Interesting ideas Mark. I would have figured the government would have already used a stripped down infrastructure.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the comment, Chris. Could you explain more about what you mean by, "stripped down infrastructure?"
Obviously the government uses a tremendous about of IT, or as many call it now, ICT. But what I think it largely has not taken advantage of are the new social tools available.
Furthermore, even the people that use the tools are not coordinating with other that are. I talk about this more in my next post.
Chris.Ott@referralkey.com/
· 1 year ago
I'm not in any branch of government but what I mean by "stripped down" infrastructure" is a light-weight message board. Message Boards contain most modern "new-media" features they just tend to be aesthetically less pleasing than, lets say a Facebook. (which could be viewed as a vertical oriented message board itself)
When I think of military networking, I think of a series of message boards on a super secure network. An intranet versus an internet.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
There is a tremendous amount of IT infrastructure throughout the government and it is especially prevalent in the military. There are even sprinklings of Web 2.0 here and there.
What is a larger problem is that the government could be (1) more aware of the existing tools, and (2) using them in more ways to maximize our time, energy, and funds.
A big issue is getting people (government employees, contractors, warfighters) engaged with the new technology, which by and large is not currently happening in a major way.
digitalfemme
· 1 year ago
Hmmm ... I do applaud you for taking the steps to adventure out into the Web 2.0 world. You as a person, getting interested and excited about the developments and applications for Web 2.0 tools - I like. I'm just a little skeptical about 'government'. Perhaps it's the name 'government' and all other aspects that it conjures up in my mind, especially when you mention military.
I find it funny that a sector of government would be incorporating social networking tools amongst themselves, when I seem to have this notion that 'government' pretty much has the *eye* on everything anyone does (or they can, they certainly have the access to it) you know what I mean?
It's almost a backward thing. Government can spy and monitor the people, and NOW they are just getting into the social networking thing amongst themselves. It's just funny.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
It's very true that to many people the words government and military have a bad connotation. But the reality is that mostly everyone working in the government, no matter what they do, is just doing the best they can, and serving their country, if only in a tiny way.
One thing that I have enjoyed in attending social networking events is putting a human face on the government in Washington DC. The same is true of military bloggers and the like, talking about their day-to-day lives. Many are quick to criticize, but I might ask you how many people you know that are working on the Senate staff, wiretapping people, fighting in Iraq, etc. I suspect very few.
In some sense, day to day life in government is just like anywhere else - there are ups and downs, smart and dumb people, good and bad strategies, fights about budgets, folks on vacation not doing their jobs, etc. The government does have a lot of money and can have a lot of influence, but to think that "they" (2% of the US workforce) are some congealed, omnipresent force monitoring and knowing everything in real time is completely naive.
Aronado
· 1 year ago
Well written post Mark.
Call me naive but, I assumed that the Govt. had it's *hand* in SN & SM since day one. For some reason it is really hard for me to believe that this is not the case.
Basically, the idea I am getting from you is that the Govt. is kind of relying on public companies to *learn* and *implement* SN/SM strategies/tactics for Govt. military use. Yes, I understand it makes sense to leverage other peoples time/money/tech/R&D for the benefit of your objectives.
To be honest it's kinda like this: The Govt. wants "us" to show them how to use the tools/methods of communication. Which is fine but, I feel like the Govt. "whisperers" will use the channels to attempt to manipulate our thoughts. Now, of course, this is not the only way the Govt. will utilize SN/SM but, is must be a concern for us regular folks. This would be *GovernmentSpam* and it could be the worst SPAM we have experienced. But, hell, it's already part of mainstream media & Hollywood.
Mark, I think you are a GREAT guy. My response is not personal whatsoever.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Thanks for your comments. I mean this in a nice way, but it is somewhat naive to assume that government is an all-knowing, all-seeing entity that is on top of every question, every answer, every option, every solution, and every new technology.
The government in reality is a very large and complex system of institutions that often have self-interests and do not necessarily coordinate with each other. How often do the FDA, the Federal Reserve, NASA, and the Senate get in the same room together? Never. That's just the way it is - it's NOT like a corporation. And also, many decisions are directly or indirectly related to "politics" in the broadest sense.
Not everyone is in the dark on social tools. The intelligence community has made amazing inroads with Intellipedia and other tools. Some of the blogs from the TSA, USPS and other places are great. I talk about that more in my next post. But largely, we could be using the tools a lot more and a lot better, in many areas, and I hope that some of my work brings the secotr more attention.
Aronado
· 1 year ago
Now Mark... I certainly did not say the Govt. is
"all-knowing, all-seeing entity that is on top of every question, every answer, every option, every solution, and every new technology."
For you to attempt to turn my statement into something is clearly wasn't is *exactly* where the problem is. Of course, anyone can twist words. Why would "we" want to assist Governments so that they can turn around and attempt to manipulate us.
Again, my statement was: I assumed that the Govt. had it's *hand* in SN & SM since day one."
Mark, please do not perpetuate the perception (and reality) of the Government BS through SN/SM.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
You have a very aggressive style of commenting, and I am not here to have a debate with lots of quotations and sources. I was simply giving my thoughts about your self-described naive comment that it was hard for you to believe that the government was not all over social media from day one.
Trust me, it is not all over social media today. There are some people and institutions (say, NASA's presence on Twitter) that are trying it out, and in some cases doing it right, but largely there is not a Web 2.0 way of thinking in the government, and there is little across-agency coordination of Web 2.0 efforts and technologies.
I hope that my research and writing raises awareness of these important issues both within government - where more people should be using these tools - and outside of governmnet, where tech companies of various stripes can participate in Web 2.0 for public service.
Aronado
· 1 year ago
My country wasn't created by people who are passive and unambitious.
90% of the people will say "Great Job, Mark" and not ask questions, probe, think about what the ramifications are. The other 10% will hopefully explore the full meaning of what is being discussed.
No ill will Mark, but, I didn't like my words being twisted so you could attempt to prove *your* point.
@Aronado
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
The government workforce is very diverse and filled with many different kinds of people with different modivations. In many cases, there are internal movements or opinios for or against some idea; how it sorts out is very complicated.
The applications of social tools for the government are also diverse. From military operations to engaging with citizens to humanitarian and disaster relief, there are all kinds of things going on. I think that my second post, hopefully Thursday, will widen the discussion.
Ranjit Mathoda
· 1 year ago
You may find my essay on the implications of Internet technology on government of great interest, The Coming Digital Presidency: http://digitalpresidency.com
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Ranjit - Thanks very much for the comment and the link; I'll check it out! Mark
lewis
· 1 year ago
Mark - excellent article, and I believe enlightening for three different audiences: 1) government managers who believe they "should" be using 2.0 approaches but aren't fully clear on what those are, or why; (2) government worker-bee fans of Web 2.0 tools and practices in their private lives, who need to advocate for their use to their managers; and (3) the skeptical or uninformed citizenry, who after all are paying for government through taxes and deserve to have it adopt and follow best practices in whatever form - who deserve a government able to communicate and to listen (as enabled by social media). Again, well done.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Hi Lewis, thanks for the thoughtful and constructive comments. I think you're exactly right about targeting these different audiences.
There is definitely a bottom-up vs. top-down vs. middle angle on this story which will have to be developed in writing in the future. My impression an an "insider" is that strategists at the top realize something needs to happen, privates and corporals and others nearer the bottom are using any technology that will help, and many people in "the vast middle" are largely oblivious to Web 2.0 or actively dislike it.
There is also definitely something to be written about the government talking to and listening to "we the people" via social tools. Marketing and PR are not things that governments generally excel at, but these tools could make it easier. White Houses love polling; maybe sometime soon they will like reading RSS and Twitter feeds, too.
Jeffrey
· 1 year ago
Great work, Mark. I'm looking forward to your follow-up pieces.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Jeffrey - Thanks very much! Appreciate the kind words. Mark
HJArmstrong
· 1 year ago
Great article, Mark. As an intern in Public Affairs for a federal org, I question on a daily basis why the government isn't using SM as much as they could and how it can be implemented safely. I get the feeling that the idea of change, and thus implementation of new communications tools, make people hesitant to adopt anything new that they may have to learn when they feel that the old way of communicating has served them just fine for many years. So, I feel that SM education will be the best way to foster understanding and eventually (hopefully) acceptance and adoption. I am currently trying to gather information for this purpose to present to our executives and Admiral so that they can view SM as something that will better unite employees internally and allow them to do their work more efficiently and will create better relationships with our various external communities. I am excited about your project and look forward to reading more. I would love to get involved on some level, too, if at all possible.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Hi HJ - Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. I think that while companies are experimenting with Web 2.0 and not necessarily knowing what to do about it, government is a step behind and should be experimenting with it for a variety of missions.
Public Affairs is certainly one of the missions that could benefit from social tools. There are people in that area and others who are starting to try things, educate people, and network together. I'd be happy to get you in the loop if you contact me at my email, above.
I will have a follow-up post, I believe on Thursday, which should widen the discussion a bit about what the gov can use Web 2.0 tools for - turns out, a wide variety of things.
digitalfemme
· 1 year ago
Great comments since I've been away.
I too want to let you and everyone know that I do not "....think that "they" (2% of the US workforce) are some congealed, omnipresent force monitoring and knowing everything in real time...". Absolutely not.
I DO believe that 99.9% of the 2% of the US workforce are very much in the dark about what the .1 % are really doing.
It's clear that even the 2% don't really have a handle on "everything in real time" because if they did, then more people would ask the .1 % what they are going to do about education, healthcare, government spending priorities etc..but the .1% are the untouchables :o)
I'm not here to put you down Mark, I'm like Aronado. I'm just not settling for less than the truth.
Qui Diaz
· 1 year ago
Mark - great insights. You're blazing a trail for a lot of intrigued & invested minds across the Federal space. Hope you'll be contributing thoughts to the upcoming Social Media for Government Conference.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Hi Qui - Thanks very much for the positive feedback! Yes, I believe I am signed up for the SMG planning meeting. I hope that writing like this in such a great forum (Mashable) can be a part of networking interested people together across the vast government and partner space to really get some great ideas implemented, and do some public service! Mark
Martin Edic
· 1 year ago
This is a little strange- I just heard the phrase 'government 2.0' in a meeting with a public policy firm this morning. They were looking at our social media monitoring application. And we had two Pentagon sign-ups for our free test version today. A meme emerging perhaps? I've always thought there were obvious intelligence uses for what we do given that social media is a global communications medium. The obvious big brother aspects aside (i hope you all know that your public activity in social media is public and can be discovered- you don't have protections if you're public), there are undoubtedly nefarious things going on. So I hope, in your Gov 2.0 research you take a look at what we're doing.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Hi Martin - That sounds very interesting. I think that the Government 2.0 meme is catching on in small pockets all over the place. My idea is that we need to
(1) reach out to the web 2.0 community (2) network with each other (3) have an overall govt 2.0 strategy
That's my plan! But despite a few people here and there who are using it, there are so many who need it and don't know it.
There are intelligence and defense uses for the technology, but it goes far beyond that, as I will outline in my next post on Thursday.
ctovision
· 1 year ago
Mark,
That was a great article and is much appreciated. I look forward to your continued writing. You are a pioneer helping move our government forward and I have enjoyed following you on Twitter.
One aspect of social media it might be good to get your thoughts on in the future is how it can be tapped into to get more citizens to participate in their government. For example, instead of policy makers and party leaders having their time dominated by DC area think tanks, maybe they can make more use of distributed thinkers through social media. And at lower levels, maybe govies can use social media to survey for best practices and ask for advice. Anyway, I'd appreciate your continued thoughts on any elements of this topic.
Cheers, Bob
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Thanks so much for the comments, Bob. I really like your ideas. I don't think that I mention that specifically in tomorrow's Mashable post (2/2) but I do significantly broaden the discussion as to, What can Web 2.0 be used for in the government?
Tomorrow's post will also highlight a project out of NDU that is a global social network based around disaster relief called STAR-TIDES, and how they are using social tools to work better together. It is effectively headed up by Linton Wells II, who at one point acted as DoD CIO.
Today in the way of re-tweeting Bob's post on Twitter, this is a great link about the uniqueness of a government CIO's job, with some emphasis on the Intelligence Community's efforts in Web 2.0, as I mentioned in my Mashable post:
Fascinating discussion. Looking forward to part two tomorrow.
Two immediate thoughts, offered to spur conversation:
1. The military cannot/will not ever enthusiastically embrace social networking b/c to do so would risk destabilizing an extremely hierarchical organization.
2. One of the best explanations of why government doesn't have more people who embrace change is in this recent column by Steve Kelman in Federal Computer Week. It's a review of John Donahue's new book "The Warping of Government Work:" http://www.fcw.com/print/22_23/comment/153266-1...
Thanks again, looking forward to more!
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Hi Chris, thanks for the comments.
1. You're wrong. While the military will always be hierarchical, like in any organization there are informal social networks, web 2.0 or not. Social media enhances these. Also, among young warfighters, there is prevalent at least personal use of new media, to keep in touch with loved ones, etc. West Point (USMA) is explicitly studying this issue (formal vs. informal social networks) among their students, as are other people.
2. He's wrong. There are many people who embrace change, there are other people who would embrace it if they knew about it, and still others who are opposed to it. Sounds like every large organization I'm familiar with. The government certainly has unique issues, but also has unique opportunities.
Shawna
· 1 year ago
I couldn't agree more! As a member of the Canadian Forces working in Public Affairs, I am continually telling my colleagues that we (the professional 'we') need to be embracing, using and learning how to use these tools of SM to our advantage.
Our soldiers are certainly using them - and if we want to be in a position to communicate with our internal audience - we need to be exploring them ourselves.
At a recent presentation to the RTNDA in Calgary I was asked to speak about how Facebook has changed the way we conduct our business. Media are using it more and more to locate families of our fallen soldiers after a tragedy. When a name is released into the media stream, the first thing they do is check out Facebook to see if a member has an account. For us in the military, I am normally one step ahead of them - checking for an account and asking family members to consider taking it off line so that they can grieve in private.
Interesting tool with a variety of applications - I am learning as we go but wish we had the same Cocktail Circuit of learning you experienced here in Canada!
Thanks for a great post - I am forwarding this to our own DND web professionals for discussion.
Shawna
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Hi Shawna, thanks. I just got back from one of those "Cocktail Circuit" parties - SummerMash NYC at Touch! Yes, someone should do this in Canada, definitely!!
Regarding your work, I'd like to connect with you offline and discuss things more. You can reach me privately through the email at the end of my post. -Mark
Desarae A. Veit
· 1 year ago
Great Post Mark and Mashable. Look forward to seeing the next one.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Thanks very much, Desarae!
EJRaven
· 1 year ago
So what's the link for the Terrorist Social Network or JihadSpace?
Lol.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
While I won't provide any details in this forum, suffice it to say that there is a large terrorist posture online. Often, digital videos of events are used as propaganda. There are also many chat sites and other information exchange opportunities online. Finally, a good deal of banking is done through the internet.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the input, Scott. Security of Web 2.0 tools is a major topic of discussion at DoD and elsewhere, but people are definitely working it out. INTELINK is a good example of that, as I mention in my post.
In my second post on Thu, I will also highlight what I term "less secure" uses of Web 2.0 tools for the government, including empowering people in other countries in post-disaster or post-war efforts.
JessieX
· 1 year ago
Excellent post and ongoing conversation, Mark. I met you at your first social media event. It was my second. Your curiosity and openness impressed me. More so, your capacity to put a human face on the intelligence of our government gave me hope and struck a chord in me.
Though no one would have known it when Ms. Shana invited you to join her to that party back in March, I do believe you are becoming one of the more credible and enticing voices on the subject of Gubment 2.0. ;-)
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Jessie - Thanks so much! I remember my "first real event" really well. You were one of the first people I talked to. That event at Ogilvy, followed by my trip to NYC for the Mashable event there, were very influential at the beginning.
W. David Stephenson
· 1 year ago
Mark: enjoyed your articles. Hope you can attend the seminar I'll be speaking at 9/9 at National Press Club on syndication of data as a means to Gov. 2.0 transformation: http://tinyurl.com/6hoxhq If not, I'll be in DC for several days, & hope we can meet.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Hi David, thanks very much. I'd like to meet you. You can reach me best at the email address following the article. Your forum at the NPC also seems very interesting with a great panel! http://forumone.com/content/calendar/detail/2684 Thanks for reaching out - Social networking helping social networking!
Ed
· 1 year ago
"in fact, I even wrote a newspaper opinion piece about how their business model related to terrorist networks. But, honestly, I really had no idea what was going on in the Web 2.0 space."
That phrase really frightens me. You, as a reporter, used scare tactics on something you now admit to knowing nothing about?
So much for journalistic integrity?
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Hi Ed, thanks for your feedback. Just a small misunderstanding. One, I'm not a reporter - I wrote, as many people do, an opinion column for a newspaper. I work with the government in Washington.
Two, I did write an article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/31...) about the power of non-hierarchical systems in both the business world and leaderless organizations like terrorist groups; but this is only indirectly related to Web 2.0 technologies.
W. David Stephenson
· 1 year ago
Mark, because of your work at the Pentagon and your background as a biologist, you should know about the paper that I wrote in the NPS's Homeland Security journal with Dr. Eric Bonabeau, a leading expert on emergent behavior, on what I call "networked homeland security": how Web 2.0 apps. and mobile communications both empower the public and -- an aspect of Web 2.0 that I don't think gets enough attention -- increases the chance of emergent behavior (aka "the wisdom of crowds"). I believe the concept is equally applicable to fighting insurgents: as my friend John Arquilla, the father of "netwars" says, you need a network to fight a network!
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Hi David - Thanks for the link to your paper. The Army is doing a lot of work, including basic research, on "network science" and they would certainly agree that it takes a network to fight a network, as your colleague points out.
Their main question is - how do you understand, and therefore have the ability to manipulate networks? A secondary question is - what can studying one kind of network (eg, biological, traffic) teach you about another seemingly different kind (eg, terrorist, rural social).
All Comments
Obviously the government uses a tremendous about of IT, or as many call it now, ICT. But what I think it largely has not taken advantage of are the new social tools available.
Furthermore, even the people that use the tools are not coordinating with other that are. I talk about this more in my next post.
When I think of military networking, I think of a series of message boards on a super secure network. An intranet versus an internet.
What is a larger problem is that the government could be (1) more aware of the existing tools, and (2) using them in more ways to maximize our time, energy, and funds.
A big issue is getting people (government employees, contractors, warfighters) engaged with the new technology, which by and large is not currently happening in a major way.
I find it funny that a sector of government would be incorporating social networking tools amongst themselves, when I seem to have this notion that 'government' pretty much has the *eye* on everything anyone does (or they can, they certainly have the access to it) you know what I mean?
It's almost a backward thing. Government can spy and monitor the people, and NOW they are just getting into the social networking thing amongst themselves.
It's just funny.
One thing that I have enjoyed in attending social networking events is putting a human face on the government in Washington DC. The same is true of military bloggers and the like, talking about their day-to-day lives. Many are quick to criticize, but I might ask you how many people you know that are working on the Senate staff, wiretapping people, fighting in Iraq, etc. I suspect very few.
In some sense, day to day life in government is just like anywhere else - there are ups and downs, smart and dumb people, good and bad strategies, fights about budgets, folks on vacation not doing their jobs, etc. The government does have a lot of money and can have a lot of influence, but to think that "they" (2% of the US workforce) are some congealed, omnipresent force monitoring and knowing everything in real time is completely naive.
Call me naive but, I assumed that the Govt. had it's *hand* in SN & SM since day one. For some reason it is really hard for me to believe that this is not the case.
Basically, the idea I am getting from you is that the Govt. is kind of relying on public companies to *learn* and *implement* SN/SM strategies/tactics for Govt. military use. Yes, I understand it makes sense to leverage other peoples time/money/tech/R&D for the benefit of your objectives.
To be honest it's kinda like this: The Govt. wants "us" to show them how to use the tools/methods of communication. Which is fine but, I feel like the Govt. "whisperers" will use the channels to attempt to manipulate our thoughts. Now, of course, this is not the only way the Govt. will utilize SN/SM but, is must be a concern for us regular folks. This would be *GovernmentSpam* and it could be the worst SPAM we have experienced. But, hell, it's already part of mainstream media & Hollywood.
Mark, I think you are a GREAT guy. My response is not personal whatsoever.
The government in reality is a very large and complex system of institutions that often have self-interests and do not necessarily coordinate with each other. How often do the FDA, the Federal Reserve, NASA, and the Senate get in the same room together? Never. That's just the way it is - it's NOT like a corporation. And also, many decisions are directly or indirectly related to "politics" in the broadest sense.
Not everyone is in the dark on social tools. The intelligence community has made amazing inroads with Intellipedia and other tools. Some of the blogs from the TSA, USPS and other places are great. I talk about that more in my next post. But largely, we could be using the tools a lot more and a lot better, in many areas, and I hope that some of my work brings the secotr more attention.
"all-knowing, all-seeing entity that is on top of every question, every answer, every option, every solution, and every new technology."
For you to attempt to turn my statement into something is clearly wasn't is *exactly* where the problem is. Of course, anyone can twist words. Why would "we" want to assist Governments so that they can turn around and attempt to manipulate us.
Again, my statement was: I assumed that the Govt. had it's *hand* in SN & SM since day one."
Mark, please do not perpetuate the perception (and reality) of the Government BS through SN/SM.
Trust me, it is not all over social media today. There are some people and institutions (say, NASA's presence on Twitter) that are trying it out, and in some cases doing it right, but largely there is not a Web 2.0 way of thinking in the government, and there is little across-agency coordination of Web 2.0 efforts and technologies.
I hope that my research and writing raises awareness of these important issues both within government - where more people should be using these tools - and outside of governmnet, where tech companies of various stripes can participate in Web 2.0 for public service.
90% of the people will say "Great Job, Mark" and not ask questions, probe, think about what the ramifications are. The other 10% will hopefully explore the full meaning of what is being discussed.
No ill will Mark, but, I didn't like my words being twisted so you could attempt to prove *your* point.
@Aronado
The applications of social tools for the government are also diverse. From military operations to engaging with citizens to humanitarian and disaster relief, there are all kinds of things going on. I think that my second post, hopefully Thursday, will widen the discussion.
There is definitely a bottom-up vs. top-down vs. middle angle on this story which will have to be developed in writing in the future. My impression an an "insider" is that strategists at the top realize something needs to happen, privates and corporals and others nearer the bottom are using any technology that will help, and many people in "the vast middle" are largely oblivious to Web 2.0 or actively dislike it.
There is also definitely something to be written about the government talking to and listening to "we the people" via social tools. Marketing and PR are not things that governments generally excel at, but these tools could make it easier. White Houses love polling; maybe sometime soon they will like reading RSS and Twitter feeds, too.
Public Affairs is certainly one of the missions that could benefit from social tools. There are people in that area and others who are starting to try things, educate people, and network together. I'd be happy to get you in the loop if you contact me at my email, above.
I will have a follow-up post, I believe on Thursday, which should widen the discussion a bit about what the gov can use Web 2.0 tools for - turns out, a wide variety of things.
I too want to let you and everyone know that I do not "....think that "they" (2% of the US workforce) are some congealed, omnipresent force monitoring and knowing everything in real time...". Absolutely not.
I DO believe that 99.9% of the 2% of the US workforce are very much in the dark about what the .1 % are really doing.
It's clear that even the 2% don't really have a handle on "everything in real time" because if they did, then more people would ask the .1 % what they are going to do about education, healthcare, government spending priorities etc..but the .1% are the untouchables :o)
I'm not here to put you down Mark, I'm like Aronado. I'm just not settling for less than the truth.
I've always thought there were obvious intelligence uses for what we do given that social media is a global communications medium. The obvious big brother aspects aside (i hope you all know that your public activity in social media is public and can be discovered- you don't have protections if you're public), there are undoubtedly nefarious things going on. So I hope, in your Gov 2.0 research you take a look at what we're doing.
(1) reach out to the web 2.0 community
(2) network with each other
(3) have an overall govt 2.0 strategy
That's my plan! But despite a few people here and there who are using it, there are so many who need it and don't know it.
There are intelligence and defense uses for the technology, but it goes far beyond that, as I will outline in my next post on Thursday.
That was a great article and is much appreciated. I look forward to your continued writing. You are a pioneer helping move our government forward and I have enjoyed following you on Twitter.
One aspect of social media it might be good to get your thoughts on in the future is how it can be tapped into to get more citizens to participate in their government. For example, instead of policy makers and party leaders having their time dominated by DC area think tanks, maybe they can make more use of distributed thinkers through social media. And at lower levels, maybe govies can use social media to survey for best practices and ask for advice. Anyway, I'd appreciate your continued thoughts on any elements of this topic.
Cheers,
Bob
Tomorrow's post will also highlight a project out of NDU that is a global social network based around disaster relief called STAR-TIDES, and how they are using social tools to work better together. It is effectively headed up by Linton Wells II, who at one point acted as DoD CIO.
Today in the way of re-tweeting Bob's post on Twitter, this is a great link about the uniqueness of a government CIO's job, with some emphasis on the Intelligence Community's efforts in Web 2.0, as I mentioned in my Mashable post:
http://www.ctovision.com/2008/08/cia-it-leaders...
Two immediate thoughts, offered to spur conversation:
1. The military cannot/will not ever enthusiastically embrace social networking b/c to do so would risk destabilizing an extremely hierarchical organization.
2. One of the best explanations of why government doesn't have more people who embrace change is in this recent column by Steve Kelman in Federal Computer Week. It's a review of John Donahue's new book "The Warping of Government Work:" http://www.fcw.com/print/22_23/comment/153266-1...
Thanks again, looking forward to more!
1. You're wrong. While the military will always be hierarchical, like in any organization there are informal social networks, web 2.0 or not. Social media enhances these. Also, among young warfighters, there is prevalent at least personal use of new media, to keep in touch with loved ones, etc. West Point (USMA) is explicitly studying this issue (formal vs. informal social networks) among their students, as are other people.
2. He's wrong. There are many people who embrace change, there are other people who would embrace it if they knew about it, and still others who are opposed to it. Sounds like every large organization I'm familiar with. The government certainly has unique issues, but also has unique opportunities.
Our soldiers are certainly using them - and if we want to be in a position to communicate with our internal audience - we need to be exploring them ourselves.
At a recent presentation to the RTNDA in Calgary I was asked to speak about how Facebook has changed the way we conduct our business. Media are using it more and more to locate families of our fallen soldiers after a tragedy. When a name is released into the media stream, the first thing they do is check out Facebook to see if a member has an account. For us in the military, I am normally one step ahead of them - checking for an account and asking family members to consider taking it off line so that they can grieve in private.
Interesting tool with a variety of applications - I am learning as we go but wish we had the same Cocktail Circuit of learning you experienced here in Canada!
Thanks for a great post - I am forwarding this to our own DND web professionals for discussion.
Shawna
Regarding your work, I'd like to connect with you offline and discuss things more. You can reach me privately through the email at the end of my post. -Mark
Lol.
In my second post on Thu, I will also highlight what I term "less secure" uses of Web 2.0 tools for the government, including empowering people in other countries in post-disaster or post-war efforts.
Though no one would have known it when Ms. Shana invited you to join her to that party back in March, I do believe you are becoming one of the more credible and enticing voices on the subject of Gubment 2.0. ;-)
That phrase really frightens me. You, as a reporter, used scare tactics on something you now admit to knowing nothing about?
So much for journalistic integrity?
Two, I did write an article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/31...) about the power of non-hierarchical systems in both the business world and leaderless organizations like terrorist groups; but this is only indirectly related to Web 2.0 technologies.
Their main question is - how do you understand, and therefore have the ability to manipulate networks? A secondary question is - what can studying one kind of network (eg, biological, traffic) teach you about another seemingly different kind (eg, terrorist, rural social).