The review proposes a simple vision:

that citizens, consumers and government can create, reuse and distribute information in ways that add maximum value.
p.20

The authors then go on to propose a three point strategy to enable government to make the most of the opportunities afforded by unlocking its information. They suggest government:

• welcomes and engages with users and operators of user-generated sites in pursuit of common social and economic objectives;
• supplies potential re-users with the public sector information they, when they need it, in a way that maximizes the long-term benefits for all citizens; and
• protects the public interest by preparing citizens for a world of plentiful (and sometimes unreliable) information, and helps excluded groups take advantage.

In the post on the principles of Govt 2.0, I discussed the importance of this practice, ‘open sourcing government.’ But before we (here in New Zealand, or any other jurisdictions for that matter) are in a position to transform the .govt.nz namespace into one that actively encourages this sort of value transfer, we need to look at how we are making the information available in the first place.

Data web

The use and re-use of government information is predicated on the ability to find the right information at the right time, and for it to be made available in a way that enables people and/or machines to access and, where necessary, manipulate it. The review has an interesting counter example of this:

‘I got in touch with the Stern report team, because I wanted to republish it in a format that people could easily read and discuss on the internet. I couldn’t make the person at the other end of the phone line understand why I didn’t want the report in 600 page PDF format. So I said I wanted to be able to read it on my phone. He told me to get a better phone.’
p. 19

The irony of this review only being available as a PDF aside, this anecdote illustrates a classic public sector myopia around the publishing process: “We’ve put it on the web, we’re done.” When what is really called for is a vision of the publishing process as a value chain that begins when agency information is being marked up for publication.

However, this requires a revolution in the thinking that we bring to the management of government information. Everything that we publish becomes viewed as a potential resource for the public and private sectors to consume, syndicate, mashup and reinvent for social and economic benefit.

A local example is Statistics New Zealand, who have just launched a programme to make their data available to businesses.

The Cabinet Office review cites 2006 figures from the Office of Fair Trading that estimate that improved availability of information to re-users could double the direct market value of public sector information to £1.1 billion per year (another pdf).

Unlocking some of this value is the challenge before us. Microformats and semantic markup in general are a good first step, and another compelling reason why public sector communicators should be familiar with HTML. It is our job to describe and champion this value chain within our agencies.

Conclusion

Mor Naaman, in his post The Emerging-Semantics Web (”The Semantic Web is Dead”), points out that most people will be unwilling to mark their pages up semantically therefore what we will see emerge is a ‘bottom-up’ semantic web built from lightweight solutions like microformats and Flickr machine tags. This is probably the case, and a good reminder that web standards are not an end in themselves.

It should also remind us that as public servants we have an additional responsibility to ensure that the information that we publish – in addition to being accessible by all – can be re-used by people and businesses to generate social and economic value.

Photo: dltq

Before we get to the report itself, by way of an introduction: if you are not entirely sure what this whole Web 2.0 thing is, then you should probably have a look at this seminal article by Tim O’Reilly, What Is Web 2.0.

Back to the Gartner report. The opening sentence summarizes the nature of the analysts’ thinking and conclusions:

Web 2.0 will affect several industries, but none will feel such a pervasive impact as government.

I would argue that the first half of the sentence is already looking anachronistic (Web 2.0 is not just affecting industries now, it is driving them) and, given this, the second half doesn’t necessarily augur all that well for governments.

Why not? Because most governments are still trying to come to terms with Web 1.0, let alone adapt to the rapidly changing expectations of citizens who are experiencing seismic shifts in personalisation, data control and accessibility in their dealings with Web 2.0 businesses.

And this ‘expectation gap’ will manifest inside agencies as much as it will in their dealings with citizens. I have already posted about the importance of agencies evolving into the sorts of workplaces that match younger generations cultural expectations, but I can’t stress how important this is.

Governments, like every other employer, are desperate to attract and retain quality staff and ensuring that employees work in an environment that is socially and technologically similar to their existing experience of the world is critical. You wouldn’t expect a young public servant to work without a phone, why would you expect them to work in an environment where they can’t IM, blog or collaborate with colleagues on a wiki?

This strikes me as one of the shortcomings of the Gartner paper: there is no consideration of how Web 2.0 technologies will influence the internal processes and cultures of agencies. I would expect that internally driven change was just as significant a contributor to transformed government as changing citizen expectations.

Gartner go on to predict (I believe, accurately) that mashups will provide government with opportunities to operate more efficiently and effectively:

(Examples of mashups) requires governments to rethink the way they make their data and services accessible to external consumers, be they constituents or intermediaries.

This is the real crux of the implementation of Web 2.0 for government: who owns the data? And how do we manage it? I started to cover this when I wrote about microformats, and their potential for government. By making the data available for syndication and reuse, we are essentially saying to people “this is authoritative, go out and use it in ways that will make it valuable for you.” This could mean mashing up geo data with contact details (hCards) and agency address (adr) to provide a map of agency contacts that would be updated in realtime as the respective agencies updated their websites.

As Tim O’Reilly observed in Wired this week:

A lot of people still think, “Oh, it’s about social networking. It’s about blogging. It’s about wikis.” I think it’s about the data that’s created by those mechanisms, and the businesses that that data will make possible.

And the more of that data that is structured, the more that is semantic, the greater the payload of value that government will be able to deliver; both in terms of increased efficiencies and effectiveness, and in terms of opportunities for businesses and communities.

Of course, this requires a fundamental change in the way agencies view the data that they collect and maintain. It amounts to, in many ways, the open sourcing of government. Is that a step that we are ready (or able) to take? Will we have a choice?

The Gartner paper acknowledges this as a risk, stating:

As far as re-intermediation — which is where greatest potential benefit of Web 2.0 may lie — regulatory, privacy and data issues and politics must be considered. Much data that could produce benefits is not sharable. Different jurisdictions are struggling with how to produce the requisite policy/legal changes.

What does this mean for communicators?

The vanguard of Web 2.0 in government is social media. And as communicators we are at the front and center of managing this change process. Understanding social media, and successfully implementing it in your agency, is an important step towards Web 2.0, and it is one that will largely rest upon your shoulders.

We may be only taking the first, tentative steps towards Govt 2.0, but our publics will increasingly expect more personalisation, more responsive and agile government. Our fellow public servants will increasingly expect a work environment that reflects their interests, their networks and ways of communicating with their colleagues and peers. And all of this represents a tremendous opportunity for us to reinvent the way that government serves the people. Who wouldn’t want to be a part of that?

Instant Messaging

The first is that it picks Enterprise Instant Messaging as on the rise in government. This is something that I believe we should be pushing for really hard. As I posted last year, this should be in widespread use now, at least as an inter-agency tool, if not hooked into the PSI.

The report notes that there are two reasons for the slow take up in government: IT Managers concerns about it being a vector for malware, and cultural. The cultural reason is substantiated by a quote from an (unnamed) state’s deputy CIO:

Instant Messaging is the biggest waste of time ever created.

This guy obviously hasn’t spent enough time managing his emails…

The authors then go on to note that, in terms of business impact, IM is the communications tool of choice for next generation government workers. And this is, I think, something that cannot be overstated. Every bright, hopeful and shiny-eyed inductee into the public sector today will expect to be able to connnect with their peers using the tools they use in their personal lives. Imagine being shown to your desk/cubicle and there not being a phone: what would be your response?

Semantic Web

The authors also comment on sematic web markup, for both public and corporate content (by corporate, they appear to mean intra- and extranets) as an emerging trend. This is particularly encouraging, for a number of reasons. As the report notes:

…microformats represent a change in direction from a top-down model to define ontologies with RDF/OWL to a bottom-up model to annotate content.

Delivering information across the Web with machine-readable and interpretable semantics offers the potential for enhanced application/site interoperability, automation of information discovery, more contextually relevant searches and options that are difficult or impossible (for example, show doctors in Minneapolis, Minnesota that are open on Saturday morning).

The sematic web should be driven by the public sector. Making information accessible, discoverable and usable should be the minimum standard expected for the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. I have posted on microformats before, so it is encouraging to see that this message is being conveyed back to government business and IT managers through the Gartner briefs.

Social Media

Any excitement about the inclusion of microformats should, however, be tempered by the complete absence of any evaluation of social media. No blogs. No wikis. Nada.

Oddly, The Hype Cycle for Content Management, published a fortnight later (July, 2006), does touch on these tools. Does this mean that government aren’t using these tools, so they don’t rate a mention? I am not so sure. The CM paper notes that, in private enterprise at least, Wikis are “sliding into the trough” (their terminology), with a market penetration of 1-5% of the target audience. It gets weirder. The authors then talk about “RSS: Blogs,” as if RSS was exclusively tied to blogging or the terms were somehow synonymous.

Perhaps this is just a symptom of Gartner’s focus on the tools themselves, rather than the way people use all of these tools to communicate with each other and their publics. In any case, I find it a little disappointing for a firm that is selling analysis to conflate the two. Any other thoughts on the Gartner methodology?