A 1.0 Business Case for Government Web 2.0 Adoption
For all its transformative potential, future adoption of Web 2.0 within the Federal government rests on the same business case requirements as any other product or service. And while enterprise wikis and secure video sharing applications are gaining converts in civilian, intelligence and defense organizations, decision makers in the upper echelons are still looking for strong cost and efficiency arguments to turn Web 2.0 applications from “nice to have” to “need to have.”
This point was made matter-of-factly by Tim Schmidt, CTO at the Department of Transportation, at last week’s Advanced Learning Institute Social Media for Government conference. Speaking April 16th at the Advanced Learning Institute’s Social Media for Government conference in Alexandria, Va., Schmidt hinted that a certain level of fear will always exist when it comes to high level decision makers embracing unfamiliar technologies. This was true in the early days of email and the Internet, and is once again playing out with Web 2.0.
To overcome this ingrained skepticism, Schmidt suggests that 2.0 champions must build a strong business case by laying out specific cost benefits in addition to independent data from industry analysts and others. Once the business case is made, 2.0 advocates face a secondary hurdle to alleviate upper management concerns of the security of these Web 2.0 applications – particular social media tools that encourage information sharing.
FCW recently cited one example of how Agencies are leveraging commercial social media applications while addressing security concerns. iVideo, a video sharing application much like YouTube, allows intelligence analysts and other employees with various levels of clearance across the globe to submit video that can then be viewed by those with proper access. The testing for this application – which first took place on an unclassified network – offers a guide on how even the most sensitive tasks can benefit from Web 2.0
Web 2.0 is not going to receive a free pass – nor should it – when it comes to evaluating the soundness of its business case. But as more champions emerge with demonstrable results and case studies, the willingness of upper management to adopt these tools and technologies will grow.
Posted by Brian Lustig
on Sunday, April 20th, 2008. Filed under General.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
The presidential campaigns used new tools in their strategies to engage people. The financial manager and their staffs need to become familiar with these new tools and incorporate them into their strategies. The major change required for these new tools is that finance must be more proactive rather than reactive, with results examined in real time.
· Internet —We need to monitor the changes in the Internet (the enormous network of networks connecting disparate computers using languages called protocols). Internet Protocol Version 6 (aka IPV6) has now expanded the addresses and tags that can be used. Have our governments transitioned to IPV6?
· Web—We need to accommodate the different vehicles that customers use to travel on the “http” protocol to visit our sites. Can the different vehicles (MS Internet Explorer or Firefox or Safari or on a Web-enabled phone or PDA) that visitors use to access out sites allow them to seamlessly navigate through our Web pages?
· XML—Do our Web pages use of “eXtensible Markup Language” utilize well-formed and valid smart tags with corresponding end tags to get the user where she or he needs to go?
· XBRL—Are we presenting our financial documents—PAR, budget, CAFR or PAFR—into “eXtensible Business Reporting Language” to our customers so that they are not seeing a large financial document as a mere block of text but rather as a set of smart tags for the different parts (assets, liabilities, net assets, revenues, expenditures) that can be drilled down to the lowest level?
· Wikis—Are we using “What I Know Is” tools, internally and externally, to aggregate and share financial information on an ongoing basis in a collaborative manner?
· Blogs—Are we utilizing blogs to discuss financial topics and issues, internally and externally, to enhance and refine ideas, opinions and approaches in a collaborative manner?
· Social Bookmarking—Are we engaging the customers of our financial information by inquiring what they want to know (categorize whether it is a salary or revenue query) and where they go (assigning a tag—bookmark) to find it? Do we examine these social bookmarks to modify or adapt our financial information based on user trends?
· Social Media —Are we creating financial information forums utilizing blogs, Wikis, podcasts, MySpace, Facebook, Youmeo, Twitter or Plaxo to keep in touch with our users of financial information?
· Collaboration—If we do not manage collaboratively now, then what do we need to learn about it to enable us to take advantage of collaborative tools like Google Docs or MS SharePoint? Do our Intranet websites allow for collaboration? What is our government’s or agency’s strategy on collaboration?
If you expect that citizens and customers will wait for you to implement the above, or come to you asking you to implement the above, then nothing will change. I believe that we must engage our customers about government finance with these existing tools. I believe that the government budget, accounting and auditing professions must incorporate these tools into their existing strategies. The easiest way to implement them is to incorporate them, where appropriate, into your defined business processes. If presidential campaigns can use these tools with people all across the country, many of whom never met face-to-face, then why can’t government finance do the same?
Great post. Many local government leaders are apprehensive about using simple social media tools to communicate with their constituents.