On the Shoulders of Tortoises we will Innovate!

My friends at Mind & Media has posted a full response to my recent posting on Wikigov. Jason Sonnenfelt was thoughtful enough to respond to each of my questions. Well done and thoughtful answers for sure. Yet, it seems Jason subscribes to the same cautious flow of thought as the author of the article I reacted to initially. For example, to my original question, ’Do experts in the government consistently demonstrate more wisdom than a well monitored and diverse crowd?’,  Jason answered:

“Yes. That is why we consider them experts. One thing that sets the United States apart is the education and professionalism of our civil service. And while public input is vital and necessary, there is absolutely no guarantee it is wise. Our country is built on that premise. It’s why we are a representative democracy and not a direct one. Furthermore, ‘well-monitored and diverse’ is ambiguous at best—difficult concepts to define and enforce.”

It was tough for me to read past his first response (I did anyway) as there clearly are two books he has not read:

• “The Wisdom of Crowds” by James Surowiecki
• “The Difference” by Scott Page

I also felt that both Jason and the author of the original piece read into my posting that I want some sort of cowboy gone wild web 2.0 to hit the government. That is the last thing I want. I do want a fast, agile and innovative thought process to embrace the web, like we are now seeing at the US Patent and Trade Office. I say, harness crowds to help (read help) solve problems. Note in the case of the Patent Office that a government official will adjudicate the final response. I would have it no other way. Yet, please explain to me how one smart, over-worked patent examiner (even with peer review) ever brings more to his or her job than the wisdom of a diverse crowd?

The government cannot fear the future and stand on the shoulders of tortoises as it solves problems. The web has matured.  If the crowd is tapped and regulated, with final decisions left to the government, then please explain to me how that makes any of us worse off? I look forward to reading Jason Sonnenfelt’s reviews of the two books I mentioned earlier. Me thinks his thinking might change based on at least the wisdom of a small crowd–myself and two excellent authors.

Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.

Change Agent Book: Transforming Public Leadership for the 21st Century

This week I was informed that the change agent paper will now be included in a significant new college and graduate school text that will be published in August. The publisher is M.E. Sharpe and the book is called: Transforming Public Leadership for the 21st Century.

The description of the text from the publisher reads:

The forces of globalization are shifting our world, including the public sector, away from hierarchy and command and control toward one of collaboration and networks. The way public leadership is thought about and practiced must be, and is being, transformed. This volume in the Transformational Trends in Governance & Democracy series explores what the shift looks like and also offers guidance on what it should look like. Specifically, the book focuses on the role of career leaders–those in public service–who are agents of change not only in their own organizations, but also in their communities and policy domains. These leaders work in network settings, making connections and collaborating to create public value and advance the common good. Featuring the insights of an authoritative group of contributors, the volume offers a mix of scholarship, from philosophical discussions to conceptual models to empirical studies that, taken together, will help inform the transformation of public leadership that is already underway.

The editors have compiled an amazing list of authors and contributors from the Comptroller of the United States to leading public policy experts. I offer my sincere thanks to Frank DiGiammarino and Terry Buss from the National Academy of Public Administration for considering the change agent paper and then incorporating it into their outstanding publications.

Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.

Sen. Obama Leads the Push for Higher Education

After formally announcing his candidacy for the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama promised that the first bill he would re-introduce to Congress, if elected President, would be the Higher Education Opportunity through Pell Grant Expansion (HOPE) Act.   As the senator of Illinois in 1005, Obama co-sponsored the HOPE Act, but his proposal did not progress beyond committee and was never voted on by the Senate. This time around, Obama plans to ask Congress to boost federal spending for needy college students, and increase the maximum amount of federal loans a student can receive from $4,050 to the maximum $5,100 [1]. The bill would add another $300 to the maximum grant annually until it reaches $6,300 by fall of 2011.

“Today we are failing too many of our children. We’re sending them out into a 21st century economy by sending them through the doors of 20th century schools. We now live in a world where the most valuable skill you can sell is knowledge. Revolutions in technology and communication have created an entire economy of high-tech, high-wage jobs that can be located anywhere there’s an internet connection. And today, a child in Chicago is not only competing for jobs with one in Boston, but thousands more in Bangalore and Beijing who are being educated longer and better than ever before.” [2]

Two decades ago, the maximum grant a student could receive covered 55 percent of costs at a public four-year college, compared with 32 percent today. This limits an estimated 200,000 students each year from attending college, and if not addressed immediately, America’s children will continue to lose their competitive edge.

“America is in danger of losing this competition. We now have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized country. By 12th grade, our children score lower on their math and science tests than most other kids in the world. And today, countries like China are graduating eight times as many engineers as we do.” [2]

Another grant opportunity Obama plans to propose includes an award to school districts that modernize their technology systems, discover new ways to improve student achievement and teacher effectiveness, and offer summer learning opportunities for disadvantaged children [3]. Sen. Obama is on the forefront of restructuring America’s educational system, and he is ready to take the lead.

Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.

Online Campaign Communities

According to Wall Street Journal article, “New Outlets For Political Junkies,” presidential campaigns in 2004 spent $29 million on e-mail marketing, web development, and online advertising. In 2008, this figure is estimated to skyrocket.  PQ Media has estimated that in 2008, online-related spending will grow to around $80 million — more than a 35% increase. The upward trend shouldn’t come as a surprise — we all know Internet sites will become a huge budget component of the campaigns. However, not only are Internet sites eating up dollars, they are aggressively drawing in traffic steams by offering new campaign features. For example, MySpace announced recently that it will hold a “virtual election” a couple days prior to the national election. We will closely follow these online communities, and it will be interesting to gauge the accuracy of their predictions.  In the era of American Idol and political “experts” becoming online communities, the “virtual election” may be just the tip of the iceberg.

Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.

Change Agents: Wikigov Is Now!

I just came across this somber article from GCN that recasts the well-publicized stories of crowd sourcing and asks the hurry-up-and-wait question,”Is it time for Wikigov?”

In my opinion, Generation Y change agents within our government would never even ask this question since they understand that crowd sourcing can be a valuable problem solving tool. In fact, if you consider that every regulation proposed in America receives open publication and feedback solicitation through the Federal Register, you quickly come to realize that our government has been in the crowd sourcing business for decades. What’s new is the maturity of the web, and its ability to eliminate the costs of coordinating a crowd. Here are some questions I would like to see posed to government innovators as they embrace and face the new models posed by the “wisdom of the crowds”:

• Do experts in the government consistently demonstrate more wisdom than a well monitored and diverse crowd?
• Why shouldn’t the government consider enabling many pilot programs to tap the wisdom of the American people? Why just dip your foot in the water when a market based economy (read: a very wise crowd) is at the heart of what it means to even live in America?
• With all of the retirements within the government over the next 5 years, can we really afford to notthink innovatively about how to enable a different conversation with the American people about how we can best solve problems?
• With the amount of outsourcing cone by the government, why should we take a cautious approach to engaging the free minds and wisdom that come with harnessing the innovation of a diverse and normal distribution of people?
• Why is the government moving so slowly in embracing web 2.0? In the Global War on Terror for example, do we actually think the terrorists are missing the chance to collaborate through the web to solve the complex problems of their deranged visions?

Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.