what’s the benefit of open?
image from flickr by Dunechaser used under CC license BY-NC-SA
when i read Sean’s post about Obama and his memo/manifesto for open government i couldn’t help but think about how big a challenge it’s going to be to make the very real changes that memo calls for.
a transparent, participatory, and collaborative government? not just at the political layer but penetrating all the way through the various organizations that perform the day to day business of government? this will be tough work.
while i don’t doubt his resolve, i wonder how even a determined leader like Obama can accomplish this. certainly he carries a big stick; he’s president, with a supportive democratic congress, in the midst of a serious crisis and with a significant mandate from the electorate. anybody within the bureaucracy should be wary of crossing him on one of his main campaign goals, but what about the carrots?
how will he sell skittish and habitually secretive organizations on the benefits of openness?
certainly he can talk about all the things he talks about in his memo;
“Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset.”
“Public engagement enhances the Government’s effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. ”
“Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperate among themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector.”
but i don’t think that alone will be enough. it’s too vague and generalized to be effective levers for getting an organization to change it’s collective behaviour. each department or agency will be in a specific business, and for the most part set in their ways of getting that business done. there will be cost, both in terms of money spent and time and energy expended, in opening up each organization. how will organizations bear the cost of opening up? and more importantly what will the Obama administration offer them?
these are unsexy questions, but they need to be answered. if government is going to be truly open it can’t only be the result of top down drive, the bottom and the middle need to start to actively incorporate openness into standard operating procedures.
if the Obama team were asking you for advice, what would you tell them about the benefits of transparency, participation and collaboration, above all – openness – to a large public organization?
d_c
Comments
2 Responses to “what’s the benefit of open?”
Leave a Reply
Hey Darren,
Great questions.
There’s a key part to the memo that is easily overlooked. The memo calls on a few players, but namely the “Office of Management and Budget (OMB)” to be responsible for a plan to enable and enforce these principles across departments and agencies.
This is critical. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is the organization that funds all these departments and agencies when it comes down to it. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/organization/role.aspx
The Obama Team did more than issue a memo giving everyone a heads up of what is coming, they made sure everyone saw the teeth and the potential for a carrot. Having the organization that is responsible for funding issue the plan was quite brilliant, in my mind.
But I believe you raise a good point. I don’t think it was clear to the administration how they were going to fund these initiatives yet as this memo came out so quickly.
good point Sean, but to be fair in the public sector the control of the coffers isn’t really a carrot, but almost always a stick. sure it’s great when you get more funding, but all agencies/departments/etc are always asking for more money so having a new strategic direction to link your budget proposal to doesn’t really count as a carrot in my opinion.
or at least it’s nothing new.. what i’m interested in is how do they get organizations to honestly and truly approach the question of transparency. throwing money at the issue doesn’t really accomplish much without real attitude change on behalf of the people who are spending the money.
my hunch is that he’s going to have to find one or two agencies or departments who are already primed for increased transparency, with people in place (in the trenches and middle management) who already have the attitude necessary to make sure that money devoted is spent wisely, and either encourage executive management to accelerate their approach or replace senior management with people who are as committed as he is to getting it done.
accelerate the transparency in a couple key agencies, and develop process/tools/technology and examples that can show the benefits of transparency to the less enthusiastic parts of government. use those examples/processes/tools/tech/etc as the carrots i guess if i’m to go back to my original question.
d_c