¿Qué significa para ti un Gobierno 2.0? Creo que hemos hablado largo y tendido en muchas ocasiones de qué implica y que no. Es más creo que durante los últimos meses ya le hemos dado una vuelta más a la tuerca y de ese 2.0 tan manido y manoseado por todo el mundo ya hemos pasado a otro concepto quizá más abierto. Hemos llegado al “Open Government” o “Gobierno abierto”, pero a éste que también le hemos dedicado tiempo en la blogosfera será tema de conversación en breve, de momento estar atentos al grupo existente en Facebook ^_^
Pero volvamos al Gobierno 2.0 y lo que significa. Para Tim o’Reilly que definió originariamente la web 2.0:
So too with Government 2.0. A lot of people equate the term with government use of social media, either to solicit public participation or to get out its message in new ways. Some people think it means making government more transparent. Some people think it means adding AJAX to government websites, or replacing those websites with government APIs, or building new cloud platforms for shared government services. And yes, it means all those things.
Aunque dicho artículo ha provocado reacciones y algunas contrarias en las que afirman que un Gobierno 2.0 no es sólo una plataforma por diferentes razones. En dicho artículo Andrea DiMaio, vicepresidente de la consultora Gartner, explica el porqué de dicha afirmación diciendo que equiparar a un gobierno 2.0 a una plataforma es muy simplista. Pero entre sus razones quiero destacar la de que “el gobierno es demasiadas cosas para la misma gente“:
Government is many different things at the same time to the same people. Government is an authority, a protector, a supplier, a democracy, and entertains with citizens all these relationships at the same time. This implies that it can be a platform provider, user, integrator, or just a unique solution provider, and all these roles overlap in such a way that it is difficult to determine what would be the sensible boundaries of a platform.
Y es cierto, el gobierno entendido como tal para cada ciudadano puede significar algo diferente en función de las necesidades que este tenga. Son múltiples los puntos de vista que podemos tener de un Gobierno 2.0 tal y como indican en Federal Computer Week:
- Government as a process is about the underlying processes that people don’t often see but employees spend most of their time dealing with. In this way of thinking about Gov 2.0, new technologies are being harnessed to promote internal sharing, build Enterprise 2.0 tools, create new efficiencies and discover novel uses of citizen input. One example is Spacebook, a social network for people who work at NASA facilities.
- Government as a provider is a citizen-focused way of thinking about government work in which the government is seen as a giver of products and services. In this way of thinking, emerging technologies help government employees listen to citizens’ needs and then provide public services that better meet those needs. One example is Princeton University’s Research Collections and Preservation Consortium project, which uses crowd sourcing to share federal court documents.
- Government as a partner showcases novel relationships that organizations and people forge with government through the use of emerging technologies. Both sides have a strong interest in creating the best outcome possible. One example is the Arkansas Recovery Portal, which shows how the state is spending funds it receives under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
- Government as a product means that the government is viewed as a storehouse of valuable information that can power computer applications and the like. That approach differs from government as a provider in the sense that, in addition to providing services such as Social Security benefits, the government offers products such as the raw information on the Data.gov site. The Sunlight Foundation has created many platforms that make creative use of freely available government data.
- Government as a protector and peacekeeper rounds out the Top 5. The government negotiates treaties, sends troops into harm’s way, and provides law enforcement, courts and other structures to keep most people safe most of the time. And agencies try to accomplish those missions better. One example is how the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used new-media technologies, such as Twitter, to inform the public about the recent recall of peanut products.
En fin que las acepciones para lo que ha de ser un Gobierno 2.0 son múltiples y variadas. Tenemos como habéis visto posicionamientos como el de Tim O’Reilly que lo contempla desde la vertiente de la tecnología en un momento en el que el Open Government por lo que a los datos se refiere está causando una verdadera revolución. O por otro lado tenemos otros puntos de vista menos tecnólogos en los que evidentemente el aspecto social es básico para que todo esto se produzca.
Creo que desde siempre me he decantado por esa parte más social que ha de tener el gobierno, entendiéndolo como administración pública. No concibo un Gobierno 2.0 sin que se produzca un cambio de actitud en quien gestiona los servicios, en quien los ejecuta y sobre todo en quien los recibe. La tecnología es importante pero lo es más la voluntad de tod@s para construir la sociedad que queremos. Pero en definitiva, ¿estamos reinventando el eGovernment o creando algo diferente?
A modo de punto final para esta recopilación de notas y reflexiones quiero dejaros una versión del Cluetrain Manifiesto adaptada a lo que debería ser un Gobierno 2.0 que he encontrado en Social Computing Journal de la mano de Steve Radick:
- The risks of social media are greatly outweighed by the risks of NOT doing social media.
- Your Government agency/organization/group/branch/division is not unique. You do not work in a place that just can’t just use social media because your data is too sensitive. You do not work in an environment where social media will never work. Your challenges, while unique to you, are not unique to the government.
- You will work with skeptics and other people who want to see social media fail because the transparency and authenticity will expose their weaknesses.
- You will work with people who want to get involved with social media for all the wrong reasons. They will see it as an opportunity to advance their own their careers, to make more money, or to show off. These people will be more dangerous to your efforts than the biggest skeptic.
- Younger employees are not necessarily any more knowledgeable about social media than older employees. Stop assuming that they are.
- Before going out and hiring any social media “consultants,” assume that there is already someone within your organization who is actively using social media and who is very passionate about it. Find them, use them, engage them. These are the people who will make or break your foray into social media.
- Mistakes can and will be made (a lot). Stop trying to create safeguards to eliminate the possibility of mistakes and instead concentrate on how to deal with them when they are made.
- Information security is a very real and valid concern. Do NOT take this lightly.
- Policies are not written in stone. With justification, passion, and knowledge, policies and rules can and should be changed. Sometimes it’s as easy as asking, but other times will require a knockdown, drag-out fight. Both are important.
- Be humble. You don’t know everything so stop trying to pretend that you do. It’s ok to be wrong.
- But, be confident. Know what you know and don’t back down. You will be challenged by skeptics and others who do not care and/or understand social media. Do not let them discourage you.
- There are true social media champions throughout the government. Find them. Talk to them. Learn from them.
- Government 2.0 is not a new concept. It’s getting so much attention now because social media has given a voice to the ambitious, the innovative, and the creative people within the government.
- Social media is not about the technology but what the technology enables.
- Social media is not driven by the position, the title, or the department, it’s driven by the person. Stop trying to pidgeon-hole into one team or department, and instead think of a way to bring together people from across your organization.
- Instead of marketing your social media capabilities, skills, experience, platforms, software, etc. to the government, why don’t you try talking with them? An honest conversation will be remembered for far longer than a PowerPoint presentation.
- Today’s employees will probably spend five minutes during the workday talking to their friends on Facebook or watching the latest YouTube video. Today’s employees will also probably spend an hour at 10:00 at night answering emails or responding to a work-related blog post. Assume that your employees are good people who want to do the right thing and who take pride in their work.
- Agency Secretaries and Department Heads are big boys and girls. They should be able to have direct conversations with their workforce without having to jump through hoops to do so.
- Transparency, participatory, collaborative — these terms do not refer only to the end state; they refer to the process used to get there as well. It’s ok to have debates, arguments, and disagreements about the best way to go about achieving “Government 2.0.” Diverse perspectives, opinions, and beliefs should be embraced and talked about openly.
- It’s not enough to just allow negative feedback on your blog or website, you also have to do something about it. This might mean engaging in a conversation about why person X feels this way or (gasp!) making a change to an outdated policy. Don’t just listen to what the public has to say, you have to also care about it too.