When a conference delegate exclaimed in a loud whisper, “Ooh, it feels like San Francisco ’97 in here!” at the Gov 2.0 Summit last week, should I have gotten the tour T-shirt signed there and then, or was it time to start worrying?Lessons from the last dot-com frenzy would suggest caution: hang back, leave a little Kool-aid in the can, avoid the bugs of first releases, adopt late with savvy, and then tell everyone you were there at the beginning. In this case, there’s another problem: Public technology initiatives are funded by tax dollars, not angel investors. Accountability, the threat of elections, expectations raised by other service experiences, and the zeal of do-gooding developers all have a part to play in driving improvements and innovation in public services.Government administrators are experts on the public service mission and the business of governing-from local to federal. And geeks know what’s technically feasible: They are, for example, happy to mine public databases for meaningful information and reveal previously unseen patterns with policy implications. But someone needs to focus on who this is actually serving: the people. And that’s where designers, the unlikely stewards of citizenship, come in.Service designers-who tend to be rigorous thinkers, great story-tellers, and experienced opportunity-spotters-have a way of framing possibilities and, much like regulators, a knack for turning what seems ridiculous today into the obvious and expected of tomorrow. And they are seasoned brokers of client requirements and end-user needs. So when Silicon Valley’s product innovation meets the Beltway’s org charts, it will be designers who are representing the interests of citizens at the center of any Gov 2.0 initiative.This isn’t just about showing off widgets, beautifying tax forms, or giving the census a new typeface. Creativity can and must be applied to the driest technocratic details in order to deliver seamless, intuitive, accessible, and engaging services that create new ways for people and government to interact.At the Summit, both Dave Warner (CEO of MindTel, and a former Navy medic) and Clay Shirky (the author of Here Comes Everybody) argued that to succeed, tech-mediated civic participation must allow for radical inclusion, and for transactions created for, by, and between citizens and government. That doesn’t imply mob rule and a diminished role for bureaucrats; merely a change in responsibility. Expert administrators become curators, licensors of public services, and facilitators of transparent transactions within the public realm, but they remain specialists who are able to govern flexibly and coherently and at a massive scale.The opportunity now, as government goes online, is to invite civic participation through all kinds of properly regulated, tech-mediated services. The timing is right. The network is installed, and the electorate is digitally savvy. And it seems like we have a new administration that might be able to do something about it.Guest blogger Rachel Abrams is in D.C. to listen in to the wisdom of the technorati, grass-roots idealist application designers, public officials, and social media gurus at the Gov 2.0 summit. See her previous post coverage here. Photo (cc) by Flickr user ChrisAmico.
Tags
advertisement
More for You
-
14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations
These trailblazers redefined what a woman could be.
Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.
-
Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories
Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.
While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.
When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.
Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.
advertisement

