Fellow Georgetown University adjunct and SEC social media wonk Mark Story aptly dubbed the current post election government 2.0 craze a meme. And in doing so, he tagged me. It’s been a while since we’ve updated our ongoing coverage of the federal government’s adoption of social media, and the current excitement does prompt a new post. Why? Because, 15 years of DC-based experience tells me what a great challenge Obama faces bringing open online conversation to the world of federal government — in spite of his social media savoir faire.
To answer Mark’s question, I think the great social media promise for the Obama administration lies in freeing data. Tons of taxpayer data from poverty figures to weather information should be available to us all, but it’s trapped in ancient legacy IT systems.
Freeing data and serving taxpayers with access and usage will create a new world of context for Americans. Tim O’Reilly’s dream of a democratized web can come true. This will allow true governance and service to the taxpayer.
Social conversation with the government seems much less stimulating. While useful to governance, like most business or organizational social media it will be one dimensional. Consider the TSA blog.
More importantly, Obama has a great task ahead of him. I’ve sold more than $30 million worth of communications contracts to the federal government. I know how public affairs and IT departments conflict over web communications. And I know how legal precautions, procurement and legacy contractors can absolutely kill change in the government.
In reality, because of the way the federal government works, a good expectation for aggressive, systematic communications change in the government is two to three years. Consider that the Navy is leading the charge with the first set of social media guidelines for an entire agency.
Here are six reasons why Obama isn’t going to be turn the switch on walking in the door:
1) Sheer Girth: We’re talking about 26 federal agencies here, each the size of their very own automobile manufacturer. Think changing those organizations are hard? Try moving a bureaucratic organization that’s got no adherence to Wall Street, no real accountability to anyone (please don’t say Congress), with decades of strange processes and legal entanglements, legacy contracts already in place, and demoralized staff that have been abused for eight years by incompetent political appointees.
2) Culture of Fear: Government employees are afraid that if they do communicate, they will have their butts handed to them courtesy of the Washington Post or some other “investigative reporter” seeking to expose government ills. Think that’s wrong? Welcome to beltway reality, where scandals and incompetency are written about and discussed regularly. Every communication must be filtered through public affairs to protect agencies from embarrassment. The command and control ethos reigns here.
Just like any traditional enterprise, controlling the message and negative feedback will be huge issues for the bureaucratic public affairs departments. Often these folks are the last to adopt. Expect the public affairs department to fight for control on the government communications front for years.
3) Welcome to the World of Beltway Bandits: Sorry Silicon Valley. We actually have more IT workers than you do, in large part because of the federal government.
Massive IT companies hold legacy contracts in almost every agency, and big companies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon won’t be quick to allow their private billion dollar systems be replaced by web app du jour. These local giants will do everything they can to protect their contracts, including lobbying and leveraging deep relationships throughout the agency procurement cycle.
4) CIOs: Government officials like to protect their budgets, and not yield them. Like a feudal system, the CIO’s office can function like a warlord, holding sway over multi-year million dollar contracts. Opening IT to the socialized web will not be easy here for a variety of reasons, but most importantly surrendering budget — even in a time of restricting budget — will not happen.
5) Security and Privacy: Securing government data is not just a priority, it’s essential. The more defense and security oriented, the harder it will be to sway government bodies to open data and information for the social web. Beefing up technologies like PHP-based WordPress will be a must.
6) Appointees and Procurement: These processes will slow down the process, too. Consider the following points:
No, the challenges for Obama are deep and significant. I expect change we will, but we won’t quickly. Think the 2010-2011 timeframe.
Because the conversation to date has been dominated by non beltway insiders, I’d like to tag some folks in the know. Andrea Baker, Chris Dorobek, Mark Drapeau and Helen Mosher, what do you think social media can do under Obama?
I was at a MIT communications forum, the other day, that looked at both the race to get here, and a little bit at the governance issue…
My impression is.. well I guess I’m feeling patient.. If business has huge obstacles in adopting social media in a deep way, why would you not expect it to be many times more difficult for government?
That said.. when Obama talks about change I think of him saying “we’re going to try this the right way for a change” which.. I think is deep and meaningful even when we’re talking about relatively small steps.
So.. if we see a few small moves.. but smart and right moves.. in the right direction.. that could feel deeply revolutionary to me.
I’m not quite sure what I’m trying to say, or how close I came to saying it, but yeah….
“Social governance?” No, thanks. I guess you were just finding a cool leading headline, Mr. Livingston. ;-)
Now, in terms of incorporating “social media” into the Obama administration, I agree with your perspective and experience.
Two points:
1) The administration is likely going to disappoint many because of what the campaign did. Twitter, iPhone app, text messages, etc….all likely out. The debate continues on whether Obama will even be able to have his Crackberry.
2) There are many legitimate reasons to putting President-elect Obama on social media lock down. Please don’t confuse that with Mr. Gore’s “lockbox.” That’s not to say he can’t use social media to communicate with the American people — but we need to protect our presidents and their families.
@Ken Long time no see stranger. Governance: “A method or system of government or management.” What do you propose, anarchy? Agreed on the rest.
Matt: I agree, progress, not perfection.
Social governance, Geoff? We live in a representative democracy, not whatever “social governance” is. We put people in power based on how best we think they’ll represent us. Once they are there, they don’t make their decisions based on “the wisdom of the crowds.”
There seems to be a pretty huge disconnect with the title and the idea. Social governance seems to be a Geoff Livingston created governing philosophy; your post is about using social media in the government. But thanks for the definition. :-D
Spare me the rebel yell, Ken. Democracy is questionable given the 2000 and 2004 elections. And democracy is a system of governance.
Another big one (and I’ll admit my bias here, I’m a 22-just-out-of-college-year-old who works on the Web team for Army.mil) I think you are missing, Geoff, is age. I don’t know how old you all are – and I don’t mean to offend anyone – but it’s almost impossible for my 20-something coworkers and I to convince anyone over 40 to open up ao any form of communication.
It’s a stereotype, I know. There are many exceptions. But all too often the “fogies” laugh off us “young kids.” I think this is a bigger problem in government than elsewhere, probably mostly because of the demographics of D.C. workers. Andrew Krzmarzick would be the expert on this idea, me thinks.
@Ken – give me a break. I don’t think that Geoff is suggesting that the general public is going to start governing itself. Rather, by using these tools, that representative that we pick is better able to represent us. By using social media, that person has an increased ability to monitor and participate in conversations. I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that social media becomes a referendum. It’s simply another, improved way to gather and analyze information. It will still be up to our elected officials to make the decisions, but at least they’ll have a better idea of what the general populace thinks!
@Geoff: I’m from the North…no rebel yell here!
@Steve: Spare me your social media strategy lecture. You can use that with your clients. I’m tired of people making up catch phrases and I was calling Geoff out on it. The post simply shouldn’t be titled with “social governance” – it makes no sense. I agree with your point and his — but let’s stop creating and using jargon simply because it embraces the authentic-markets-are-conversations-transparency-openness-utopian nature that dominates social media circles.
Geoff,
Thoughtful post (and thanks for the link). While I’m not a beltway insider, my dad worked for the government for about 30 years before retiring in ’89, so I grew up learning about things like the Hatch Act, and later spent some time working in state government myself (in Missouri). The challenges faced with being more open are more complex than one would think.
However, I do believe that the intelligence and creativity demonstrated by Obama’s campaign means that if any is to make steps in this direction, I think they are.
Best,
Jen
Geoff,
Thanks for keeping the meme going. I like your take, and as someone who is now part of Uncle Sam’s Big Ol’ Family, I share many of your thoughts.
Mark
I think its ridiculous that DoD personnel are blocked from YouTube, blog talk radio and basically anything with the word blog in it. I’m hoping the new administration can, at the very least, open up internal access points.
Let’s get out there and challenge the tech community to come up with some ideas and technical solutions to the security challenges that currently block millions of government employees from communicating with the outside world via web 2.0 apps.
I remember in 1992, when I worked for the Canadian Embassy in Washington. We couldn’t email outside government. So I went rogue (okay, with official support and special requests and begging): I got a second computer and dial-up access to the outside world to communicate with the business community who were my clients.
I remember in 1995, when web sites were decried by many government leaders as a waste of time and resources…maybe people recall that the State Department’s export controls division got so far ahead of its mother ship’s bureaucratic curve that their initial web site was http://www.pmdtc.org (rather than being a .gov).
The enlightened find a way…how can we help leading adopters open a path without needing subterfuge and machetes?
Judy Bradt
Principal
Summit Insight
703 627 1074
judy.bradt@summitinsight.com
Geoff – Thanks for writing a realistic, fact-based perspective on social software adoption in DC, for an audience that most likely largely has never lived nor worked there.
I generally agree with everything you assert. There are many obstacles that stand in the way of adoption of social software for a variety of USG missions.
I think that the vision of having a more “Deliberative Democracy,” in which the government partly relies on the deliberation of citizens in order to make sound policy decisions (in contrast to Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy) is a good one but it will take time.
The first priority must not be to get political appointees or principal deputy assistant secretaries to see that Twitter is rad or to form government unconferences and barcamps. It should be to raise awareness via thoughtful writing and briefings geared towards them, and by small experiments showing how small uses of social software can enhance ongoing missions throughout USG. This will eventually lead to good things happening in a more ‘official’ manner.