Government 2.0 - Two Cheers for the Romantics - Final Part

The whole session was titled ‘Government 2.0 – fad or future?’ So what did we conclude by the end of the discussion? I think we decided that government 2.0 was more future than fad, that a long-term, gradual and unstoppable revolution had started that would dramatically change the processes, structures and behaviour of governments and that by and large that was a very good thing. At the same time, we weren’t blind to the obvious obstacles that would provide plenty of opportunity for resistance and delay. Nor were people naïve enough to think that the entrenched cultures and structures of governing would be easy to shift. But what I took away from the discussion overall was a real sense of possibility and opportunity. With a mixture of excitement, realism and some trepidation, I felt that people were for the most part prepared to sign up for the ‘government 2.0’ revolution, largely in the end because the accumulating demographic and performance improvement imperatives impacting governments and their public management systems would prove, in the end, to be irresistible. I think people decide these questions in the end depending on whether they tend to be realists or romantics. In the end, I am a bit of both. The romantic in me sees the disruptive possibilities of these new technologies and the way they might refresh the vision and values of public management. The realist in me sees deep, structural resistance and massive opportunities for denial and delay from many who currently occupy the commanding heights of power and control and therefore whose personal and professional interests are most challenged by the potential for change. I think in the end they will lose, but it won’t be without a fight. Here are a few final points that were summarised by Hillingdon CIO Steve Palmer who was an active and very thoughtful participant in the Nobel discussions…

• The Web 2.0 developments challenge leadership and the legitimacy of political roles, responsibilities and structures in uncomfortable ways. It also gives an opportunity for "true" democracy - a possibly scary possibility to those who hold or enjoy power under the old rules.


• There is a need to be open, honest and transparent in what issues we are properly prepared to engage communities/people in making decisions upon. Where do we want genuine engagement (web 2.0) may work in shaping? Where to want real or pretend consultation (web 2.0 may work). For the "no go" areas it won't work but what are the consequences of governments deciding not to engage - web 2.0 can be used to create very collaborative opposition.


• The technologies are benign, the content provides the stimulus. What are the consequences of failure to mesh what can be perceived as revolutionary technologies with the business of government?


• There is a huge opportunity however to generate well informed, genuine innovation and engagement at community level including providing some added opportunities to develop true social innovation.


• We need to accept there is disconnect between the methods of collaboration, communication and aspiration of emerging generations against antiquated workplaces, workstyle and work based technologies.