts”? (Compact Implementation = spending money). Perhaps…but without changing a sound and innovative business model, isn’t this mere optics? No matter how HQ draws the org chart, insightful, measured, and sustainable development work, properly executed in the hands of recipient countries does (and should) take time.

Hmmm…

What could it possibly be?

<tick>

<tock>

<tick>

Eureka! I say that Enteprise 2.0 (shocker) is part, if not all, of the answer. Specifically, I posit that just as Jeff Bezos told Amazon, MCC should “aggressively expose themselves”. MCC has already taken a step in the right direction with Ambassador John J. Danilovich’s CEO blog. As the head of a government agency not only is this blog a superb way to tell the story behind the numbers, but it appears he is part of a very limited crowd using this medium. So why not take this a step further and expose all of MCC. Take the next logical step and use the creation of rich online communities, comprised of recipient country stakeholders, MCC project managers, US taxpayers, and contracted consultants to bring the complexities of international development work out of the bureaucratic closet and into the light of transparency.

The “Part” Answer – Pick a singe project, from a single compact and use something like Jive’s Clearspace X to expose and possibly crowdsource a component of the work. As the project progresses, the challenges of difficult development work are not only exposed to the public as rationale for the perceived slow burn rate, but possible solutions may arise from people not directly assigned project work. If MCC invests in the community, the community will invest in them.

The “All” Answer – Expose everything and transform MCC into the fabled “completely transparent organization”. Through the encouragement of pervasive stakeholder participation, the exposition of development work may result in a shift away from the traditional (yet flawed) metric of $ spent = success. Instead, success is measured based on richness of community, contribution to other communities, better, faster, cheaper problem solving, and finally the undeniable proof that MCC’s low headcount leverage model is a novel and viable approach to development work.

If MCC were to further embrace the tenets of Enterprise 2.0, I believe they stand an excellent chance to use their business model to not only change the way development work is accomplished, but also the basis by which its success is measured.