Government as a platform - hype or real?

The Gov 2.0 Expo last month provided a wealth of knowledge about how governments can actually be transformed to serve as platforms. What I found interesting about the Expo -- I was not present, just following from a distance - was this sense of a huge social experiment under way. An experiment that has global implications. A lot of the themes presented were very inspiring, like Think Tank from the Expert Labs. Palantir is an interesting "information infrastructure" technology demonstrating the power of open data (data.gov and similar national data infrastructures).

These infrastructures and the apps that they are driving ought to get us rethinking how our societies function. O'Reilly says the Web 2.0 is not the redesign of the web, but stripping down the web to its essential core, similarly so for Government 2.0. Read and comment Tim O'Reilly's book Government as a platform. My comments hovered around Society 2.0 -- not a redesign of society, but getting back to basics for a more engaging and participative society.

From Expo, I found Tim's conversation with Federal CTO Aneesh Chopra very interesting. It's not that the views or ideas are so very radical or innovative. It's the fact that they are executing to a vision. A vision built on the potential of mass collaboration, tranparency and participation. The core of this vision in driven by something called the Open Government Directive. Simple stuff, not rocket science -- what impresses me is the execution -- and potentially world changing. Ten years from now we will be wondering how we functioned as a society without transparency, collaboration and participation.

See this very rich review of Expo.

Education as a basic right - how can we make grassroot innovation scale up and out?

I am fortunate to live in a country where basic education is compulsory and higher education is a basic right. This means, as a parent, I am punished if I prevent my children for going to school (grades 1-10) and the government are obliged to provide my children with higher education opportunities (within certain parameters).

I have earlier blogged a bit on topics around education and my visit to Mumbai this July coincided with Hilary Clinton's talk at St. Xavier, my alma mater. So, after reading Sagarika Ghose's recent post on education in India and BBC's coverage of Babar Ali I felt I had capture this in a blogpost. I hope the coverage brings support for Babar Ali to improve his efforts and more importantly energizes more people to get involved in grassroot activities to make a difference. India has earlier witnessed grassroots innovations like Abhyanand's work in coaching poor students enter IIT.

We need such inspiration and excitement to drive the hard work that goes with making things happen. We have films like Taare Zameen Par that have sensitized the public and driven a sense of civic action. And then there is the OLPC project (Uruguay was recently reported as the first country to go all out with OLPC) and innovative technology efforts like WiHood. These solutions have an ability to scale very rapidly and can replicate the innovations from Babar Ali or Abhayanand.

However, scaling this up is hard for many reasons. Based on my work with alumni from my childhood school I have reduced them to two hurdles (1) the obvious hurdle is government lethargy and corrupt practices (2) the inaction from established educational institutions. I consider (2) to be the bigger hurdle. A hurdle that, if addressed collaboratively, can transform society rapidly -- particularly rural communities that need small efforts to bring about huge change. I believe that most of the established institutions do not know how to exploit the mass-collaboration that Internet technology is making possible. This is not a technology challenge, it is about educating and education policy -- it is about practices to teach, to create learning content -- and to train teachers to be mentors in a networked world where sharing is "a givers gain". This inability and subsequent inaction -- deliberate or accidental --- is something a country like India cannot afford. The inaction almost tends to justify government lethargy, instead of egging governments to go aggresively forward in providing local infrastructure.

I have earlier blogged on the Knowledge Commission and am hopeful that the current government will provide policy change and gradually drive infrastructural development. But I am more concerned about the other hurdle. I am an impatient soul and sense from other bloggers that we cannot wait too long for development and equal opportunity to come to the masses who need it so badly. This is not missionary work -- it is about not letting the world explode because we forgot to bring along the less fortunate on this journey to the future.

PS! I have not forgotten the role of the family in the education process nor the business potential -- I've just not reflected long enough on my experiences in the parent-teacher association. Some time soon...

Nobel prize for Obama - Why I think it is a good thing.

Friday's announcement of the 2009 Nobel peace prize award to Obama has drawn much comment around the globe The comments are driving introspection and reflection at mulitple levels -- as witnessed by blogposts and Facebook conversations. The notion of peace is being examined and dissected and I suspect weekend conversations are going to be really interesting. In itself, this is a success for the Nobel committee!

Rambling through the blogosphere, I see my own reflections from different perspectives - starting from from the banal "what has he done to deserve this" to the business consultant in me "how do we measure success" and to the digital citizen in me "the role of new media technologies in generating debate and participation" .

What has he done: In the short time he has been in office, he has shut down the Guantanamo prison, as the first US president to chair a UN Summit he has secured a unanimous resolution on nuclear disarmament, he has supported dialogue with Iran and the discussion table, addressing the Muslim world from Cairo, challenging the situation in the Middle East -- just to name a few. These are good enough for me.

How do we measure success: After the immediate WTF and knee-jerk "the award is premature"-reaction, I was embarrassed. Embarassed, because as a planning and strategy consultant I expound the values of setting direction and thinking tactically in a strategic manner -- beyond just focussing on what is delivered. Delivery and execution are critical, but recently strategy thinking has been reduced to glossy-talk that is devoid of vision (like slow food, I hope we get "slow strategy" :-)). I now see the Nobel committee's award in that light; taking a bold step to interpret Nobel's intentions for the 21st century. They were rewarding Obama for the direction he set, for the vision he creates by small actions. One man alone cannot do but one can certainly envision. Ultimately they are rewarding a vision that is open and can be adopted by anyone. And that is the real value of the award for me -- "placing a responsibility" not only Obama, but on every head of state and every citizen of the world who shares that vision. A vision of a more equitable world, a world where conflict is resolved by dialogue and non-violence, a world where people are energized so that they can make a difference. If nothing else, the award has reenergized the world in a "Yes, we can" attitude. (Aside: I wish I had statistics on how many countries and communities have been energized by the Obama presidential campaign). So Yes, the Nobel committee have acted in a very strategic manner.

New media technologies in generating participation: After my first post to the BBC-website, when this award was announced. I have been reading blogs, newspaper sites, TV programs and Facebook comments. I was struck by how little attention I paid to mainstream networks. I googled using Google's Fastflip and got the gist of what they were saying and got a lot more background. But then, it was the blogs, tweets and Facebook conversations that caught my eye. Social media technologies are engaging people more than ever and Friday's award tells me that all that is needed is something really visionary to generate a debate and to involve and include. Society 2.0 is here and going global every day (Yeah, I know I said I would not use the 2.0 term, it now evokes new-thinking and I'm happy :-))

A note on the Nobel peace prize would not be complete if I did not mention my disappointment that the Nobel committee failed to a true innovator in peace -- Mahatma Gandhi. See this article for some context. Speaking of the Mahatma, Albert Einstein puts it best “Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth.”

The glut of information and social networking tools is not exactly strengthening our ability for critical thinking. On the contrary. Unfortunately it is often being exploited by bigots who continue to play on humans’ base instincts and polarize rather than clarify.

This post came to be as I was preparing an email note to my good friend Tommy Fernandes. What started as a conversation over a nice dinner has continued by email. It centered around the lack of critical journalism to bring key issues to the foreground. I think that when discussing any issue today there are 3 forces we need to deal with:

1. high inherent complexity of the subject matter
2. increased volume of information and
3. Lack of time and/or knowledge

The combination of these forces makes it difficult for us (citizens) to relate to real issues. We need to rethink how we consume information and we must work to raise our standards and those of the media institutions we have. Not everyone can be an analyst, and hence we must push our elected officials to promote transparency and inclusion, so that we (who they represent) can make better decisions. We must not allow them to induce (artificial) complexity in the issues, that confuses.

Technology can help by providing easy-to-use tools for search, structure and visualization – but it can never replace context and critical thinking. I recall my January post on Nicholas Carr's article and my comments on EPIC and am happy to post a link to an updated version of EPIC (for 2015)

More than ever before, our increasingly digitalised society needs critical thinking!!

Over the last few weeks I have been revisiting the role of entertainment and new media technology in the context of the digital society and I am struck by how far we have come in creating virtual arenas. Not just to entertain but also educate and engage through simulation and virtual reality technologies. Gaming technologies are growing in leaps and bounds, so is information visualisation; as we look for better ways to manage the deluge of information.

We are pushing the development in technology but also in policy and business and, in doing so, creating this digital experience that impacts all aspects of our society and all walks of life. Our challenge, however, is to ensure it reaches all levels of society, particularly those at the bottom-of-the-pyramid.

In my very first post to this blog, I mentioned I wanted to avoid the term Society 2.0, as I was sceptical to terms with 2.0 suffixes. However, on further reflection I sense that we are witnessing a rapid transformation of societal behaviour. And clichés like global village and John Lennon's Imagine suddenly show potential to have real representations. The possibility to create a "new version" of our society is very real. A society developed by principles of "consumer-citizen"-centered design and increased self-determination. A society where democracy changes from shallow to deep, where the notion of representation is challenged. We still have a long way ahead and a lot of hard work along -- but quite reachable.

Which is why I'm excited about the "Us Now" documentary that will be screened in Oslo next week (link in Norwegian)-- and the panel session that follows the screening. I see it as the debate of the digital society entering the mainstream. Financial Times did an interesting review (link) of the film that sets the context for what "Us Now" represents. Good to note that it is less about technology and more about policy and society. And I hope the balance and interdependency between policy, technology and business is brought out during this session.

In some ways, my sense of excitement is tinged with a sense of apprehension. To see how this event pans out - will it be relegated to the yawns and hype? or will it energize to raise the discussion to a new level of debate. Will it raise awareness for the pressing need to study and examine the phenomenon closer - so we can better manage this transformation.

For now: I'm just hopeful of meeting like-minded individuals who may be able to progress the discussion to a level of seriousness that the topic really deserves.

The events of the last few days in Mumbai - the city of my birth - has brought terror to me in a manner most chilling. Terror has reached my doorstep! I do not live in Mumbai, however my wife and I have our parents and siblings and loads of friends who live there. I visit Mumbai every year and exactly 4 months ago I was dining at the Cafe Leopold and at the Taj hotel.

I am still numbed by the magnitude of the events and trying to balance sadness with anger while trying to think constructively as to what we can do to move ahead. The blogsphere is alive with posts, tweets, and groups on Facebook. People are voicing their apprehensions and giving advice.

But how does one control a heterogenous crowd of 19 million people? Even if, hypothetically, one were to restrict freedom and curtail the openness of Mumbai, it is a difficult task! Difficult but not impossble, if we think creatively and honestly.

I believe the answer lies in citizens getting more involved in how Mumbai is run and how the country is run. How? by getting involved in civic matters in your local environment. Why? To start some place small! To build trust! and to address issues that creates a sense of community. A community that is solution-focused and transcends boundaries of religion and social strata. Why? To understand how to share the responsibility with the authorities in creating a good place to live. This simple involvement will create an understanding of challenges and generate practical solutions. Those solutions will infect others and you will be infected by others. And then as the picture of the issues and potential solutions gets sharper; you can support politicians to make democracy work "for the people and by the people" on your terms. Your involvement will have created a sense of transparency and can be used to challenge politicians who are reluctant to change.

With what? Use social networking technologies like http://www.mysociety.org/ to create tools to make this work. Impossible? No! 2 years ago people dismissed claims that Barack Obama could be the next US president. With his roots in communty service, he has managed to galvanize millions to work for change. So lets start now and hopefully in two years we will have reached a milestone in creating a transparent society. A caring and just society. One that is proactive and bonded. One that destroys corruption.

Where to start? Begin by identifying the local politicians and what their promises were and what their responsibilities are. Confront them with this. Use the Right to Information Act and use social networking technology. Educate at the school-level! Educate at the ALM-level? Create networks with diaspora Mumbaikars! Grow at the grassroots! Leverage alumni networks and other action groups. Use this vast human resource that India prides itself with. Get involved!

A society that is transparent and proactive will never allow terrorists to operate in peace.

Comments please!

Ashoka, flatness and being local

I just discovered Ashoka a well-established organisation working in the social sector -actually been around since 1980 (!) driving for local change with a global network. Causes is bringing societal responsibility to social networking by creating applications for Facebook and mySpace.

The world is getting flatter every day -- but it is also retaining the uniqueness of acting local. Flatness and "localness" represent different dimensions. I think one represents access to knowledge and tools while the other represents the actions and solutions. Access speeds up action... I think.

My recent posts have talked about technology and solutions and less about the Digital Society. Partly due to myopia (its an occupational hazard of working with solution planning) but also deliberately, to show examples of what can form building blocks for the foundation of a digital society. However, today I am suddenly made aware of a live example that can serve as a use case for the Societal Digital Infrastructure (see my other blogposts with this tag).

The TVaksjon is an annual national fund raising event hosted by NRK - the Norwegian state television. An event that, for one day, brings people together to support an organisation that works towards a focused cause. The organisation and cause are carefully chosen to balance multiple perspectives. This year the funds go to UNICEF Norge and the topic is Together for children aimed at helping children face the challenges of HIV and AIDS. This event is a national dugnad has many interesting elements like the use of auctioning technology, use of crowdsourcing techniques to mobilize volunteers nationwide or the use of web technology that helps businesses to leverage their social involvement and profile their products.

For such an initiative to work at this depth of credibility and involvement requires a hidden foundation. A foundation built on a combination of societal practices, social behaviours, laws and governance and enforced and enabled by technology. It is a combination of these that form the foundation of a digital society -- Societal Digital Infrastructure.

It is very likely that similar campaigns exist in other countries or in different communities like this scheme DonorsChoose. Please drop me a note/comment if you have other examples.

In the Dec. 2006 issue of the Harvard Business Review, Clayton Christensen and others present "Disruptive Innovation for Social Change". The article leverages Christensen's "disruptive innovation" model to make some interesting observations and examples to explain the phenomenon of the Digital Society (my term, not theirs). Linking it to "innovation" is not unexpected, but hardly needed as far as I can tell from their 5 distinct characteristics (see abstract below). So while we may probably end up hearing a lot about "catalytic innovation" I hope the article will help channel energies in driving societal change.

My own take on the article is that there are some good points to help bring government and business together. And while it comes across as more of an "what is"-explanatory note; I am looking for the "how to". I sense that welfare-based societies like those of Northern Europe, in particular the Nordics or Canada have an advantage. Their earlier investments in societal infrastructure, can be digitized to lead the next wave of civilisation (Google "neotechnic" & "third wave"). Further, I think multi-national firms can be great catalysts, by involving their employees in this innovation. After all, employees are also citizens of of their (local) societies....

Abstract of the HBR article below (the highlights are my own).

Countries, organizations, and individuals around the globe spend aggressively to solve social problems, but these efforts often fail to deliver. Misdirected investment is the primary reason for that failure. Most of the money earmarked for social initiatives goes to organizations that are structured to support specific groups of recipients, often with sophisticated solutions. Such organizations rarely reach the broader populations that could be served by simpler alternatives. There is, however, an effective way to get to those underserved populations. The authors call it "catalytic innovation." Based on Clayton Christensen's disruptive-innovation model, catalytic innovations challenge organizational incumbents by offering simpler, good-enough solutions aimed at underserved groups. Unlike disruptive innovations, though, catalytic innovations are focused on creating social change. Catalytic innovators are defined by five distinct qualities. First, they create social change through scaling and replication. Second, they meet a need that is either overserved (that is, the existing solution is more complex than necessary for many people) or not served at all. Third, the products and services they offer are simpler and cheaper than alternatives, but recipients view them as good enough. Fourth, they bring in resources in ways that initially seem unattractive to incumbents. And fifth, they are often ignored, put down, or even discouraged by existing organizations, which don't see the catalytic innovators' solutions as viable.

As the authors show through examples in health care, education, and economic development, both nonprofit and for-profit groups are finding ways to create catalytic innovation that drives social change. The HBR Spotlight on Making a Real Difference explores a pair of vexing questions: How should executives think about corporate social responsibility? and Why is it that the billions of dollars invested in social sector institutions haven't begun to solve our basic problems? Both articles have smart, original things to say about how business leaders can make a real difference. A company that aligns its strategy with its CSR to invest in disruptive social sector innovations might change the world.