Open Gov Partner Approach: Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Motivations: There are several drivers for Agencies and their OCFO shops to focus on performance management—and many of them are directly related to compliance activities. The following is by no means exhaustive, but demonstrates a few of the Agency performance and budgeting requirements that motivate OCFO’s to be engaged in any business transformation efforts that occur as a result of embracing Open Government principles:

• The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) shifts “the focus of government decision making, management, and accountability from activities and processes to the results and outcomes achieved by Federal programs.” Under GPRA, annual performance plans must be submitted that outline performance goals, measurement approaches, and the strategies to achieve those goals. (Source: GAO Report)
• Executive Order 13450 – Improving Government Program Performance is the official policy of the Federal Government to spend taxpayer dollars more effectively each year. Agency Performance Improvement Officers (PIOs) must develop and improve the agency’s strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports and assist the head of the agency in the development and use within the agency of performance measures in personnel performance appraisals, particularly those of program managers.
• The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was “developed to assess and improve program performance so that the Federal government can achieve better results. A PART review helps identify a program’s strengths and weaknesses to inform funding and management decisions aimed at making the program more effective”. (Source: OMB Website) A Federal website,expectmore.gov, displays performance information online for the public.

Approach: OCFO’s must balance a myriad of pressures and priorities when developing the annual budget including performance management and strategic goals alignment. OCFO shops will be concerned with metrics, strategic alignment and the costs associated with any Open Government effort. When standing up an Open Government program, OCFO’s will be particularly concerned with the following questions:

• Do Open Government philosophies and programs enhance an Agency’s focus on their mission?
• Do the efforts support annual performance goals?
• Will senior managers be able to use the performance and financial data that is created through Open Government to manage their programs?
• How do we link agency employees’ appraisals to the agency missions, goals, and outcomes associated with Open Government?
• How will we apply program evaluations (PART) to assess the effectiveness of Open Gov programs?
• What is the full cost of achieving the performance goals associate with Open Government?
• What is the marginal cost of changing performance goals due to Open Government?
• Will budget requests need to be altered as a result of Open Government efforts?
• How do we measure baseline performance targets associated with the Open Government?

Partner’s Bottom Line: In order to implement an Open Government program that considers the answers to each of these questions, OCFO’s should:

• Integrate the Federal-wide goals of transparency, participation and collaboration into strategic planning and performance management for the Agency.
• Work alongside and appreciate the importance of “techies” to understand the scope and possibilities for the effort. This will enable them to understand how technology has evolved and will evolve to assist agencies in meeting the Federal-wide goals of transparency, participation and collaboration.
• Be open. What is defined as “success” and a performance target should be evolving as technology moves forward. We should not continue to pursue outdated targets as possibilities change with technology.

(Note: This is a part of a series that was originally posted on the Phase One Consulting Group, Government Transformation Blog when I was an employee there. www.phaseonecg.com/blog)

Open Gov Partner Approach: Office of General Counsel

Motivations: OGC’s primary mission is to provide legal opinions, advice, and services with respect to all agency and departmental programs and activities. OGC’s are charged with ensuring compliance with all federal laws, statutes, and OMB guidance in all Agency activities. They keep the rest of us out of trouble and handle disputes with agency decisions as they emerge. Approach: OGC’s must survey and interpret a host of different information sources to develop a legal opinion on any new government effort, including open government programs. Legal Counsel will review Agency statutes, federal laws, OMB guidance and directives, OMB circulars, and internal Agency policies to advise the client on actions that are legal, illegal, and those that may need slight modification to transfer between the two. This activity can be quite time consuming, especially in areas where substantial case law does not exist (i.e. the questions being asked are new).

When standing up an open government tool, OGC’s will be particularly concerned with the following questions:

• What is your authority for creating this tool or program?
• Are there any statutory constraints or enablers that impact the Agency’s use of open government tools, including security protections?
• Will the tool be collecting information from the public, and if so, will it violate the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)?
• Are you seeking consensus advice from the public, and if so, will it trigger the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)?
• Are your tools 508 compliant and do they meet the requirements of all accessibility laws?
• Is the Agency okay with the tools “terms of service”, if it is an established tool?
• Does the program meet all privacy regulations and is a privacy impact assessment (PIA) required?
• If an interaction tool is desired, what should the comment policy say? (This policy details the legal protections for the service provider (aka federal government) with regards to the user generated content.)
• If access is restricted, what is the basis for restricting access and should there be an access policy?
• Is the content on the tool considered a “federal record” and if so, should a disposition schedule be developed?

Partner’s Bottom Line: In order to implement an open government tool that considers the answers to each of these questions, OGC’s should:

• Work alongside the strategists and program developers to understand the purpose of the effort. This will enable them to advise the effort in real-time and prevent most legal issues from emerging down the line, which could slow or completely halt all efforts.
• Be open. Open Government is a new application of several outdated laws (NARA, PRA, FACA, etc…) and OGC’s across the federal government are sharing legal opinions that are flexible but still operate within the boundaries of the law.
• “Approach the tools and issues with an eye to analyzing and managing the actual risk. Too many projects get stalled on unlikely what-if scenarios. Ask, what is the real risk? What is the likelihood of it occurring? Recognizing that some risks may not be tenable, the benefit of openness needs to be prominent in the equation.” (Thanks to Gwynne for contributing)

(Note: This is a part of a series that was originally posted on the Phase One Consulting Group, Government Transformation Blog when I was an employee there. www.phaseonecg.com/blog)

Open Gov Partner Approach: Program Offices

Motivations: Program Offices are often those folks that are motivated by outputs and outcomes that most directly relate to the bottom line mission areas of an Agency. They are charged with implementing programs that tie into the strategic goals of the organization and are often the closest to the stakeholders. These folks are closest to the pain points in Agency processes and statutory limitations. They know what they need to be successful but often times face barriers in implementation with the integrating offices (OCIO, OPA, OGC, etc…) so they often “go it alone” and do what works for them in order to meet their mission, not focusing on integrating their efforts with the needs of the entire organization. In a perfect world, they would have access to customizable solutions to help them meet their business needs that have already taken into account the hard legal, policy, technical and performance questions. Approach: Program offices identify a business need, and will fill that gap with the solution that best balances their time, resource, cost and technology limitations. To create these solutions, program offices tend to follow some form of a project management process to design, implement, maintain and improve upon their initiatives, consulting other offices when appropriate.

This approach is no different when programs decide to utilize open government tools. Building a blog, a wiki, or a specialized participation tool requires a project management approach to stand it up, and then program management to maintain and improve upon it. When standing up an open government tool, program offices will be particularly concerned with the following questions:

• What type of information sharing with the stakeholders will help me to achieve my strategic goals more effectively? Will open government tools help my bottom line by making public engagement easier?
• What type of outreach reaches my stakeholders the most effectively? Do those stakeholders have the technological maturity to transition to a primarily online collaboration environment?
• What type of program is realistic to maintain given my personnel, budget and time constraints?
• What tools are available for me to use? Are those tools adequately vetted from a security, privacy and utility perspective?
• How much ability do I have to execute creative license over the tool to customize it for my needs?
• Is there any reason why I can’t do what I want to do (internal policy, statute, the law, etc…)?
• Has an effort like this worked any where else outside my organization or within it?

Partner’s Bottom Line: In order to implement an open government tool that considers the answers to each of these questions, program offices should:

• Work closely with a team of the legal, technical, policy, and performance subject matter experts;
• Follow project management discipline in order to manage risks, costs, schedules and resources; and
• Be provided with a source where Agency best practices and resources can be shared so each program office is not forced to ask these same difficult questions each time a new business need emerges.

(Note: This is a part of a series that was originally posted on the Phase One Consulting Group, Government Transformation Blog when I was an employee there. www.phaseonecg.com/blog)

We’re not so Different After All: Touch Points in Open Gov Approaches Preferred by Internal Partners

In our first open government series we talked about how intermediate goals (which reside between the temptation to go straight to “cool tools” and the overall vision of “government as a platform”), are critical to focus on when developing an open government strategy for an Agency that will ultimately help them achieve their mission better. This series drives at another challenge that practitioners face in creating robust open government strategies: who to engage in the leadership of the effort and how to get those people talking the same language. We do this by:

(1) Laying out the motivations and approaches that individual offices would likely take in developing their pieces of an Open Gov strategy; (2) Suggesting some bottom line recommendations for those offices the equip them to be the best possible partner; and (3) Synthesizing those approaches into a common language that can help all the right people work together from the beginning.

The goal of this series is to help make the case for convening as step one an interdisciplinary leadership team to develop an Agency’s Open Government strategy.

Often offices don’t communicate because they believe their processes don’t complement one another. However, this series will demonstrate that all the essential partners aren’t so different after all, and though they may have different terms and general approaches, they share many of the same concerns, requirements and motivations. We will highlight the following offices and their drivers in the coming weeks:

(1) Program Offices (Posted 10/6/09) (2) Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) (Posted 10/8/09) (3) Office of General Counsel (OGC) (Posted 10/15/09) (4) Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) (Posted 10/21/09) (5) Chief Technology Officer (CTO) (Posted 10/23/09) (6) Policy Development Office (Posted 10/26/09) (7) Office of Public Affairs (OPA) (Posted 11/3/09) (8) Human Resources (HR) (Posted 11/10/09)

Please let us know any feedback and whether or not you think any other offices/approaches should be integrated as well. This series will hopefully help practitioners get to “step one” in their open government effort: convening the right people at the table to support the development of a robust and implementable strategy.

(Note: Originally posted on the Phase One Consulting Group, Government Transformation Blog when I was an employee there. www.phaseonecg.com/blog)

Open Government is about Eliminating the Digital Divide (Part 5 of 5 of Series)

This may seem contradictory initially. Doesn’t Gov 2.0 enhance the digital divide by pushing government engagement further away from folks that aren’t equipped with a computer or web-enabled mobile device? The danger of focusing on Gov 2.0 only, considering the digital divide, is that certain populations will be under-represented in the governing process. We can do a lot of “cool” things with Gov 2.0, but some argue that unless we address accessibility we aren’t really transforming government to an equitable platform; we are instead making its operations more inaccessible to certain stakeholder groups. Closing the digital divide and encouraging Gov 2.0 are not mutually exclusive however. You don’t have to choose one or the other—choose both. In fact, some people think that the digital divide is a myth and only a perceived gap—that as cost of use decreases and ease of use increases, the ethnic, racial, and geographical internet access gaps will decrease on their own. (see “The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth by Benjamin M. Compaine) Furthermore, one could argue that Gov 2.0 will increase ease of use as open source applications allow tools to be customized by users so they become more and more useful through each version. However, this is a result that occurs over time and thus government programs should in the interim make sure to consider accessibility issues and prioritize digital equality programming in parallel with Gov 2.0 efforts.

It seems that those places that have had some success in bridging the divide are heavily dependent on programming at the local level. Boston has done some really interesting programming and tried to address the problem from a lot of directions through the Boston Digital Bridge Foundation. This is also a unique time where the federal government is financially supporting broadband technology expansion with stimulus funds and several grant programs including the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP).

As another intermediate goal, we should continue to encourage innovation through Gov 2.0, but also address digital divide issues in parallel through efforts like what they’ve done in Boston. One should not be sacrificed for the other—they just need to be balanced given limited resources. The good news is, a lot of the Gov 2.0 efforts are “free” or low cost compared to the infrastructure heavy investments required for certain digital divide programming.

(Note: Originally posted on the Phase One Consulting Group, Government Transformation Blog when I was an employee there. www.phaseonecg.com/blog)

Open Government is about Realizing Economies of Scale through Standardization (Part 4 of 5 of Series)

Now this statement alone may give many of you pause since Open Government is about “openness” and not standardization. But the two are not mutually exclusive. Economies of scale are accomplished because as production increases, the cost of producing each additional unit falls. If we don’t work to standardize the process of and tools required to produce additional units (whether they be blogs, wikis, or other Gov 2.0 tools), the same barriers to entry and costs will exist for each new effort (i.e. development of policies, security plans, employee training, etc). Some examples of standardization already exit. GSA’s negotiated terms of service have provided Federal-wide standardization to most Agencies that desire to use web 2.0 platforms. Whenever you sign up for a social media service (facebook, twitter, etc…) you agree to their terms of service when you register. The terms of service are often seen by legal departments as a “contract” with that tool owner. With the negotiated terms of service, GSA has done the work to provide a standard “contract” that government agencies can use when utilizing these social media tools. Thus, each legal department doesn’t have to struggle through this issue each time a new tool surfaces; GSA has provided a standard that makes development much quicker and easier. Apps.gov is one example of using standards to create economies of scale across the government.

Also, many Agencies have developed Agency-wide use policies that give guidance to employees. However, more standardization can be encouraged at the Agency level that will reduce the barriers to entry for emergent programs and thus accomplish economies of scale.

(Note: Originally posted on the Phase One Consulting Group, Government Transformation Blog when I was an employee there. www.phaseonecg.com/blog)

Open Government is about Enabling Public Private Partnerships and Innovation (Part 3 of 5 of Series)

As the release of OMB’s Open Government Directive approaches, Departments and Agencies should embrace thinking about Open Government in a new way—not as an initiative that can be satisfied through the utilization of web 2.0 tools, but as an opportunity to jump-start and enhance public-private partnerships (PPPs) and innovation that will enhance their mission. PPPs are said to only be possible when partners bring concrete public value, operational capacity, and legitimacy and support to the table. The Open Government initiative contributes to all three of these areas by prioritizing the public value of information sharing, increasing the data available to the public and thus reducing information asymmetry, and providing the leadership support to increase PPPs’ visibility. The bottom line is that the Open Government initiative makes partnering easier in every area of government service provision and the momentum created by OMB’s initial transparency efforts through Data.gov should be leveraged in order to identify and encourage new areas for partnership. The Government should not have a monopoly on innovation. But by withholding data, making processes unnecessarily cumbersome, and making public engagement in decision making extremely difficult (if not illegal—see the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) for guidelines on reaching public consensus to advise lawmakers), several public service areas have become near-monopolies. This Open Government initiative empowers and requires the Federal Government to break down those walls, to increase openness, and to encourage public private partnerships, so that we may create meaningful and productive innovation and progress through harnessing the best ideas, regardless of their creator.

(Note: Originally posted on the Phase One Consulting Group, Government Transformation Blog when I was an employee there. www.phaseonecg.com/blog)

Open Government is about Leadership, Strategy, and Teaming (Part 2 of 5 of Series)

Putting together a well-balanced leadership and implementation team is essential and should start from the beginning of Open Government efforts. The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and the Office of Public Affairs (OPA) should co-lead the effort with executive sponsorship from the highest levels of the organization. While the OPA manages most of the branding and communications for the Agency, the OCIO is uniquely situated, in most cases, at the center of technology, policy and culture issues and thus should be part of the core leadership team. Several other parties should be engaged in Agency-wide Gov 2.0 efforts, including: the General Counsel’s Office (OGC), Chief Technology Officers (CTO), Chief Information Security Officers (CISO), Privacy Officers, Human Resources (HR), and project managers (PMs). These parties must be at the table to ensure all legal, policy, technical, organizational and business factors are addressed when devising an Open Government strategy. Without an Agency-wide effort, programs will utilize social media and Open Government tools on an ad-hoc basis, driving up redundancy, cost, and the instances of inconsistent policies. By embracing the strategy phase upfront, Agencies have the opportunity to ensure that Open Government programs and tools comprehensively:

(1) Enhance the Agency’s mission and make service provision more efficient for the government and useful for the public (2) Channel public energy to partner with the government to innovate productively and; (3) Align with IT standards, federal policies, and Agency strategy.

Teaming doesn’t stop at the strategy level however, it continues all the way down to program development and management. We are all familiar with the teaming required to stand up and operate a tool or program; it’s the strategy leadership—with the exception of the White House and OMB—that has been lacking. Agencies leadership teams should focus on a current “openness” assessment, strategy development, planning, tool selection and then program development and management, in that order, to ensure Open Government adds real value to mission provision.

(Note: Originally posted on the Phase One Consulting Group, Government Transformation Blog when I was an employee there. www.phaseonecg.com/blog)

Open Government is about Technology, Policy and Culture (Part 1 of 5 of Series)

Open Government strategies must consider technology, policy and culture to meet the bottom line goals of Open Government:

1. To ensure cost effectiveness, accessibility, and quality in service provision; 2. To streamline federal efforts allowing Agencies to focus on and enhance their mission areas; and 3. To stimulate the openness that drives public trust and innovation.

We all know this, but until now, the dialogue has been focused primarily on technology, with policy and culture issues thrown in as contributing factors to success, but not inputs that need to be considered before an Open Government plan is even conceptualized.

However, I will argue that technology, policy and cultural components must be considered before tools are even selected in order to get a deeper understanding of what strategies will best assist Agencies in enhancing their mission provision through Open Government. Don’t wait until a tool has been selected to consider security, privacy, stakeholder, legal, resource and communications issues—consider them from the start. Looking at Open Government through this lens will help tool selection decisions be informed based on Agency mission priorities and not merely on what tools are available and sexy.

(Note: Originally posted on the Phase One Consulting Group, Government Transformation Blog when I was an employee there. www.phaseonecg.com/blog)

What Open Government is About: Suggested Intermediate Goals and Guidance for Gov 2.0

There has been a lot of buzz in the last eight months around the concept of Open Government. Last week, the Gov 2.0 community met for an energizing Gov 2.0 Expo and Gov 2.0 Summit, sponsored by TechWeb and O’Reilly Media, which brought together thought leaders, practitioners and federal executives around the ideas of transparency, collaboration and participation. Speakers illustrated success stories, emerging applications, agency specific tools, and an open source vision for today and the future. Gov 2.0 bloggers have been posting summaries and outstanding questions since. September 15, OMB and GSA announced the launch of Apps.gov, a storefront for approved cloud computing applications. Needless to say, there is a lot of activity in the Gov 2.0 world, but it seems that the content of the conference, recent discussions, and recent initiatives have fallen in to two primary categories: technology and vision.

1. The Gov 2.0 event was highly focused on the technology aspects of Open Government. However, Open Government is not ONLY about technology. 2. The Gov 2.0 event also featured plentiful discussion about the desired to-be open source state for government operations. However, there must be intermediate, manageable steps that lead to that to-be state. While I agree with Tim O’Reilly’s statement that “government as a platform” should be an overall goal of Open Government, I also believe that in order to achieve meaningful results from Open Government efforts in the near to medium term, Federal practitioners must have intermediate goals that drive their efforts as well.

To build upon the Gov 2.0 community’s conversation through this new lens, I have compiled the following series of blog postings explaining what I think Open Government is about. These thoughts will hopefully help to focus practitioners on some of the intermediate goals that may assist their Open Government efforts and kick-start the conversation to bridge the gap between the high-level “to-be” state discussions, and the implementation issues at the tool level. Thus, I start by suggesting that Open Government is about…

1. Technology, Policy, and Culture 2. Leadership, Strategy and Teaming 3. Public Private Partnerships and Innovation 4. Realizing Economies of Scale through Standardization 5. Eliminating the Digital Divide

I welcome your comments and additions.

(Note: Originally posted on the Phase One Consulting Group, Government Transformation Blog when I was an employee there. www.phaseonecg.com/blog)