In spring 2006, after becoming chief information officer at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), I created a one-page, bulleted list of priorities and presented it in many forums inside and outside of the department. Various DOT stakeholders gave me feedback on these priorities, which I used for, among other things,modifying the list itself.
The original version of my fifth bullet (added in 2007), Government 2.0, said:“Exchange information in a consistent format and easy-to-access manner with key external and internal stakeholders, in particular the American public.” During one of my presentations, a senior official said they really liked the priority list, but could I change the beginning of the Government 2.0 bullet to “Exchange accurate information …”My response was that I was open to suggestions, but that the resulting bullet would be a lie.That is, the entire nature of the value of Government 2.0, in some sense, contradicts concerns over predictability, consistency, and accuracy for which we normally strive. In fact, the implications of Government 2.0—or, as it is sometimes called,Web 2.0— are more profound, and it will inevitably influence government, whether we plan for it or not.
The problems with my initial version of Government 2.0 were much broader than just the decision to insert or not insert the word “accurate.”Government 2.0 represents a better and more robust way of achieving timely and creative interaction with our stakeholders, in particular the American public. The federal government is using it more every day. The implementation of Government 2.0 raises numerous policy questions that will need to be addressed to take full advantage of the available capabilities.
FreePint Shop:
VIP LiveWire:
