November 19, 2010Doug Hadden
Doug Hadden, VP Products
Two public servants speaking about Government 2.0:
Public Servant 1: “Now that we are open and transparent, the public is finding examples of our mistakes.”
Public Servant 2: “That’s better than the alternative. We’re not open and transparent. The public assumes that everything we do is a mistake because we’re trying to hide something.”
If authoritarian regimes can’t keep secrets from leaking, does the Canadian government have a chance of controlling the message and information? That’s one of the reflections about risk and results for Government 2.0 for my upcoming presentation at the Financial Management Institute. For all the risk of Government 2.0, the risk of not being transparent seems greater.
Not that governments can control the message because “little brother is watching”. Governments can engage citizens in dialog. They can become trusted.
It’s better to be “in-network” than “out of network”.
Bad News is Good News?
Mistakes and bad news might be good. Governments have been constrained by limited and faulty feedback loops – the ever-increasing sensational press, the odd letter from the public, the lobbyists. Government 2.0 can provide improved performance information enabling governments to increase effectiveness. At a low cost.
In the era of “doing even more for even less”, Government 2.0 is good news. This is a lesson that we’ve learned at FreeBalance. We seek out bad news so that we can improve our products, services and support.
So, feel free to comment right here on any bad news you’d like to share!
Latest posts by Doug Hadden (see all)
- What is the ‘Smart’ in Smart Government? - October 25, 2016
- The (IT) Project was a Success, but the Patient Died [Part 2] - September 21, 2016
- The (IT) Project was a Success, but the Patient Died [Part 1] - September 20, 2016
- Have we over-complicated the ‘smart’ in smart government? - September 8, 2016