From the Memorandum: Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.
Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions by driving greater expertise into policymaking. The participation thread will explore how the Directive can make it possible to enhance participation in government decision-making.
Topics may include:
At the [Agency], we are planning to hold a "Data Visualization Contest" to promote use of our data and our future APIs. We are aware of a few examples in government: EPA held a radon testing awareness video contest and the DC government held a data mashup contest. However, we would love to hear about more examples of (and especially lessons learned from) similar contests others have held in the government.
Also NAPA, OMB, GSA ran the Health IT National Dialogue last year. Canada ran Habitat Jam awhile back.
I'd encourage a constrained big event - From May 1 - May 8, U.S. Gov't is looking for your participation on X. We've coordinated with libraries for Internet access and schools to engage students/etc. At the end, we will do X.
Look what Google did for their 10th anniversary. They ran a similar contest that was pretty successful. Change.org ran a pretty successful program to get ideas from the public as well.
The directive could require each agency to do a certain amount of outreach online. Sort of like the regulations requirements. And townhall/outreach requirements in city and county government.
We are planning to encourage the public to participate in the planning much earlier than that so that we can get meaningful and useful input. Can GovLoop help there as well? Also if you have ideas for public events relating to the issuance of the directive, i.e. like the contest idea you're proposing, those are great as well.
[Name] - Yep. I like the idea of involving the public in the planning but I would keep the planning stage more low-profile (put up a site - and send it around to GovLoop, TechPresident, and it will go viral to the right people in the public who get it). And then a big push when the memo is released.
GovLoop can help - whatever you need, [Name] Plus, there's a great volunteer army of passionate gov't innovators on the site that would be good to tap into and [GovLoop] can be your free viral marketing campaign.
If you haven't already, check out Gov 2.0 Barcamp - may be a good source of ideas as well when it happens March 27-28.
As far as public events related to the issuance of the directive, I have a couple ideas:
1) I'd launch something probably with a 3rd party (like OMB did with NAPA on Health Care Dialogue, or maybe Sunlight, or a bunch of them).
2) Possibly team with media - like CNN did with Facebook for last night's talk. I'm not sure limitations here on procurement/etc - but maybe leverage some of the media groups and tech companies (facebook, google, linkedin, etc)
3) I'd coordinate with some association that oversees the libraries and schools. The digital divide questions always come up so you need to provide a good answer - libraries and schools are the answer. Plus, it would be a great to have teachers have their classes submit ideas in as part of their day.
4) How about some actual townhalls (maybe 4 cities or so) where we combine online and in person? So we take the in person feedback and in real-time we'll be adding it to the contest/feedback site.
Like the passion-driven citizen engagement described in Tapscott's Wikinomics, there is tremendous interest from the Gov 2.0 community in creating our future government. Regarding Government 2.0 Camp that you mentioned, [Name], we can barely stop the signups. The voracious interest and excitement highlights a market need for this type of discussions. Those late to the party are now clammoring to buy their way into the discussion through paid sponsorships.
Government 2.0 Camp is really just meant to provide a platform for participant-shaped discourse. Unconferences are a tool for "convening the tribe." However, over the past two weeks there have been a series of discussions percolating on blogs about how to make Government 2.0 Camp a more objective-driven event that has a more "advanced level" of discussion around many of the same themes that we are discussing here on this wiki.
As we are experiencing here on this wiki, a lot can be done online, but the unconference format may prove to be another good tool for gathering very specialized but cross-agency communities for focused problem-solving. I'd love to help champion this type of collaboration, if I can be of assistance.
The intensive networking investigation I've done over the past two years, after hours and on rainy Sunday mornings with my Avatar companion [Name], has convinced me of the exact conclusions you reveal here. The width and depth of the network garden is as varied and brilliant as any in nature. Just as there is no single solution or favorite method that has all the functionality needed to address the thirst for collaboration, so it is true that all methods, in a mix of time and place and URL and SLURL, come together for a meeting of the tribe. The almost overwhelming power of this was demonstrated on January 20th in the glow of a mixed event of unprecedented size and complexity. On the sober side, this going to be very hard. Let's do this thing.
Let [Name] know if the Federal CPIC Forum can help - [Federal CPIC Forum has] well over 100 members who push information out within their agencies and companies, and friends - and [they] also have a direct outreach to close to 7500 IT program managers and project managers, and multiple web sites. It's all there to use if you want it.
The part of the Tranceparency and Open Govt memo that talks about "public participation in policy making" is perhaps the most intriguing part of the entire memo to me. I think this also provides the most challenges in that this is often a closed process with the exception of clearly visible "ask for comments" periods that most citizens don't know about and probably wouldn't know what to do even if they did know about them. However we end up doing this for the Directive, I think we have to recognize that this being a "first run", we won't be doing it in an optimal way. The long term question is whether and how specifically we can do this for initial language from congress, OMB guidance, and agency directives.In short, what is the potential range of possibilities that we could engage the citizens, and then what is necessary to place in the directive in order to allow the agencies to get close to that range.
Regarding ideas for engaging the public in early engagement of the drafting of the policy I think there are a number of tools to consider. Most importantly, considering the time constraints and issues with government barriers, I wouldn't restrict this to government only sites.Bottom line, let the innovation in the marketplace help you. For early imput (like in the next few weeks), I might suggest:
As you move forward with consolidating thoughts, I would suggest making the actual OMB directive process crystal clear to folks by making an graphic workflow map, where each step in the process is described, along with how the public can participate, or a rationale of why they cannot participate in that step. Again, a fine rationale is, "We haven't figured out how to include you in this portion yet." Considering government officials rarely say something like that, just imagine the trust such a comment might build!
The challenge comes in gathering input to later drafts. Really, the blog-based approach with twitter streams is probably the best for gathering comments, but if you do the Directive Workflow map properly, you could make that workflow step page interactive as the process moves forward. You could also explain your rationale behind the decisions at each step. Just important as the final language is the actual intent. This will help both the public and the agencies in understanding what is involved.
Similarly, it would be great if the agencies could be involved in this process with similar sites that allowed the public to comment on what information they wanted access to, important priorities and so forth, but that's probably a separate post.
I'd love to be able to directly embed YouTube videos here in the comment feed, but I guess I'll be satisfied with a link. I put this short piece of machinima together late last year using the virtual world Second Life to highlight why I thought it was important to engage the public using social media. It feel like the video might fit well into this converstation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj5G4XsCT34
Thank you, [Name]! This video looks great - I will watch it tonight.
FYI, I just saved the URL to my Delicious site, so that [Name], a [Agency] instructional designer who often trades bookmarks with me, will see it. Delicious helps me tag and organize bookmarks for leadership development and other research and writing, making them available (publicly or privately) from any PC. If you want to go look, the username is [Name]. It's now unblocked at work - a major relief. [Name]
Thanks [Name]
I'm "[Name]" on most networks. Case in point: http://delicious.com/[URL fragment]
Ooh, swapping del.icio.us IDs.... mine is http://delicious.com/[URL fragment]
Hi [Name], I forgot what a good video that is. Have you connected to Munigov.org yet? You may be interested in this intergovernmental group is doing in SL. Fed, state local and international members. [Name]
Hey [Name], no I haven't! Thanks for the link, I'll get connected! Perhaps they would be interested in joining the "Real Life Government in Second Life" group we started?
That is a good idea. I have been working to get [Name]'s group involved with then. MuniGov is going to do a poster session for their conference in April. The MuniGovCon09 Web 2.0 conference will be in their space and Paulette is doing part of a panel discusssion in the online conference. We are trying to get new people involved by having tutorials where people can come to get help. We had the first one today for 3 hours which was well attended.
You need to connect with [Name] We need to continue the network connections to break down the silos between governments. There is so much we can share. I am [Name] inworld.
We are hoping to do inworld informational conferences on a regular basis. The MuniGov group meets every Wednesday night in SL and it has been a great experience for me. I feel like I know these people the same as if we met in my [Agency] building weekly.
[Name], drop an LM on me when you get a chance. I'm [Name] in-world. I've sent you a friendship request. :)
Generally through Federal Register notices (for significant rules changes) or through email following an announcement (for less significant issues). It's very ineffecient, espeically given the compexity of the Federal Register site. Maybe it's me, but I personally have trouble using that site, and I'm a government employee. I think it must be designed for lawyers. not citizens.
By the way, I really liked the concepts used b the Obama CTO site, which I believe is based on the Starbucks Ideas site. I'd like to see more of that type of capability, espcially inside the firewall for our employees. For me it's about resources, resources, resources. Even then though, our workforce is extremely dispersed and much of them are line inspectors inside commercial facilities without signficant computer access. So, we have to solve the problems of access before we can expect to really increase the use of the intranet inside the firewall to the level a commercial company would.
At TransparencyCamp09 (http://transparencycamp.org), many really great discussions emerged over how to enable citizens to participate in policy making. It became clear that the "low hanging fruit" is to get them fully engaged at the very beginning of the process, prior to the statues being written or updated. Because every agency has a fairly formal and often closed process of policy development (often for very good reasons), it will take some real thought to figure out where the generalized intersects should be that we bring citizens in to agency directives and instructions (or OMB circulars) development. Internal to the agency, the notion of "Beta" policy options being floated while the policy is still in the informal coordination process was one that made some sense.
One idea that emerged to address the low-hanging fruit of the upfront process really built off of the same thought the DoDTechipedia solves - the issue is one of giving the congressional staffers access to dramatically more information when they are engaged in the policy development version of market research. Posing the use case, the problem goes something like this:
What if as an additional resource, groups in the public pulled together to create a "fantasypolicy-development.org" site (hopefully they pick a better name), which allowed citizens and interest groups from across the nation to participate in wiki-like fashion (along with discussion areas and polling areas similar to http://whitehouse2.org) in crafting policies to address clearly laid out problems. Similar to how DoDTechipedia is organized around technology areas, this site could be organized around content areas that corresponded to the Federal Agencies. This site could have an easy mashup that automatically shows the existing statute for that content area so that citizens can quickly see the difference.
If such a site were created and gained critical mass, when the staffer's clock turned on to develop draft policy, they might notice that the public has already commented extensively on that issue, and might already have their version of a white paper (or papers) written to aid the staffer similar to how the lobbyists already do this.
The best part of all this is this system would sit completely outside the government - the government would neither need to fund it, nor would it be constricted with current rule sets. The ONLY issue would be to ensure that both staffers, representatives and agency personnel could come to this site and participate in a fact finding method. As long as the staffer could ask fact finding questions along the line of, "Representative A asked us to look into crafting policy in to address the following problem. I have some questions about the nature of the problem and want to solicit ideas about possible solutions...".If we use the OpenID idea below to ensure that all Federal personnel are publicly listed as actual authenticated personnel, I'm sure we could come up with a governance structure that would be workable.
Incidentally a congressional staffer was in the room when this idea was discussed, and appeared absolutely thrilled at the idea. She told everyone she was not allowed to state positions there but indicated in no uncertain terms that she thought that was a terrific idea - one that would help her. She also seemed to fully agree with the use case posed above.
Bottom line, this is a low hanging fruit because we could let folks in the transparency community know that they can start working on this today if they wanted. It doesn't cost us anything and could very likely lead to dramatically better citizen participation up-front in the policy creation process. In fact, it wouldn't be surprising to see many sites like this crop up - as long as everyone "knows" that government personnel can look at this, and can participate at some level, the citizen will clearly see themselves involved shaping the broad outlines of the policy.
This same idea could be used for program implementation evaluations. So for instance, when we revisit S-CHIP in a few years, perhaps there already could be a thriving online discussion involving state and local healthcare policy makers, for instance - [Agency] wouldn't have to pay to set this up, but could participate. Doing it this way also gets around the problem of citizens not being allowed to provide free work to the agency - in this case the citizens self-organize and the govt also gets the benefits.
Saying this another way, today's Washington Post article asked the question, "When do you insert the public comments portion into the bill?" If we go with the approach above, the answer becomes, "The public helps craft the initial language and rationale 'for' the bill, before its even written."
The concept of asking the public for input, feedback, observation, etc., on any issue, prior to policy making or decision making is going on all the time, on the web and in face-to-face 'town hall' meetings. The change discussed here, and in the other conversations in this community, is about providing 'ready to wear' tools, sites, venues for agencies, and any part of the government, that are easy to set up, have ways to publicize and get out the word, and can show results. Web 2.0 (for lack of a less convenient term) has all the stuff necessary. Ning or a government-built type of network Content Management System (i.e., a public, outside the wall MAX type) can provide the venue for authorized users to build a Group, or Network, complete with user registration, profiles, forums, friend networks, internal sub-groups, blogs, all within the venue, totally public for each issue, large or small. Once this base is established, staff or interested users can twitter, outside blog, comment on other sites to get the word out that comments, etc., are being requested and you can go 'here' to put in your thoughts.
The key for all this is to establish policy to allow receipt of public information and capture of profile information on a website, appropriate disclaimers to let people know that they are commenting on a public website and their information may be repeated, and also that abuse will be removed and users blocked, etc. This is Standard Use Policy on most of the Social Networks, so it should not be too hard to capture and modify for our use.
BTW, this MAX Community (OpenGov), and the shout outs on GovLoop, the Web Content Managers Forum, the Colaboration Project and many others about the Open Gov Directive are doing this right now.
Absolutely agree that there are many methods of gathering public input. I also agree that the technology is robust enough to do whatever we want, and that there are really good examples of various slices out there. We certainly have updated DoDTechipedia in NAPA's Collaboration Project write-ups, and I love seeing the local, state and Federal participation in the Ning GovLoop site (I can't comment on the Web Content Mgrs forum because I don't have access to it but I hear lots of great things about it). But this hasn't solved the situational awareness problem for staffers, nor has this fully opened up participation in front-end policy making to the average citizen. We certainly have a wide swath of interest groups across the political spectrum with online presences that create and disseminate policy positions on lots of issues. This is somewhat different from what I'm referring to above.
The interesting thing to me about the Whitehouse2 site is that it has set work flows embedded in it that mimic some aspect of the policy prioritization process. We can envision a front-end version of this for Congress that might allow citizens (as well as agency and legislative personnel) to post a set of problems (which would be tagged and shared), and potential wiki-based, editable language to address those. Various types of voting and highlighting mechanismsInterest groups could participate in this, but what I think is important is to make a site like this inviting to the average citizen who just has an area of concern and wants to participate on sharing it. Just from discussing this at TransparancyCamp, part of the critical part according to many is that folks from Congress actually participate in such a system.
And whether we have one or two of these, or a different one for every issue, as long as we solve the situational awareness problem for congressional staffers in a way that the citizens contribute, I think success is fairly easy here.
[Name], tell us a bit more about what you mean by the "situational awareness problem for congressional staffers". How can we influence/incentivize the culture and behaviors you would like to see?
Hi [Name], situational awareness in this context means that there is lots more going on in the area their legislation covers than the staffers can ever cover within the time requirements they are given. The better we are in quickly giving them them a comprehensive sense of eveyrone's concerns suggestions, the more likely we are in getting a better draft upfront. In instances where they have a long time to chew on an idea, ask questions from lots of people over time and then craft legislation, they will do fine. The concern comes when an issue jumps to a hot-button concern that the subcommittee or congressperson wants to address quickly. Then they are given a timeframe to come up with draft legislation. Fairly quickly after that the draft legislation goes into a more formal process for accepting comments and changes. For instance, at least in the [Agency] world, a draft authorization report will be provided to congressional affairs offices in [Agency], who then have the ability to go back with formal requests or responses. While we certainly need to look at ways of getting the citizens more involved in every part of the upfront process, the thought here is if the staffer can instantly start working with the public citizen at the same time and just as easily as they work with the interest groups already on the hill, their ability to access
From the citizen's perspective, the goal is to allow them to "get in the game" before the legislation is written. This also has the side-effect of giving the staffer a comprehensive resource set that gets them off the ground quicker. Opencongress.org and whitehouse2.org are both great tools that move in this direction. Opencongress.org allows citizens to see all the pieces of legislation that relate to an issue they are interested in, the position their representatives and senators have if they play in that space. The step I think that would make these approaches really improve situational awareness is when citizens can write white papers (in wiki form or by themselves) for and the set of outstanding issues and problems still facing that area that staffers and agency personnel can question and comment on. If you have an environment like this, when a short turn-around issue is presented, the staffer can turn to these communities and pose the same question their representative asked them - literally they could say, "here are the representatives' goals and end-state desire, what do you think is needed here in terms of language and ideas?"
[Name], you bring up a number of important points in your post. It would be great if you could flesh out the current policy barriers to the receipt of public information, capture of profile information on a website, etc... The more specificity with which we pinpoint the problem, the better we can address those problems in the Directive and/or other future initiatives.
I believe we have the policies and disclaimers in place to enable the capture of information about users, and the MAX Privacy and Security page - OMB Website Privacy and Security Policy is sufficient, as long as we take care of the Records, FOIA, and other policies concerning this type of information.
What is lacking, or not fully addressed, is the Information Security policy or Network Management configuration that embraces the technology driving these Web 2.0 Collaboration and Participation tools, as a consistent Standard Configuration across the Federal Community. Since I am a Web 2.0 / 3D proponent and an ISO, I was asked to chair a panel last Spring at our agency's Operations and Security Conference, which included Eric Hackathorn (NOAA) and other experts on the questions within my agency about InfoSec issues with Virtual World venues like Second Life, and Interactive Web systems based on the LAMP (Linux - Apache - MySQL - PHP) networking appliances.
It is not that the policies need revising, but that the Federal IT Infrastructure community must be enlightened, and encouraged to expand current practices and network configurations to include these 2-way technologies in a robust and secure way. That is what the Open Gov Directive must communicate to the IT Infrastructure side of the agency organizations. Of course, this must be reflected in the radical revision of the way IT is funded. In many agencies, IT is not a budget line item, but expected to be paid for out of general support funding. IT often funding gets lost in the internal earmarks of senior management to fund their priorities, and IT usually has to make do with what is left. Or so I've heard.
Summary:
1. Information Collection Policies are in place.
2. Technology for Interactive Media (Web 2.0) needs to be part of the Fedral Standard Network Configuration (Like a Network version of the Federal Desktop Core Configuration FDCC).
3. IT Infrastructure must be funded to build the computing environment to support these tecnologies.
I'd like to extend the 3rd summary item. Web and/or communications resources (depending on how the organization is configured) must be funded to manage the collaborative/participatory environment that IT resources build. All of these systems need tending, feeding, promotion, or moderating, and many of our staffs are not funded to do these things without sacrificing other responsibilities. The Web and communications groups have as many or more budgetary limitations as IT. Many collaboration tools implemented without the tending they need go bust because of it.
In addition to some of the less structured forums (wiki's, blogs, etc.), which I think are great for generating dialogue, I also envision a targeted crowdsourcing option. Government agencies/offices/branches could post specific issues they are struggling with and let others help solve them.
There would be a top level domain (collaborate.gov?). Users with a .gov or .mil email address would be able post an issue they are working on. The poster would have three options regarding who could view and respond to the issue: 1) Only my Department/Agency (i.e. [Agency]); 2) Any government agency; 3) the general public. Some issues may only be relevant at the agency or federal level – others I may want the world to help me out.
Issues could be specific (what cataloging strategies work best to improve online document library searches?) to general (how can I get food aid into interior Chad?) to very broad (how can I better market my agency to Central America?). The benefit falls under 2 categories:
1) Not reinventing the wheel (i.e. the group in another agency that just created an online library).
2) Tapping the hidden expert (i.e. the PR executive who specializes in Central America and is willing to post some advice).
There could be a rating system where the more issues you help solve, the higher your rating would be – viewable to all users (depending on permissions set for the post) – think something like eBay's rating system.
TSA has on offshoot of this with their "Idea Factory". The main purpose of their initiative is to solicit feedback from employees, but they also have a feature where users can post "challenges" – issues they'd like the entire TSA community help them solve.
[Name] I'll direct you over to [this] blog:
http://hackshaven.com/2009/01/29/official-government-twitter-list/
How would I fix this situation? Allow government access to social networking sites and not restrict them by labeling them nothing more than fun and games.
There is some real truth to your last sentence. Both Young Government Leaders (YGL) and State/USAID Young Professionals (YPro) started with happy hours in 2003. More about that at here. In both cases, once people's relatedness needs were met, they started working on ways to improve government - on their own time. That's an incredible, yet fairly common phenomenon now, that's unrecognized and thus unleveraged by the Senior Executive Service. The lines between personal and work time blurred a long time ago, and people, policies and practices haven't caught up. On the other hand, computer security issues are real. Maybe there will have to be joint discussion about tradeoffs and resolution of issues before things can move. Is that a task for the CIO Council?
[Name], I believe we are all agreed that the power of Social Networking (that I translate into Knowledge Networking in my online global group) is real and extremely productive for diverse communities of collaborators, in the government and within public arenas. I have been an active evangleist for Web 2.0 and 3D for the past two years, mostly after hours and on weekends. Taking a tip from my UPS driver, who was perfroming his music in something called Second Life at night after delivering packages all day.
In SL I discovered that along with the games, that in the areas of music, education and science, there was an amazing phenomena of Reality Virtualized. Taking a few classes in SL quickly proved to me that this is real and powerful stuff, which is why there are so many Educators in SL. A mind-blowing visit to the NOAA venue was like my first and only visit to Disneyland in 1960, except that my digital '[Name]' call [Name] was able to ride on the wing of a Hurricane chasing plane, or walk among Realtime Weather on a map of the US. Later when my wife and I were visiting the local library, we happened to witness a NOAA volunteer citizen uploading his daily report of weather observations, and discovered that this form of participatory government fueled the wonderful interactive map I experienced in SL.
'You had me at W00t!' OK this is game changing stuff. I met [Name] in SL and 6 months later when my agency met in Denver for our annual Operations and Security Conference, I invited him to participate with me on a Real Life panel to discuss Information Security issues affecting Policies that restrict our use of this new powerful technology within our secure .gov networks. It was a very interesting introduction to the other side of my job, which is InfoSec.
My point here is that I believe that the January 21 OpenGov directive needs to add another prong or limb: A Government that operates in an Open Methodology , providing Transparency, Participation, and Collaboration, in a Secure environment. The question of Identity of those participating or collaborating is a real one (as discussed below in the next thread), and must be addressed.
My initial venture into Web 2.0 and Networks in the open sea of public sites was very cautious. In fact the very first ventures were established with the name of my dog, [Name] or the music loving [Name] in SL, in order to protect my real PII from the horrors of Identity Theft. As I slowly began to interface with others, I discovered that identity within a digital network, while easy to assume in a shallow way, could be verified by real knowledge. A 13 year old hacker from Des Moines (or 37 year old operative from North Korea) is not going to have any knowledge about Janis Joplin's early child hood in Port Arthur, Texas, as an extreme example.
While what we do 'in the office' can no longer be separated from our 24 hr occupation as career Feds, the question of security and identity must be addressed, by each of us individually and by our organizations collectively. But the reward is worth the effort. Working hard can be fun.
[Name at] DoD have been working on developing a wiki called DoDTechipedia that better connects government with its supplier base in a way that provides a level playing field for all small and medium sized companies to share awareness of their emerging technologies with DoD. The plan is to allow both government and industry to collaborate on the state of the art each key technology area. Additionally, [DoD] would like companies to have descriptions of their emerging technologies linked to the technology areas, with DoD Labs doing the same. This approach, in addition to some auxilliary applications we are working in conjunction to this has broached a number of policy concerns, including Privacy Act Concerns, information assurance concerns, records management concerns, public affairs issues, Paperwork Reduction Act, and General Council concerns. So this post won't grow too large I'll follow-up discussions on each of these in terms of how we are approaching them - let me know if you want more elaboration.
Public Affairs: In looking at most of the participatory social software in the Federal-wide space that faces the public, most all of it I've seen is really a public affairs voice - meaning you see blogs by the heads of agency or CIO for instance, giving officially vetted positions. We already have a process for doing this, but rarely do we see what I would term non-official, but still deliberative discussions occuring in the public space. In [Agency, they] have tons of "Industry Days" where critical but informal conversations between govt and industry reps happen.These conversations also happen via email and phone calls, but generally don't happen online. The question for social software implementation is how we enable non-official but deliberative discussions between government reps and the citizens to occur.
[Agency is also] creating a wiki geared at government to supplier-base interaction. Leveraging off the fact that [Agency] already allow[s] industry days where government and industry personnel engage in informal communications, the way [the Agency is] looking to get around the issue of requiring public affairs reviewing all government employee posts to a wiki page that updates the current state of wearable power technology, for instance, is to present the site as an "Industry Day that happens online, in perpetuity". [Agency] will have disclaimers on the site that state nothing here is the official position of the US Government - that this site should be seen as "deliberative, not authoritative." The resulting content (e.g., wiki pages) will be a compilation of edits made by both government and industry personnel. [Agency] will "not" have official subject matter experts overseeing the content to vet it for accuracy. If [Agency] did so, this would imply that [Agency] approve of it. This approach would result in public affairs not needing to be involved in a review cycle.
But again, the larger point that needs to be solved from a public affairs concern is how to allow government personnel at all levels engage in online collaborative discussions with sectors of the public. If they are giving official, authoritative advice, this necessitates a public affairs review. Our way around this is to offer up the notion of having deliberative, but not authoritative discussions online. To codify this, there should be policy that goes forward that lays out the rules of the road for having deliberative discussions online - this should include OGC vetted text that can appear in the footer of the page, etc.
Privacy Act Concerns: Because [Agency] are working a wiki that involves government to supplier-base interaction, [Agency] are still collecting points of contact information. [Agency] spent a good deal of time working out how to avoid the requirement to have a System of Records notice, a privacy impact assessment and the information assurance stuff that is necessary for hosting privacy act data. In our case, the way [Agency] got around this was by only collecting "company or organization information." In the case of small businesses, many of which might be run out of a garage, they may still use a john.doe@yahoo.com email account, for instance. But if when they sign up, they are posing themselves as a "Sole Proprietor" instead of as an individual, [Agency] aren't really collecting their personal data - [Agency] are collecting their company data - this doesn't fall underneath the privacy act. To make this visibly apparent, our sign-up form has "Organization POC name" and "Organization phone number" as lables, as opposed to asking simply for "Name" and "Phone Number." This approach works for anyone attempting to have a collaborative government-to-organization type relationship. GSA, for instance, might have a lot of these type potential collaborations when attempting to create new contract vehicle offerings.
While this solves our issue, from the larger standpoint of addressing Privacy Act concerns in government to citizen interaction, we should strongly consider leveraging the OpenID initiative (http://openid.net/). This is a free and easy way to use a single digital identity across a variety of internet sites. While this still requires more investigation to get the details, I would propose three ways the Federal Government should leverage this:
Records Management for Wikis/Blogs: [Agency] were able to get [the] oversight personnel in [Agency] to agree that Records Management policies do not apply to the external portion of [Project]. The rational is that 44 U.S.C Chapter 31, 3101 says that "...each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing...essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency's activities." Basic work products, which are all about working through issues, gathering information and so forth really don't apply.
Additionally, in the case of a wiki page, there is never a final end point, so how disposal procedures become problematic. Same thing with blog posts - while the blog is static, the conversation about the blog in the comments section can go on in perpetuity. Bottom line, how would you know when a blog post or comment on a blog is no longer a relevant part of the work product? The same rationale should also apply to Federal social networking sites like A-Space.
While we were able to get this argument through the oversight person, the question is whether everyone across the Federal government is operating under the same perspective. The solution is for the Transparency and Open Government directive to have a section on Records Management where it states that blogs and wiki pages are not considered to be essential transactions of the agency - that these work products do not apply.
[Name] - do you have any insight into how the Records Mgt policies might apply to Wikis used for collaboration on an acquisition? My thinking is that we (Gov) need to make major changes to our acquisition process, guidelines, regs, policies, laws, etc to improve acquisition efficiency, efffectiveness, reduce costs, increase transparency and collaboration, leverage work going on across government, improve outcomes, etc etc etc. I have been thinking through revised processes that include real time collaboration with industry on the front end of an acquisition - during requirements gathering and to develop SOWs and other acquisition related documentation. One way to do this would be to use a wiki of sorts where Gov could post documents and ask questions and enable industry to comment and also ask questions. And all could see the questions and answers (maybe wishful thinking on my part). Today, this part of the process is often done in a closed, linear fashion and is documented and made part of the official contract file. This would seem to imply that the Wiki or contents of the Wiki would need to become part of official records and probably subject to Records Mgt policies.
[Name] - NARA has guidance on how records management policies apply to emerging web technologies. This are somewhat flexible, as noted in their guidance and discussion, based on the individual agency records schedules and definitions of a record. My staff just had a discussion with NARA staff this morning on some training materials we share and we discussed how Advisory Committees (under the Federal Advisory Committee Act - FACA) maintain their records, including webcasts and wikis. From the FACA perspective, these are generally going to be a Federal record. Not sure about FAR related efforts. The NARA info is at: http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/initiatives/web-tech.html
Hi [Name], I think the key thing with records mgt is whether your website is really just a work product or whether its part of the "essential transactions of the agency." If, for instance, an internal wiki is used for procurement decision making, this to me sounds pretty much like an essential transaction, and probably is subject to records mgt policies. You could certainly imagine this being something that could be used in a protest, for instance. My guess though is wikis and blogs most often aren't the right tools for formal decision making processes, but certainly are useful in pre-solicitation information gathering in market research.
In line with that, [some believe DoDTechipedia] should be a government wide capability, not just a DoD capability. We see one of the really big problems with acquisition is one of situational awareness in the market research processes - this is what DoDTechipedia addresses. This is certainly pre-decisional in nature, and we think would lead to dramatic improvements in capability selection and better capability delivered faster to the warfighter. It certainly would include a lot of the questions you ask above, but would not be tied to a particular solicitation. As part of this solution, [DoD has] DefenseSolutions.gov in place to ask for innovative ideas from industry that [DoD] fund[s] via other transactions authorities. Incidentally, Congress agrees that this approach is needed, and helped prompt this with Section 881 of the FY2008 NDAA.
I'm sure everyone here knows the trouble that the PRA imposes on interactive web innovations. It imposes a burden to obtain any user-generated input. We can't even run a purely voluntary suggestion box or unobtrusive survey without getting approval that can take months. The result is that we often don't go to the trouble.
Solution: Define some guidelines for standard web applications that are pre-approved, for example: "Any online survey with fewer than 10 questions that does not record PII, does not pop-up for more than 5% of visitors, and that runs for one week or less is automatically approved."
I support accessibility, but let's be honest that in some cases Section 508 creates a lose-lose situation. We would have posted about 30 videos online of a major energy conference we held last year, but we did not have a budget for transcription. So instead, we posted nothing so that we wouldn't violate Section 508.
Solution: If the Library of Congress can get users to tag their thousands of photos on Flickr, then why can't we leverage the same people power to transcribe the Government's valuable videos? Partner with a nonprofit or for-profit company to design a tool that harnesses online users to transcribe videos one piece at a time. (ReCaptcha is currently transcribing 2,000,000 words from illegible books everyday!) Allow agencies to post untranscribed videos if they are plugged into the crowd-transcribing tool so they will become transcribed while online.
I second the PRA issue. Many of us want to do user-centered design. But the requirements to initiate interaction with citizens to do this kind of study is often prohibitive and adds to the cost of the project significantly.
Well, maybe not, [Name]. The prospect of starting up this kind of interaction from scratch is breathtaking, but maybe there's a way to leverage successful work that the EdFacts group has already done with all State-level education department partners. They're in the midst of multi-year work that is consolidating the "asks" for education performance data and addressing data quality issues. OMB/OIRA did an iterative planning process with ED's information collection clearance team and Performance Information Management Service, with constant input from the States. PIMS and the States are now implementing the plan, again through an iterative process. It's been an amazing feat to watch and I bet conversation with PIMS would generate lessons learned and some ideas.
I think there's a larger issue with the PRA - although I fully agree with PRA as a major inhibitor (I can go through these if interested, along with how we got around this for a public wiki) - it certainly has already stymied some of our efforts.The larger issue I would point to is the PRA codifies a very different view of government than what we are now envisioning. Perfect government in PRA-speak is really a one-way communication, where the only thing the government should be requesting of the public is what additional information it wants. The Transparency and Open Government memo talks about 2 way government, where we are actually engaging in participatory, collaborative activities as a normal course of operations. So much so that we are even asking the public for input into policy making and on how they can participate more.
In short, I would argue that the initial rationale for the PRA's existence is no longer valid. We no longer envision perfect government as one-way communication. The Transparency and Open Government advocates "burdening" the citizen in PRA speak - this is now the model we advocate. Time expended by the public in "generating, maintaining or providing information to or for a Federal agency" is a key part of participatory government.Furthermore, the notion of a collection of information, as defined in the PRA is no longer valid. Previously, collections of information (facts or opinions for reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons, or answers to questions posted to agencies) were part of a serial decision making process - one in which the process of gathering input truly was burdensome on both the citizen and the agency. Surveys, which used to be incredibly cumbersome, are now far more often quick hit question-answer-instant "public results" type things we see on every participatory website on the internet. Asking the same question to more than 10 people is no longer a "burden" in the sense it used to be.
In terms of a solution, I guess my thought here is that a band-aid might be necessary in the short term (such as OMB putting out a short-term waiver to PRA requirements), but the long term solution involves a significant revision to the statute. Even the solution set - OMB review - no longer makes sense. A far better method might be to connect like requests for information via RSS feeds, for instance. Or perhaps even to tag the survey questions so we automatically can aggregate them at the Federal level and immediately display the results to the public. In a social software powered model, the new revision of the PRA might automatically have all survey questions and "collections" aggregated in a way that OMB could review in real-time ALONG with the citizens - meaning the public itself should be deciding whether we are asking them for too much or duplicative information.
Just a follow-up to this, I had a conversation last night with a records manager friend who was in Florida in 1974 when the first Sunshine laws (transparency laws) were passed, and was later good friends with the woman in the Carter administration who drafted the bulk of the original Paperwork Reduction Act signed into law in 1980. I'll try to relay his perspective on this, but he would be happy to come talk to interested parties if they want a more comprehensive backing. But the jist of it was the PRA was re-authorized in 1995, but by this point an entirely new information technology world had taken root: Document Image Processing. The meaning of the word "form" really has diverged into two separate things now, both of which are still covered under the PRA.
1. Information which requires further processing and essential transactions (see records management comment above)
2. The "input template" that people use to fill out information that goes into a back-end data structure
If we separate these out, the first item still needs PRA oversight - this is part of the work of providing services for real information collections that the law was originally intended to address. This would be analogous to an insurance claim, that goes through a series of steps, ending in a decision of whether or not to accept or deny the claim.The section definition, the form as nothing more than an input template to feed a back-end data structure really didn't exist at the time the original law was past. This is the part that we get caught up on websites asking for satisfaction surveys, or instantaneous feedback fields, or simple input fields to start larger crowdsourcing efforts, for instance.
The solution in this sense would be for OMB to revisit the definition of the word "Form" to see what specifically they really need to be covering under the PRA. Just because the method used to capture the information is an input template shouldn't be the essential determiner - we should be focused on how that captured information is used and processed - and whether we are integrating these processes across agencies, not the input method.
EDIT: Just to clarify, the statute does actually mandate that voluntary information collections must also go through the PRA process. It would be a nice easy fix to just have OMB update its policy to say that voluntary stuff are not covered, but to do so, we still need to have an update to Title 44, Chapter 35, Section 3506 (c)(1)(B)(iii)(IV), which in talking about the person receiving the collection of information states that, "whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory...". This sort of indicates that voluntary information collections still constitute a burden (time, effort or financial resources expended by...). I think most would agree that voluntary collections should be seen more as a service or benefit (I can give examples of these, one of which has been stymied by the PRA) vice a burden. So while some interpretations like the forms interpretations, or perhaps a different view of the word "collection" can get us the openness and transparency needed, the longer term solution is still to codify the right thing in statute.
You're making a good point. See my Feb. 27 posting: the EdFacts collection is the innovative product of a lengthy dialogue about this very thing with the States and OMB/OIRA. That's one reason why I thought it would be useful to explore leveraging that experience and the ongoing relationships.
The Crowd-transcribing tool is a great idea, [Name]. I'd like to re-iterate the bureaucratic impediment caused by the PRA to agencies that are trying to employ the best practice of frequest, iterative usability testing. To test with non-Federal employees or over 9 public citizens requires and expensive herculean effort. [Agency] has addressed this problem by dragging that big bolder up the hill by gaining OMB permission to test thousands of people using a large-prepopulated list of questions. We desperately need a streamlined process that would allow usability testing and surveys that measure performance and satisfaction.
We also have data that we can not post because it is not Section 508 compliant. No doubt this is true in every agency.
While its innovative to ask the public to do the government's work, I suspect that doing so might not meet "best practices" in the acquisition, IT and privacy realms.
Regarding 508 - I am cross posting on this issue because it is important to address (also posted on collaboration).
Section 508 is tied to the FAR, and states that agencies (paraphrasing) may not buy or use non accessible electronic or information technology (E & IT) - unless doing so presents an undue burden.
Section 508 is also concerned with ensuring that a disabled person employed by the federal gov't can do their job - because the federal gov't uses accessible E & IT in the workplace.
If disabled federal employees can not accesss the social media sites - can't upload videos, can't create a Facebook profile, can't go on Second Life - aren't they at a disadvantage because they don't have a level playing field with the non-disabled federal employees? Maybe they won't be considered for a federal web position that requires oversight of an agency's web 2.0 activities? It seems so unfair to leave the disabled federal workers behind in this way.
Maybe the federal gov't could ask the social media community to work on a voluntary product accessibility template for social media? Something like what the Accessibility Forum did for E & IT way back when Section 508 first became law?
My two cents worth,
[Name]
Hi [Name], just a thought on this, structured data files aren't natively viewable by anyone, but this is exactly what the transparency community is asking for. Perhaps we can make a distinction that data which the agency "finishes" has to be 508 compliant, but structured data in raw or close to raw form can be delivered to something like data.gov in that raw form. This would allow folks in the public to take it and finish it in a variety of ways.
EDIT: This obviously doesn't solve the larger 508 issue, but is still important.
Just for completeness, [Name] and I have had a pretty fun twitter conversation on this topic (@[Name] is my Twitter name). [Name] asked the obvious follow-up to my above post that allows the transparency movement to take structured data for use in innovative mashups, "Are the (transparency) mashups (that aren't on Federal sites) accessible?" My first answer was that we could influence this via the governance processes on data.gov. But one long term thought here is perhaps we've been tackling the whole disabilities thing from the wrong direction. Instead of spending money trying to limit website functionality and all the oversight and certification that this effort entails, perhaps we should be looking to dramatically improve the quality and innovation of accessible navigation products. Using something like DefenseSolutions.gov or something like the wearable power prize approach for instance, we could solicit innovative accessibility product ideas from industry and then fund them to improve browers. There are already many tactile display pads available, but most don't include methods to take color from a graphic and translate different colors into different bump heights (saw a product like this a few years back), or various firefox plugins that automatically transform colors in a graphic to aid those with red-green color blindness, or various innovative methods for displaying sound, etc.
Again the thought here is we slowly look at moving away from enforcing accessibility standards (but keep usability standards, of course), and instead start funding and subsidizing innovative accessibility products to give those with disabilities a similar high-order experience. But this way, their experience is high-order across the web, not just on Federal sites.In terms of the Directive, maybe it asks agencies to look at ways to get more innovative accessibility products into the hands of those who need them.
I'm certainly not condoning bypassing Section 508 requirements; however it is my understanding, Section 508 standards apply to Federal web sites but not to private sector web sites (unless a site is provided under contract to a Federal agency, in which case only that web site or portion covered by the contract would have to comply). Therefore, it would appear that requirements of Section 508 for the distribution of content and media on a private sector website (e.g., Facebook, YouTube) would not apply unless GSA or agencies engage in a contract to host material in a specifc contract with the government.
That said, I love the idea of working on voluntary product accessibility templates and/or direct agency-specific accessibility testing of popular social media websites. My experience is that companies are very open to making their websites and media more accessible because that can be a market differentiator for them and increase the popularity and market share.
Has anyone conducted Section 508 testing on popular social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, GovLoop (Ning)?
Actually, Section 508 applies to any government-produced IT product (video, podcast,etc) that we post on a website. The FAR language provides the basis for the law suits that could be filed by an individual wjo has been disadvantaged by our lack of compliance with Section 508. So, in plain English, even though a person with a disability (such as blindness) is unable to view a YouTube video posted by a government agency, the only thing that person can do is file a complaint with the agency. If the agency had a contract with YouTube (or with a video production house) that person could file a lawsuit. Regardless, the agency still needs to comply with 508 - procurement or not.
I have an admittedly highly prejudiced perspective, but I disagree that 508 puts creates a "lose-lose situation" for agencies. As far as amateur video goes (and I would put an unedited recording from the conference floor in this category), 508 provides an effective filter to keep the signal to noise ratio high. Is a video worth the cost of transcribing? If not, then the video is probably not worth much! Is a video important enough to post? If so, then it is important enough to transcribe!
I agree with [Name] on the importance of accessability. One of my programs websites was in the cross hairs of our 508 officer, and while at the time I wasn't happy about it the truth is that our 508 issues were just a symptom of a larger problem that we weren't doing very good quality control on the code.
One larger issue that I have noticed with a lot of the discussion here is that I feel like there is a strong tendency towards viewing "transparency/participation" as equaling "every bit of data available online." I think there is a ton of value in getting everything out there so that citizens can build nifty apps (The Power of Info Taskforce in Britain hosted a competition to support this last year). But I think we need to be careful about how our Federal websites evolve (my understanding is 508 only applies to sites, not pure data feeds). Whether it is participation in the policy making process or just informing them what we are doing, we need to make sure we are not inhibiting them by information overload.
Also, just because I know I didn't have any idea or appreciation for the scale until I heard the numbers, almost 10% of Americans have some level of hearing impairment and 6% have visual impairment. So if your website isn't accessible you are potentially excluding 1 in 6 citizens.
The Web Managers Forum has a list of these. The biggest and most immediate is the inability to get access to the sites and tools we need to support a social media strategy. Fix it by unblocking the sites somehow. There is a currently a cultural issue among our security staff that if there is any type of risk, then we should block everything or not even try. A real risk management approach means identifying, measuring, and mitigating the risk. This kind of new thinking will need to have a cultural change and resources to do effective risk management. Generally social media sites are blocked at the firewall.
Privacy concerns are a big one, as is the fear of disclosing other kinds of sensitive information unintentionally, such as PII, proprietary data, predecisional contract data, privliged budget information, or national security information. We have to be more sophisticated in our content management capabilities and our infrastructure has to be more sophisticated in classifying information and preventing the dissemination of sensitive information. You'll need the humans there to monitor/manage it, which can be quite expensive, depending on how much content you are talking about. By the why, most agencies have more than one type of collaboration tool. The problem is how do you open up what's inside the firewall to those outside of the firewall. Most of our security models aren't sophisticated enough to do this. NIH is moving in the right direction through there Federated Authentication model.
Accessibility is a problem only in terms of the availability of resources to ensure compliance and limitations of our toolsets. The guidance is also getting a little complex, which is making it harded to educate contributors and COTRs on how to ensure accessible content, tools, and services.
The contracting and budgeting processes do not support a Web development environment well. In Web development we should be using rapid, participatory, iterative development models. This means that requirements aren't known up front. In government contracting, requirements are documented up front, not elaborated through the duration of the project. More importantly though, by the time you've gotten your project approved in budget, the technology environment has totally changed. If you've successfully secured budget in a reasonable time - say in the middle of the year - it's very difficult to let a contract before the funds expire. So, you make no progress. The budget and contracting processes just do not support rapid development models that we need for Web 2.0, especially given the increasing pace of technological change and our employee's and citizen's increasing expectations around government's ability to provide new tools.
Another issue is probably different organzation-to-organization. However, policies around staffing sometimes get in the way of the ability to deliver new capabilities. Sometimes they are imposed by the executive or lesislative branch, sometimes by the agency. However, I don't think it is really clearly understood how an effective web organization should be structured, staffed, and fit within the organization. Most corporations have figured this out. The Government has not. So, Web teams are usually understaffed, wrongly staffed, and competing for scarce development resources.
[Name] – Great to see this forum. We need a government-wide policy that encourages government employees to be able to interact in an informal fashion with the public using social media. The "informal fashion" is really the key here. Many government agencies are still caught up in this old mode where any and all communications with the public are "official communications of the agency." So if an agency has a blog, the content is often vetted much like a press release. So there is no real conversation. We lose the informality that is a key to blogging and social media.
We need to come up with a way for a government employee to both be representing the agency while, at the same time, be able to speak freely without fear that he/she is setting new agency-wide policy.
One example of this is "endorsement." At many agencies, government employees who blog have to ensure they never mention a private sector company or project for fear that it will be seen as an "endorsement" by the government. Even if the project is quite relevant to the agency's work, there is this unwarranted fear that this will be seen as official government endorsement or favoritism. Again, I think the key here is to make policy that creates a "safe space" – that allows for government employees to speak freely to the public about their agencies but doesn't make their words official policy.
These kinds of policies are critical. Right now, most agencies are unable to have a free and open conversation with their constituents for these kinds of reasons. Social networking can make better government. But we must allow gov't employees to speak, as peers, to their constituents.
As a response to "Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government," I would like to request changing the policy on persistent cookies for government web sites.
Please see OMB memorandum on cookies as part of the Privacy Provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002: M-03-22 and M-00-13.
In M-00-13 it is clarified:
"Because of the unique laws and traditions about government access to citizens' personal information, the presumption should be that "cookies" will not be used at Federal web sites. Under this new Federal policy, "cookies" should not be used at Federal web sites, or by contractors when operating web sites on behalf of agencies, unless, in addition to clear and conspicuous notice, the following conditions are met: a compelling need to gather the data on the site; appropriate and publicly disclosed privacy safeguards for handling of information derived from "cookies"; and personal approval by the head of the agency."
This effectively restricts government web sites from utilizing persistent cookies.
Persistent cookies are very useful as an indirect feedback mechanism for measuring effectiveness of government web sites. In web analytics, it is impossible to identify all visitors to a web site uniquely. Cookies allow a greater level of accuracy in measuring unique visitors. This hinders a critical feedback mechanism---identifying RETURN visitors. Looking at all visitors as a first time visitor is not an effective method for improving our sites. Being able to look at returning visitors allows us to see what content is important to our citizens. We can use that data to improve the content and navigation of our sites.
The movement towards social web will bring about more personalized government web sites. Future generation of sites could allow customizable content specific to the interests of citizens. Persistent cookies will be a component of this functionality. Additionally, outreach to citizens using third-party social media sites are restricted due to the current policy on cookies.
Please issue new guidance that removes the restrictions imposed on cookies. New language should be provided that allows persistent cookie usage and defines their appropriate use. It is possible to analyze every possible use of cookies. Please issue guidance [technical detail if necessary] on what they can and cannot be used for. They can be utilized effectively to serve our constituents without invading their privacy.
[Name]
The problem is that one person's cookie is another's spyware. Cookies were limited because privacy advocates raised legitimate concerns regarding government monitoring of private citizen's internet usage. Also, many people commonly set their internet security software to reject all cookies and/or periodically delete them so their utility is somewhat limited. I think most members of the public would be more comfortable with current guidlines on cookies and react negatively to any loosening of the restrictions.
There was a number of very interesting debates about this at the TransparencyCamp unconference two weekends ago (an event organized in part by the Sunlight Foundation, and was heavily attended by E-democracy and privacy advocates). There definitely were two camps of opinion here, with the privacy advocates certainly in favor of the cookie ban. The interesting part though was they were no longer focused on the government - their concern was primarily with private corporations. To paraphrase their arguments, "If we have been so worried and thoughtful about the government's banning of cookies, why is it that we allow every corporation on the net to keep and use our personal info in persistent cookies however they see fit?" Many even suggested they weren't really as concerned with government misuse any more, and would be open to some loosening of the restrictions - but they wanted new laws that governed corporate use.
The nice part about the OpenID approach I mentioned above is that it would give citizens the option of providing their identity to get a higher level of service, or hiding their identity by maintaining their personally identifyable information on a completely different server.
How does setting a cookie by a .gov result in the monitoring of internet usage of a private citizen? I have yet to hear a single sound argument on technical terms on how setting cookies by .govs are a threat to citizen privacy. I've only heard general arguments using words like "privacy" and "tracking" that do not describe exactly how it would be a concern. Nearly every private site uses cookies. Google uses cookies for real tracking AND profiling for commercial purposes. [First Party] Cookie use by the government would be within a very limited scope to actually better deliver information that would help citizens.
Cookies by default do not contain personal information. Making cookies safe for consumption is simple. Provide guidance on what types of information can be stored in cookies. Also, provide guidance on how you can utilize a cookie. Even cookies with a 30-day expiration would be very useful.
Let me add to this:
How do you currently get input from scientific or other experts? How would you evaluate your agency's public participation practices? Are there practices that work well or less well? What priorities are there for improving public participation?
I believe a lot of this happens in industry meetings or through our website. [Agency] was wrestling with this issue of getting scientific/expert input when I was there. [Agency] uses peer review commmitees and scientific conferences, but has shifted a lot of meetings online to Adobe Connect. Different institutes were exploring different concepts, such as wikis or online communities. But I should let [Agency] speak for themselves. You might want to reach out to them directly. One of the problems in this kind of situation is how to you use the technologies to distinguish between someone who is a true expert versus someone who is a general member of the public. And some scientists in particular are driven by ego more than other scientists. Their focus is often on being the first to "discover," so they get the credit. Even when the pursuit is altruistic, human nature comes into play. So, typically they will want to know what everyone else knows but not always want to disclose what they know. So, there has to be a signficant incentive to collaborate. Again, it's less about the technology and more about the culture.
DHS has a Science and Technology department - kind of like DOD DARPA. Personally, I received a [Agency] Fellowship from [Agency] to pursue my graduate studies and that is why I cam to the government. DHS also has a number of national labs where they tab scientific experts.
Additionally, I would say a lot of our input from experts comes from consultants we hire for assistance on issues.
Finally, we have senior leadership that does make trips to major Fortune 500 companies to share best practices and get ideas.
I would say [Agency]'s public participation varies a lot by component. The leader of [Agency] has made the push into Flickr, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and encouraged all the staff to push forward. However, other agencies are not as advanced.
My priorities for improving public participation would be 1) Make it easy to find gov't information they want - put information out in various channels (2) Ask for public participation when the desired feedback is clear and we also need to define what we are going to do with it.
In addition to existing processes at DARPA and the DoD Labs and so forth, there are two parts to the public participation issue that [DoD] have been working. The first involves gaining situational awareness on the state of the art of all the key technology areas that DoD is interested in. In short, we need a much better handle on the innovation that's occuring out in industry. [The] approach, DoDTechipedia, is already captured in the suggested Pilot project area, but it has an internal component already online at: https://www.dodtechipedia.mil and an external component to go online around July, 2009. The goal is to get both government and industry S&T and emerging technolgy personnel to participate in an ongoing, deliberative conversation through a wiki on the state of the art of each technology area. When a new innovation occurs, it should be posted. Additionally, each company would get the ability to post publicly accessible information about their emerging technologies and link them to the appropriate technology area (there are more details to this obviously, which I will be happy to share to any interested). [DoD] are also exploring the possibility of making DoDTechipedia a government-wide service for all agencies to use.
The other thing [DoD has] done is created a government-wide portal (launched in February, 2009) called DefenseSolutions.gov (http://www.defensesolutions.gov) to solicit innovative ideas from Industry. The approach is to make a quick and easy way to ask for innovative ideas from industry, and then to quickly get them under contract through other transactions authorities. This is really a copy of the UK MOD's Defence Suppliers Research Information Portal (http://www.science.mod.uk/ ). [DoD] worked closely with [Name] of the UK [Agency] to set this up. Currently [DoD] are soliciting innovative ideas on Battlefield Forensics (10 ideas from industry have come in - one is exactly what [DoD] were looking for). DefenseSolutions.gov is also considered part of the DoDTechipedia family of services, which is geared towards creating a single "window" to industry.
[DoD] wanted to set up a third leg to this process by making an easy way for vendors to submit their product information to all of DoD that we could eventually expose via crowdsourcing and other techniques, but this has been stymied by Paperwork Reduction Act issues (hence my familiarity with that law).
One silly barrier to obtaining public input is that many agencies will not pay the professional dues for its employees. Unless the employee pays the dues himself, no membership. This includes computer developers, usablity specialists, and domain specialists. It's a real disincentive to keep up in one's field, publish, and attend conferences. It's also very unevenly applied; some agencies pay, some don't; some pay this year but not next year. This kind of HR practice gives government employment a bad name.
HHS/OS held 25 FACA Secretarial meetings via webcast over the past three years. [Agency] webcast using NIH from the main headquarters at HHS in Washington, DC. In addition, [Agency] "took the show on the road" and webcast two FACA meetings from California and Florida. It was a great way to let the public have access not only to hearing FACA deliberations but also to see the committee at work. All this in addition to the public who managed to come to the meetings in person. It was a great way to expand the reach of the FACA and open government discussion with the Secretary of HHS, his public and private sector advisors and the public.
[Name] - we have been talking with NIH staff concerning this technique and will be hosting a short discussion on the topic at the next meeting of the Interagency Commiittee on FACA Management which I chair. It is an excellent tool which we hope can gain traction in other agencies. Limitations may still be cost, security issues, access, and just getting the outside communities (advisory committee memebrs and the public) engaged.
My office has two FACA groups. I'd love to get to webcasting but right now we've got a wiki that I set up on one of those free wiki farms. We've got around 75 people using it. Some more than others. It has proved to be very successful. All the positives about wiki's are real. I have not opened it to the public yet which would get to the intent of FACA. Right now it's an admin tool, but everyone is happy. We've operated below the radar for over a year, but there are signs that our IT folks figured us out. I'm new to this particular community. I look forward to following what happens.
[Agency is] piloting a direct feedback experiment on the PandemicFlu.gov Web site. On the home page, [Agency] put a very prominent comment box with the caption "Tell Us What You Think. We are reviewing this site. What would you most like to change or fix?" To avoid any potential problems with the paperwork reduction act and to get the pilot up and running as quickly as possible, [Agency] used the exact, approved language from our standard opt-in site survey. [Agency] have received some very helpful feedback that will undoubtedly lead to a much improved site - in terms of functionality, design and content. As part of the experiement, [Agency] are posting the comments [Agency] received, and [the] inital reponses to: http://pandemicflu.gov/news/suggestion_box.html. [Agency] are also beginning to categorize the responses that we have received with the hope that we can pull out some common themes for further public discussion (perhaps via threaded conversations offered by IntenseDebate).
I just plowed through the whole comment section here and am really encouraged to see all the gov 2.0 action going on. I guess my one concern is about the (pretty big) slice of the population who are not technology literate. At [Agency], every day we receive dozens of letters that are hand or typewritten on old sheets of lined paper. [Name] (way above in the thread) is right that libraries and schools will play a big role in bridging the access side of the divide. But simply put, my grandmother after a few years can barely email and is never going to learn how to Twitter - and the same is true for millions of other Americans.
Figuring out how to bridge the techno-literacy gap is going to continue to be a big issue. Google has the advantage that 100% of their customers know how to google; microsoft knows that 100% of their customers own a pc; and, facebook knows that 100% of their customers have email. We unfortunately do not have those luxuries, and if we do not play a strong role bridging the gap (rather than widening it) it is going to have serious repurcussions for whether a whole group of people feel like they have the opportunity to participate in government.
Not sure what topic this fits under neatly, but the issue of training is enormous. There is an assumption that a given demographic is going to naturally know how to blog, wiki, tweet, create and edit video content and everything else under the label Web 2.0. The truth is the government hasn't given their employees an chance to work with these tools let alone made an investment in training people how to use them. The attitude I've heard is "blogging is something my kids do." But I sit down with groups, pehaps the same age as the "kids," to train to train them on wiki markup. It isn't easy or efficient to train a bureaucracy this way. In fact, its doomed to fail.
Our government hasn't invested in a work force of critical thinkers. This is an undefinable trait like common sense. But it is something both government workers and the public need help with in an online world. How can you judge data quality or understand the context around a piece of content you find online? On wikis, I would look at history or talk pages. On blogs, I would read up on the author, look at the posting date, the comments, and maybe google the author and the commenters to find out more about their professional background. But these are actions I take almost automatically after 13 years in web development. They don't come automatically to most of the people I work with.
I am not a digital native. I am an inbetween "Generation Xer." The digital natives are coming. But the attitude of ageism that has taken root in our society isn't going to help us move forward with innovatation. We need access to the tools. We need guidance. And we need training.
One of the really effective tools that isn't really taken advantage of to the extent it should is RSS feeds. If you could get these items converted to simple RSS feeds, and display them in a control panel-like view like iGoogle does, for instance (I suggest playing with igoogle if you haven't already - just go to http://www.google.com/ig and click "Ad stuff"), then as a first step you would at least be able to get a sense of what's out there. You could have different iGoogle tabs for each issue (Transparency, Participation, Collaboration). The feeds could be made up of youtube videos, mp3 files, blog posts of town meetings, etc.
There are a lot of web apps delivered through the software as a service model. These solutions keep the dialogue focused with some level of control, manage all forms of customer engagement, allow you to slice and dice the data to get it in a way that is most useful to you.
They provide the Web 2.0 tools expected in a community building platform e.g. conversations facilitated through blogs, wikis, forums, online chat and messaging; the ability to manage all forms user generated content, including mobile with video conversion to standard Flash video; collaboration software to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and peer-to-peer reviews with ratings and rankings , member profiles, tagging and search. Feds have used Neighborhood America in a numbre of instances like the Flight 93 national Memorial, Citizens Healthcare Working Group, statue of Liberty. NAPA used another group for their National health Care Dialogue and their are many others.
Move "Citizen Support" to the web: following the lead of private industry, move traditional citizen support away from 1 800 Help Desks and to User Forums, Online Dicussions and Chat services. This can be done within a platform that supports the exchange of ideas through an ongoing dialog and can help to integrate citizen feedback into the decision making process by consolidating it in one, transparent platform.
Make the interface as much like a performance support system as possible. The more operational and process information the citizen needs to participate, the higher the hurdle will be. We can all guess at how best to do this, but if there were ever a task that screamed out for the use of user-centered design principles, followed by multiple rounds of formative usability studies, this one is it. The easier it is, the more people will participate. The folks running the Web Content Managers Council should be in charge of the user-centered design and usability studies.
That said, if the citizen knew that staffers, administration and agency personnel were participating, they would really "know" that their input mattered. If they are participating on a citizen-only forum, they really don't know that their time spent will matter.
Ways of making it easy for citizens to connect with others who have similar issues would certainly be a draw.
Finally, all the good social software footprints certainly matter here as well.
Citizen participation requires that government agencies and programs meet citizens where they are, both online and offline: in blog discussions, on social networks, at industry conferences. We need to join the discussions already in process at the most granular level. Encouraging, empowering and incenting experts throughout the government to engage with their communities of interest/specialization is critical. Citizen engagement requires real and authentic government participation, not only formal and official communications through Public Affairs. Deep, granular participation makes community relations part of everyone's job within an agency. Citizens will engage about that which they are passionate. People's passions are specific and super-targeted, not broad-sweeping. To catalyze citizen engagement, we need to set the example by encouraging - requiring? - government expert engagement. We need to lead by example and demonstrate the type and level of engagement we're seeking and encouraging.
Here's a summary of the postings so far - hopefully didn't lose the context of the comments. Please continue to post your thoughts and ideas and invite your colleagues to post as well. This dialogue will be open through 3/10/09. Recommendations Participation Avenues
Technology
-OMB Website Privacy and Security Policy is sufficient, as long as we take care of the Records, FOIA, and other policies concerning this type of information.
-Information Collection Policies are in place.
-Technology for Interactive Media (Web 2.0) needs to be part of the Federal Standard Network Configuration (Like a Network version of the Federal Desktop Core Configuration FDCC).
-IT Infrastructure must be funded to build the computing environment to support these technologies.
Solution: Define some guidelines for standard web applications that are pre-approved, for example: "Any online survey with fewer than 10 questions that does not record PII, does not pop-up for more than 5% of visitors, and that runs for one week or less is automatically approved."
- Accessibility is a problem only in terms of the availability of resources to ensure compliance and limitations of our toolsets. The guidance is also getting a little complex, which is making it harder to educate contributors and COTRs on how to ensure accessible content, tools, and services.
The solution in this sense would be for OMB to revisit the definition of the word "Form" to see what specifically they really need to be covering under the PRA. Just because the method used to capture the information is an input template shouldn't be the essential determiner - we should be focused on how that captured information is used and processed - and whether we are integrating these processes across agencies, not the input method.
The contracting and budgeting processes do not support a Web development environment well. In Web development we should be using rapid, participatory, iterative development models.
Greetings, All,
You are invited to go here to read about the FedPitch contest (Citizens to "Pitch" Ideas for Better Managing the Federal Workforce). This good-government event will occur during Public Service Recognition Week in May. Follow the link therein to the FedPitch site, where your questions will be answered and you may consider whether you'd like to apply. Be watching for FedPitch on the Public Service Recognition Week calendar, which will come out soon via both the standard and new social media outlets.
Best wishes,
[Name]
[Name]
Thanks for the information and the link -- it looks like an interesting approach to getting more crazy ideas generated (and I mean that in a good way -- years ago when Al Trivelpiece first became the Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, one of his first observations was "There's just not enough crazy ideas around here!").
I noticed from the announcement that this is the Second annual FedPitch contest, but I didn't see any reference to what was learned the first time out (or even who eventually 'won' the competition, and what the idea was). Do you have either a link to the outcomes last year that you could provide or, even better, a short summary that you could include for discussion?
Thanks again!
[Name]
[Name],
Well, no wonder I've always liked ORNL!
[Name], [Agency], spent yesterday evening designing a 2008 page to help answer your question. And here's my favorite photo.
You and a naval safety officer asked the same question about two hours apart. In last year's press release and other materials, 13L stated the intent to organize and hold a Judges' Dinner "to explore strategies for implementing the winning idea." The Judges' Dinner was attended by the winner, who works in Denver, and reps from her agency, at the National Academy for Public Administration. During the evening, it was suggested that a working group convene to further explore the winning idea. John offered to serve as the 13L rep if such a group were to move forward. However, in the run-up to the election, the big ideas unsurprisingly crowded out the winning FedPitch idea. One of the challenges and opportunities for a non-hierarchical network such as 13L is that everything must be accomplished through influence. We expect that there may be more discussion of last year's winning idea, and possibly some of the runner-up ideas as well.
Last year's measures of success for FedPitch were that we would get at least 20 pitch proposals (50 were submitted), hold a respectable practice session (12 finalists opted in to an evening practice at L'Enfant Plaza with 2 coaches and a supportive audience), carry out the FedPitch event on the Mall (the tent was full), and host the Judges' Dinner. In addition, 13L members donated funding to give each of the 20 finalists, volunteer judges, and announcer, commemorative mugs.
Regards,
[Name]
deleted by author
Having browsed the entire thread, a very interesting and constructive discussion, I would reiterate the following points:
1. Perhaps most important is a commitment by agency leaders to expand the horizons of seeking and considering citizen input and participation in agency processes, including policy brainstorming, inquiry, formulation, and decision making. (Here I am using the term "citizen" broadly to include any input from any source, ranging from individual members of the public, to all sorts of formal and informal groups, to the most organized institutions.)
2. Even assuming such a commitment, one of the biggest challenges it seems to me is how to handle the large increase in citizen input and feedback that would likely result, in a way that gives fair consideration and appropriately incorporates that input into agency processes. Various technical approaches, esp. Web 2.0 technologies, suggested in this thread could be part of the solution. Probably several need to be further evaluated and pilot tested and/or scaled up to see how they would work in practice.
Even assuming there are workable technical solutions, I would think serious attention and research needs to be directed at the scale up issue, which is how to process an order of magnitude or greater increase (possibly much greater) in the volume of citizen comments likely to result. Issues of information overload, work load overload, staff shortages, etc need to be considered.
There is a real risk of citizen disillusionment if there is a lot of information being submitted, but little indication coming out that the input was fairly and seriously considered, even if not agreed to. There is also a risk of blowing the circuits of agency processes through information overload.
Methods to process, analyze, synthesize, etc all that input would seem to warrant priority attention. I think that the scope of consideration should include consultation with academics who study these topics, as well as grassroots pilot and demonstration projects, and a wide range of private, public, and not-for-profit experiments alluded to in this thread. The history of online democracy and all things related goes back at least several decades, starting in the late 1960s and early 1970s, way before the web revolution (about the time the roots of the web were planted!). That huge history should be mined for whatever is relevant to today's and tomorrow's challenges and technologies. The library, information science, computer science, political science, and even sociology communities are among those that would have much to contribute. Many of the larger issues being debated today have been studied and debated before, albeit in the context of earlier technology and/or with a (then) futuristic perspective. Technology wise, of course the future is now (or very close at hand, it would seem).
3. I think one of the greatest potential benefits of broader, more transparent, and more participatory agency processes would be getting "outside the box" input (on a wide range of topics) that might not otherwise get submitted or if submitted might not get through to where it could make a difference. But finding the good "outside the box" ideas is another information processing challenge, while still being respectful of the other ideas. On balance though, my opinion is that the benefits of just a small percentage of really good "outside the box" ideas could very well justify the effort.
4. I believe that the information and digital divides continue to be real issues, and need to be addressed. There are still significant areas of the USA that do not have the necessary Internet infrastructure, or cannot afford to pay even if the Internet is available. The role of public, college, and university libraries, K-12 schools, and community centers could continue to be a key to providing Internet access for those who would otherwise go without. And even with Internet access, and facility with Web 1.0/2.0 technologies, truly meaningful citizen participation usually requires some level of understanding and knowledge about good communication skills and the topic being addressed. This implies a significant educational process, on the part of schools, community groups, not-for-profits, and others, on effective e-citizenship in the world of e-government. Again, there is a significant history of related efforts to draw on and learn from, over at least the last decade or more.
I'm enjoying the great comments here. As [Name] mentioned, the Federal Web Managers Council has identified a number of barriers and solutions to using social media tools -- which include tools that would foster more transparency, collaboration, and participation. I've posted this on the "Participation" thread, but it could really belong under any of the threads. I've posted excerpts of some of the issues elsewhere on the wiki, but here is the list of issues and possible solutions all in one thread.You all have identified many of them, but some probably need to be explored in more detail(Advertising, cookies, etc.).
Although many of these recommendations call for the National CTO to make these changes, it's possible that the new Federal CIO (Vivek Kundra) could call for many of these changes.
Barriers and Solutions to Implementing Web 2.0 in Government:
http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/documents/SocialMediaFed%20Govt_BarriersPotentialSolutions.pdf
1. Cultural issues and lack of a strategy for using these new tools
Issue: Many agencies view the use of social media as a technology issue, instead of a communications tool, and management decisions are often based solely on technology considerations. In many cases, the focus is more on what can't be done rather than what can be done. The default approach should be openness and transparency. For this reason, agencies need to be prepared that the decision to use social media will have cultural implications throughout government. Some agencies have leadership and legal support and have shown that the benefits of using social media outweigh the risks; but many have not. The result: social media is not consistently applied across government.
Proposed Solution:The new Administration should communicate a government-wide strategy for using social media tools to create a more effective and transparent government. The new Administration's Chief Technology Officer (CTO) should require each agency to, within three months, develop their own social media/Web 2.0 communications strategy that describes how it will use their agency website and the larger Web to accomplish its mission, reach new audiences, and engage the public. The strategy should include resources needed to accomplish these goals.
2. Employee access to online tools
Issue: Many agencies block their employees from using sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Wikipedia. They make one of three arguments, all of which can be addressed through effective policies and management controls:
1.Security: IT security specialists raise concerns that these high traffic sites pose a greater risk for malware and spyware. However, agencies can implement security measures to mitigate these risks, just as they do for other high traffic sites such as Google and Yahoo. Certain agencies may still need to restrict access for specific groups, but this should be the exception, not the rule.
2.Employees will waste time: this is the same argument that has been used to say employees shouldn't have access to phones, email, etc. It's not unique to Web 2.0. It should be addressed by agency managers as a management issue, not a technology problem.
3.Bandwidth: this is a legitimate concern for sites such as YouTube that consume considerable bandwidth. However, agencies need to budget for this, as they do for other infrastructure needs. If opening all computers to all sites is an issue, agencies should at least provide access to agency staff that need to understand and use these tools to communicate with the public.
Proposed solution: The new Administration should require agencies to provide access to social media sites unless the agency head justifies blocking certain employees or certain sites.
3. Terms of service
Issue: Most online sites require account owners to agree to terms of service that federal agencies can't agree to, in particular:
1.Indemnification and defense: if a federal employee, on behalf of their agency, creates an account on a social media site, they must agree not to sue the site, nor allow the site to be included in suits against the agency. Many sites also require the account owner to pay the site's legal costs arising from such suits. Under the Anti-deficiency Act, federal agencies can't commit to either provision.
2.Applicable law and court jurisdiction: most terms of service also assert that a certain state's laws (usually California) apply to the terms of use and that the state's courts will adjudicate disputes. This is problematic since federal agencies follow federal law and go to trial in federal court.
Many companies have been willing to negotiate on these issues, but they don't want to negotiate separate agreements with dozens of different agencies. Similarly, it's not efficient for agencies to work out agreements with an unending list of potential companies.
Proposed solution: The new Administration (through the National CTO, GSA, OMB, or some other central organization) should:
a)Establish a single terms of service that covers all social media sites, which excludes the federal government from the provisions described above. (If this isn't possible, at a minimum, create a standard federal terms of service with each site and establish a process for adding new agreements as new sites are identified.)
b)Alert federal agencies that the benefits of using these sites outweigh the risks and that they should use social media sites pending agreements on terms of service.
4. Advertising
Issue: Many vendor sites place ads on all their pages; this is how they earn money from free accounts. For some agencies, this raises ethical concerns when government content appears near inappropriate advertisements (pornography, hate, political, etc), because it can give the appearance that the government is endorsing the content. What constitutes "advertising" is interpreted differently across government.
Proposed solution: The new Administration should:
1.Issue a memo stating that government agencies should accept this kind of contextual advertising as a byproduct of using social media sites, that advertising online is no different than advertising in a magazine, newspaper, radio, or TV, where you can't control exactly how your content will appear in context. However, if this is not possible:
2.Set criteria for all agencies for when such ads are acceptable. For example, ads could be acceptable when:
- They are ubiquitous, appearing on all similar pages on a site, regardless of the account owner
- They do not include pornography or violence
- There isn't confusing language that implies endorsement by the account owner (e.g., "promoted" or "sponsored" material)
5. Procurement
Issue: Government procurement rules didn't anticipate the flood of companies offering free tools to anyone who wants to use them. Attorneys at different agencies interpret the rules differently, leading to confusion and hesitation. Agencies that want to use these tools face three issues:
1.Gratuitous services and gift authority: there are rules governing when agencies are allowed to accept free services or gifts. Some agencies have gift authority and others don't. Potential concerns include giving the offering company inappropriate inside information that lets it tailor a later commercial product or possibly coming back later and billing the government.
2.Choosing winners without competition: the government shouldn't arbitrarily decide which companies will be given the cachet of providing our content, which can provide value to their sites. For example, federal agencies should have criteria to determine which video sharing sites they will publish their videos to (YouTube, Yahoo Video, AOL Video, etc).
3.Contract authority: Ordinarily, only specific employees are given authority to bind an agency contractually. This is very cumbersome when trying to establish accounts on social media sites.
Proposed solution: The new Administration should work with procurement and ethics attorneys to ensure that:
1.Agencies can use free Web products and services.
2.Agencies do not need to use all products and services offered, as long as they have criteria for deciding which ones they use.
3.Employees with a clear business need can create accounts to use free services, as long as they have managerial approval.
6. Privacy
Issue: There is no guarantee that social media sites will protect people's privacy to the same degree as federal agencies.
Proposed solution: The new Administration should direct agencies to use a standard disclaimer to display on social media sites where they publish content (i.e. EPA's Facebook page or Twitter page). The disclaimer would alert the public that they are no longer on a federal site and that the private sector site's own privacy policy applies, with a link to that policy.
7. Persistent Cookies
Issue: Agencies are banned from using persistent cookies without approval from their agency head, which effectively means the federal government isn't using them. This greatly limits our ability to serve customers' needs because our sites can't remember preferences or settings. It also means we can't take advantage of sophisticated web services and analytic tools that rely on persistent cookies.
Proposed solution: The National CTO or OMB should immediately rescind the previous guidance prohibiting persistent cookies and replace it with guidance that allows agencies to use persistent cookies to better serve customers' needs. The new guidance should state that it's acceptable for agencies to use social media sites that rely on persistent cookies. However, the government should retain the ban on tracking cookies, since they specifically track where visitors go between sites.
8. Surveys
Issue: The Paperwork Reduction Act, subsequent OMB regulations, and OMB draft guidance require that agencies complete a lengthy process to obtain an OMB control number to survey and request information from the public. This requirement is interpreted by most agencies to include voluntary online surveys, polls, and other applications that are intended to improve customer service. The Act predated the Internet and doesn't anticipate the use of social media and other customer service tools.
Proposed solution: The National CTO or OMB should issue immediate guidance that outlines exceptions to the PRA, such as using online surveys to solicit public opinion about federal websites, using social media to have online discussion forums with the public, etc.
9. Access for people with disabilities
Issue: Under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, all information provided to the public via agency websites must be equally accessible to people with and without disabilities. Many social media tools are automatically accessible because they are primarily text (e.g., blogs). However, some multimedia sites do not currently provide the opportunity to include transcripts or captioning, and many agencies lack sufficient resources to provide these services on their own.
Proposed solutions:
1.The National CTO should issue guidance requiring agencies to post their materials in accessible formats on their own websites, and that non-governmental sites may not be the sole location where content is posted. This will ensure that people with disabilities always have an accessible version of the content, and that the official version of content is located on a government website.
2.The National CTO and GSA should collaborate on developing a government-wide procurement vehicle to purchase tools that assist with 508 compliance, such as captioning software to make videos and webcasts available to people with disabilities.
3.The National CTO should work with major companies to make Web software, including social media software, fully accessible to people with disabilities.
10. Administrative requirements during rulemaking
Issue: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 sets rules for how agencies can communicate with the public during rulemaking, accept public comment on proposed regulations, etc. The Act didn't anticipate the collaborative tools now available, leading to hesitation and confusion as to how to incorporate them during the rulemaking process.
Proposed solution: The National CTO or OMB should issue guidance to help agencies use collaborative social media tools to enhance the rulemaking process, while still complying with the APA.
Social networking technology is great for hosting a government-public conversation, but development of online systems and services would be a lot easier if there were a good way to get specific feedback from users. The most tried and true feedback mechanism I am aware of is a randomly-presented pop-up, short survey that asks a few targeted questions and encourages feedback. Presently, however, it takes about 6 months or longer to get approval from OMB to run such a survey, with a periodic, lengthy renewal process. I understand the intent of the Paperwork Reduction Act and its attempt to shield citizens from being harassed for information by the government, but surely there is a more efficient way to ask people what they want and what they think of how we are providing it.
[Name] see my comment from earlier in thread on how we are "working" with the issues that you raise here (https://max.omb.gov/community/display/OpenGov/Conversation on Participation?focusedCommentId=269058127) . Not a perfect solution, but we are up over 200 comments in only a few weeks and have received some great, actionable feedback.
I'd like the Directive to clarify the difference between participation and collaboration. Is participation exclusively about better-informed policy decisions, while collaboration is about better implementing those policies?
I feel strongly inspired by the original Memorandum and encouraged by these discussions. Neither seem entirely clear, though, on how participation and collaboration are distinct routes toward open government. Perhaps some fuzziness is because both can be facilitated using the same tools, such as blogs and wikis.
I view the participation and collaboration as two points along a continuum that I call the Social Media Adoption Curve. Collaboration is a more sophisticated behavior than participation because it requires a person to have more faith in two-way interaction than in one-way interaction. Collaboration requires an individual to believe that SHARING information yields more value than by HOLDING information; that GIVING value to others/to the community is a more important action than taking information from the community.
Getting organizations/agencies/departments to participate is a critical step and can probably be encouraged by putting incentives in place. Getting them to truly COLLABORATE - a more selfless behavior - requires organizations and individuals to truly feel safe, valued and not competitive.
Only "fixing" technology policies will not move our agencies to collaborate, it will simply open the doors to tools that can faciliate, simplify and encourage collaboration. Policy, therefore, needs to address all of the points along the Adoption Curve. Using collaborative tools and technologies as broadcast media underutilizes their robust capabilities. We - Digital Immigrants, products of the Broadcast Era of the 20th Century - do not instinctively collaborate. There is a large organizational development component that MUST be addressed by the Directive. Tools and technologies are only enablers.
Following the conversation thread of 03/09/09 from [Name], there is an array of public engagement, partnering, negotiated rulemaking, and consensus building processes that federal agencies enter into with non-federal entities to manage and implement agency programs and activities. It would be helpful if the Open Government Directive defined the range of options, pointing to existing resources such as the Spectrum of Public Participation designed by the International Association for Public Participation. The Spectrum of Public Participation was designed, for example, to assist with the selection of the level of participation that defines the public's role in any public participation process (http://www.iap2.org). The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution is also a resource for assisting departments and agencies with the appropriate selection of collaborative processes, and for assuring the quality and integrity of the processes (www.ecr.gov).
Good comments and discussion today.I have summarized the main issues broadly. Please continue to post your comments and invite your colleagues to join in. The discussion threads continue through tomorrow, March 10th.
- We need to examine how NARA recordkeeping requirements apply to the use of Wiki's and other social networking used for collaboration.
- The Directive should ask how agencies will get more innovative accessibility products into hands of those who need them.
- A commitment by senior agency leaders is needed to expand seeking, and considering, external input.
- How do agencies handle the probable increase in public input that will result from increase participation? The public will not feel their views have any value if the government does not fairly evaluate and/or use the input.
- We need to address lack of internet infrastructure in some parts of the US, as well as the lack of internet skills or the inability to pay for access.
- Getting feedback from users is crucial, but the PRA limitations requiring lengthy OMB approval for a survey needs to be addressed.
- 10 issues and recommendations from Barriers and Solutions to Implementing Web 2.0 in Government (not repeated here as they are provided in [Name]'s post from earlier today).
In mid-January the Government Contact Center Council began discussing what changes by the Obama administration would best help them improve engagement with citizens. The result was a bit surprising. As visible as technology issues are, the consensus is that there are four barriers to improving citizen engagement, none of which are technology. These barriers are:
The message is that increased citizen engagement must be supported by a strategy that considers and coordinates all types of interactions from media events and press releases to citizen inquiries and information requests. It must educate the public on how to get information while also allowing them to provide feedback about services and to have a meaningful and understandable measure for how government is performing.
At the end of the day, any strategy to remove barriers will be supported by technology, but technology won't be the strategy.
A more complete discussion is in the white paper at: http://www.usaservices.gov/pdf_docs/RemovingBarrierstoCitizenEngagement-G3C-March2009.pdf
I'm interested to get some feedback on the non-web strategies for engagement.
For example, for those agencies who have public stakeholders who aren't as internet savvy or which reside in areas with much lower internet and broadband penetration rates, do you see participation via web 2.0 tools as the most effective means for interacting them? Or does a hybrid online/offline method of interaction work best? What successes have you had so far in this area?
We do have large user segments who are not as tech savvy as others or who simply prefer other communications channels. So, we continue to rely on print publications, media, industry meetings, etc. And email is still big, big, big. GovDelivery presented some intereting data on the continued preference of email as a communication tool during a user-group meeting late last year. So, at least for our audience it's still a both-and proposition when dealing with traditional media versus new media, not an either-or proposition. I think it will be for the foreseeable future, which is why multi-channel communications strategies are still important. Even when dealing with multiple web channels, we have to think of it in terms of multiple channels (e.g. social media versus traditional Web versus Internet Marketing). I would say that we should continue to reassess audience needs and preferences as it relates to communications channels, especially as NetGen increses in government participation. And it will be different from agency to agency, because the audience changes based on the mission or services the agency provides.
Participation also brings to my mind "engagement". In order for members of the public to feel that they can participate in their government, to feel that they are enfranchised, they need to feel on ongoing sense of being engaged, that their government really does want to hear from them and that they have regular opportunities to know what is really going on within their government.
Drawing from my own consular experience of working with American citizens overseas in the UK (I [worked at] our American Citizen Services section at the US Embassy in London from [Date] to [Date]) while we had an exemplary website and regularly met with American organizations within the UK, the size of the community (approximately 250,000 residents) made it difficult to reach out to everyone effectively. We would send out "Warden Messages" (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86560.pdf) from time to time, but these messages were primarily calls to action rather than ongoing communication that fostered a sense of community and engagement.
Here were some steps that we took to help develop a sense of engaged, participatory community:
Communicate regularly (e.g. blogs and newsletters)
To help develop that sense of community, we began preparing a monthly newsletter that we would email to interested subscribers. Like a blog, the newsletter gave the subscribers a sense of connection with someone within the Embassy. It also highlighted issues that might be of interest to US citizens in Britain but didn't reach the threshold of a warden message (e.g. explaining how to provide input on local legislation that might impact them). The number of subscribers ultimately reached several thousand, and they were available online (http://london.usembassy.gov/cons_new/acs_newsletters/index.html).
When there were regional crises (e.g. localized severe flooding, a tornado), we used our registrant database to reach out to persons in the area and check whether people were all right.
We also wrote articles for local publications and began putting webcasts on our webpage. The webcasts further served to put a human face on the bureacracy.
Provide enough channels for input so that there is never a sense that one is inaccessible
At one point, in 2003, we had had to severly limit the channels for contacting us because we did not have enough personnel to respond to inquiries. With a minor increase in staffing, but with a major change in communication channels and technology we
- opened phone lines during certain hours, and structured ourselves internally to be able to respond
- began bi-monthly webchats (http://london.usembassy.gov/cons_new/acs/acs_webchats.html)
- held conferences for our wardens who helped leverage our presence throughout the country (http://london.usembassy.gov/cons_new/acs/index.html)
- we continued to visit American organizations to explain what we do and answer questions
At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and HHS we have been working over the past 3-4 years to explore what we call "Consequential Public Engagement" to involve the public in pending policy decisions which reflect competing public values. We have sought to engage citizens and stakeholders at a very interactive level in dialogue and deliberation to "co-create" a product or recommendation which better informs the decision makers. Trust-building between government and citizens has been an overarching goal. Final authority for the decision rests with the government sponsor. click here to view attachment of a draft white paper entitled "Consequential Public Engagement--Co-Creating Advice Which Influences Public Health Decision Making"
For example, we have successully engaged citizens on who first to vaccinate in a pandemic of influenza when there will not be enough vaccine for everyone. Mutual learning has been an objective and not just obtaining input at a low level of interactivity. The recommendations coming from this exercise helped shape the federal guidance that was issued on this policy. In releasing the guidance, HHS Secretary Leavitt stated--
"This guidance is the result of a deliberative democratic process. All interested parties took part in the dialogue; we are confident that this document represents the best of shared responsibility and decision-making."
Last year we were co-winners of the Project of the Year award from the International Association for Public Participation for a project which engaged the public on whether or not the US should use aggressive community control measures for pandemic flu such as closing schools for six weeks in the early days of a pandemic to slow the spread and avoid overwhelming the medical care system. To see the report on this project, visit http://www.keystone.org/spp/health-pandemic.html
As a result of this work, we have created a "Support Team for Public Deliberation" at CDC, developed a set of 2x10 Principles of Consequential Public Engagement, and tested a model which applies these principles in practice. The principles and model should have broader applicability in other federal agencies seeking to involve the public in policy making. The Principles and a short description of the model only are posted below. We welcome all inquiries about these materials at 404-639-8875 and hope they could help inform the work now underway at OMB and in other agencies.
2x10 Principles of Consequential Public Engagement
1. The desire for advice + the decision on the table are real.
The government agency or sponsor of the public engagement has a genuine desire to learn, listen, and obtain advice from the public, and is willing to place one or more pending decisions on the table for discussion and deliberation. Furthermore, the decision being placed on the table has important consequences, i.e., the decision is more strategic than tactical, more "upstream" than "downstream" in the implementation pathway from idea to action, and more about ends than means.
2. Adequate time to deliberate + clarity of purpose are provided.
There is adequate time to engage the public before the decision is made, and the decision making process, its main purpose, and the anticipated product are made clear and transparent for all to understand.
3. Both facts + values underlie the choices to be made.
Both facts and values are at stake and are relevant for discussion and deliberation in weighing the decision to be made. Because values are relevant, informed non-experts are fully qualified and even essential to the process to help assure that the final decision is made in accord with fundamental public values. In fact, the disinterestedness of non-experts can sometimes provide the only means of arriving at the impartial judgment needed to make difficult choices which rule in or rule out different options or ideas.
4. Active agency staff + sufficient resources are committed to the process.
Agency staff who are expected to be active in the agency decision making process must participate "at the table" as one of many groups of stakeholders involved, and serve as conveyors to the final decision makers of the recommendations or findings reached. The agency or sponsor provides adequate resources to support the public engagement process at least at the minimum level required to meet the main purpose of the exercise.
5. Both non-partisan citizens-at-large + partisan stakeholders participate.
The two main publics, the non-partisan citizens-at-large who represent no organized or special interests, as well as representatives of interested stakeholder organizations from key affected sectors, come to the table for dialogue and deliberation about both the decision making process and the pending decision itself.
6. A critical mass + diverse group of persons participate.
An adequately large number of citizens-at-large both geographically and demographically diverse and a smaller number of representatives from stakeholder organizations in the key interest sectors are at the table.
7. Unbiased information + neutral facilitation are provided.
Information on the many sides of an issue is provided to the participants in a fair and balanced manner so that all participants become well-informed, and the overall group process is convened and managed in a neutral, respectful fashion.
8. Mutual learning through dialogue + thoughtful deliberation occur.
There is adequate time for participants to engage in give and take conversations with each other, and neutral, respectful facilitation of small group discussions assures the exchange of experiences, information, and perspectives relevant to the decision(s) on the table. Participants weigh alternative directions or courses of action in their deliberations.
9. Difficult choices are made + agreed upon recommendations are produced.
The participants work through their differences and make difficult tradeoffs or choices between competing values to address a specific decision in a specific context. Participants as a group reach considerable agreement about their choices and express these as their collective recommendations relevant to the pending decision(s) that were placed on the table. These results better inform the government agency or sponsor and are written up in a report conveyed to them and to the participants.
10. The recommendations receive "serious consideration" + participants obtain candid feedback about the final decision made.
At a minimum, the work of the public is conveyed accurately, and receives serious consideration by the decision makers. The agency or sponsor is accountable and provides feedback to the participants about the final decision made and the main reasons for it. Ideally, a robust evaluation of the process and the outcome is carried out to identify lessons learned.
The Consequential Public Engagement Table (CPE) Model
Consequential Public Engagement (CPE) has been implemented using a Consequential Public Engagement Table (CPE) model to address values-oriented policy decisions related to pandemic influenza. A CPE model meets the critical factors for CPE and has the following operational characteristics.
Citizen Participants:
A CPE model brings to the decision making process a critical mass of citizens-at-large, approximately 100 from each of four different geographic areas (n=400) of a country, state or other geographic entity. The citizens are recruited to participate in a day- long dialogue and deliberation event. The participants are diverse by age, sex, and race and generally reflect the make up of the population from which they are drawn for these characteristics.
Stakeholder Participants:
Two or three representatives from stakeholder organizations in the key interest sectors (normally 20-30 stakeholders for approximately 10 key interest sectors, including agency or sponsor staff) are recruited to participate. They meet separately from the citizens-at-large once before and once after the citizen-at-large series of meetings. Procedures nearly identical to those for the citizen-at-large meetings are used for the stakeholder meetings, except that stakeholders provide initial input in framing the issues and designing the process to be followed. Some stakeholders are invited to the citizen-at-large meetings as observers. One or two citizens from each of the four participating geographic areas are invited to attend the final stakeholder meeting.
Information Presented:
Participants in general session hear an oral presentation in easy to understand language by an effective, non-condescending expert/lecturer which includes the minimum amount of unbiased information needed to have an informed discussion of the issue at hand. They are given opportunities to ask questions about the factual information presented, and subject matter experts are on hand to answer questions but not to participate directly in the discussions. A booklet summarizing the key facts needed to have the conversation is presented in a user-friendly fashion. A discussion guide summarizing the choices faced is presented to the participants for use during small group table discussions and large group exchanges.
Dialogue and Deliberation:
Neutral facilitation is provided throughout the dialogue and deliberation event. More specifically, participants in small groups listen respectfully, exchange experiences and viewpoints, learn from each other, and deepen their understanding of the issue on the table. Participants in general session listen and consider the views expressed by participants of other small groups. Participants weigh the alternative courses of action brought forth at the meeting and participants as a group vote or otherwise make their preferences known. Opportunities are given for participants to react to the group findings and to introduce modifications if needed and agreed to by the group.
Closure and Product:
The results of the citizen-at-large deliberations are made available to the stakeholders prior to their final meeting and they are charged with considering the citizen input as well as their own perspectives in coming to a final set of conclusions and recommendations to the agency or sponsor. A public viewpoint or societal peperspective on the topic at hand is provided to the sponsor.
Hello Everyone,
Just a note to say that I posted information in haste yesterday after just learning of the March 10 deadline. I did not have time to read previous posts before adding my own. I read the previous posts last night and now realize that online rather than face to face public engagement has been the focus of this community. I apologize if this was not appropriate.
If it is relevant, then I hope we can have more discussion here about the face to face options. I believe we could and should scale up some and supplement the face to face work we have been doing with online opportunities.
If there is a another location where face to face public engagement in policy making is being discussed and planned more directly, I would appreciate one of you letting me know.
Roger
[Name], I'm right with you. Public engagement is both/and, not either/or, just like employee engagement. I see you're based in Georgia. We can save a ton of $$ and time working long-distance, but there's a missing piece along the relationship dimension until we meet face to face.[Name]
[Name], 'great minds think alike' and on the same schedule. LOL ;)
Yep! And your comment to [Name] provides a clue as to how dinosaurus federalus can be engaged right along with whippersnapperus federalus to help public engagement evolve quickly, as it must. If public servants are given options to engage the way other citizens are, they will plug in where they're comfortable and we can get going on some of these problems.
Boy Howdy, are you speaking my lingo! Kermudgin status is a slow, painful process. ;)
Not at all. While I am an avid proponent of the use of online tools to assist and enhance the avenues of an Open Government, I do not believe that your excellent comments are out of place here at all. The OpenGov initiative must be a mix of all possible methods to achieve the goal. I envision the time (very soon) where a 'Town Hall' (for lack of a better, longer description) can be a mixed meeting of hardscape location and virtual venues where all can hear and be heard. Sort of like the absolute phenom of January 20th!
[Name],
Thanks for the comments about the appropriateness of discussing face to face and online public engagement here. I know from others responsible for this community that they have the interest in our brainstorming about these topics here also. I look forward to continuing exchanges.
What do people think of the 2x10 Principles I posted?
[Name]
Hi [Name], just my take on them, I personally love them. And if we have methods for converting to this to online discussions, all the better. But I absolutely agree with the thought that a mix of methods is essential. Especially issues which touch significantly on population groups which don't use the web, like senior citizens, something like the method proposed above is critical.
I have been encouraged to bring a resource on public participation to this group's attention if you have not seen it yet. While the report was focused on environmental public participation, its conclusions and recommendations apply much more broadly to other policy areas. The report from the National Research Council of the National Academies is entitled "Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making". This is perhaps the most comprehensive review of the evidence on public participation ever assembled, and it concludes that public participation works to improve the quality and legitimacy of decisions and builds the capacity of all involved to engage in the policy process. It calls public participation "...a requisite for effective action, not merely a formal procedural requirement."
I think its 6 major recommendations accord with the 2x10 principles I shared yesterday and vice-versa. I think the Academy report could help guide the formulation of the our future recommendations to the agencies.
Unfortunately, I do not think the full report is available free of charge from the NAS. You can get an executive summary at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12434&page=1 Search for the link to a free exeuctive summary on the left side of the page. They don't make it easy!
I created a powerpoint which distills the report if you would like to view that presentation. I will try to attach it here but if I fail, send me an email to get a copy at [Email]
[Name]
[Name], I finally made time to go through the Powerpoint attachment - it is rich and exceedingly useful. Thanks so much for posting it. [Name]
For starters, the Max page is exceedingly busy.If we are trying to encourage wide particpation from the public the page should address the President's memorandum and the disired information in a more meaningful and user friendly way and put all the other Government agency "stuff" in a separate link. Otherwise, the public at large will likely not provide comments and not find the place to enter comments in the first place. Suggest including a few brief examples under each category would be useful. For example, what do we mean by transparency, participation, and colloboration. My first reaction as a citizen out in the field is what are they talking about, is this more Washingtonianeze?
[Name],
I think your question about what do we mean by participation and the other terms is very important. Having thought about the definition of participation, I am frustrated by the fact that there is not common understanding in the field about what that means. There are different circumstances and different ways of participating and no common meaning across practitioners, let alone the public.
This is why I have coined the term "Consequential Public Engagement" because I wanted to carve out that brand of public participation which meets the standards for quality dialogue and deliberation and meets the standards of the sponsor and the participants for good-quality, worth-(y)our-while, shared-decisionmaking.
In this sense, not all public engagement is consequential. We are already doing the less interactive, less-shared kind of public engagement all the time when we do federal surveys, focus groups, public comment periods, hearings, and certain types of town meetings. The challenge is to step it up and upgrade the level of our interaction with the public to make it more of a "co-creation" than what takes place now. It would still be short of a partnership where there is 50-50 or consensus decision making. I do not think that latter brand of public engagement is realistic in most situations I have seen in our agency, and it might not even by what we should do most of the time. But consequential public engagement is a good mid-way point---more that what we are doing now, and less than might be done under ideal circumstances.
Roger
Just want to alert the technical experts who are following to the recently published Final Report of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force to the Multi-State Working Group on Social Networking of State Attorneys General of the United States.
I saw a comment today describing the panel discussion at the Center for American Progress last week on the Open Government Directive. The person summarizing the discussion said that "technology will play a large role in how the directive imagines participation." I was struck by this phrase since how one envisions or imagines an activity has so much to do with what the final product is. Can anyone clarify for me the relative importance of face-to-face public participation is expected to have compared to online public participation? I am assuming that each mode of public participation has actual or potential strengths and weaknesses. However, on balance, will more weight be placed on face-to-face public participation using group process techniques or will more weight be placed on online methods using social media tools? Or perhaps it will be more like the child's game of rock, scissors, and paper. Which one trumps or gets most weight depends on the circumstances. If so, it will be important to describe when it is optimal to use one or the other or both.
[Name]
I would think this is not an all or nothing proposition. One would have to decide what they are trying to achieve and choose approach based on that; and that could mean a multitude of channels between a technology solution and the in-person. Technology would enable an ability to deal with massive information or reaching out to a large community, but I cannot imagine it totally replacing the face-to-face interaction that has so much value. Knowing who you are trying to reach, interact with, and receive feedback from, should drive the decisions on the how.
Okay, you all: here's your chance to pitch an idea that applies the transparency concepts discussed in this forum to the improvement of the federal workforce! You must apply before midnight, April 4th; the attachment tells you how and why. The Public Service Recognition Week event is May 7, 1:30-3 p.m., National Mall.
Greetings. I'm wondering if anyone has thought about metrics that could indicate vibrant participation, or serve as a proxy for engagement, on a wiki such as MAX. Here are the ones that have occurred to me so far:
I'm gathering information on outputs and outcomes. Have any thoughts?
