Web 2.0 technologies have democratized publishing and led to significant changes in the way people communicate. Looking at the internet as a platform, with user-generated content in wikis, blogs, social networking and social media sites, we are in a period of significant innovation and change. In developing guidance for the use of Web 2.0 technologies both internally to DoD operations and externally in communicating and interacting with the public, we are investigating the current state and trend in Web 2.0 technologies.
In line with this, we have a number of areas to investigate and we would like input via use of the comments function on the following topics:
Social Networking Services Portability: Looking at social networking services, there seem to be a number of efforts under way to make an individual’s social network portable. We are looking for thoughts on where social networking services portability is today, and where you expect this idea to be in the next three to five years.
Impact on Web 2.0 Technologies to Critical Business Processes: Web 2.0 technologies have led to direct impacts on how businesses have organized. What business processes do you think have been most directly affected, and more importantly, what type of environment must exist for these technologies to make the most impact? The environment in this case refers both to cultural concerns and the key technology issues that need to be addressed.
Succinct Web 2.0 Definition: There have been a number of different definitions proposed for Web 2.0 technologies. Part of the challenge involves communicating this Web 2.0 concept to those who have not used Web 2.0 technologies, and are not involved in the technology field. If you were to pair down Web 2.0 to its essence, what would be your very succinct definition (no longer than one sentence)?
Best Web 2.0 Reference: There has been a lot written about Web 2.0 technologies and their impact on society. Some discuss Web 2.0 technologies in terms of generational issues, some refer to the technology shift in the way applications are built. If you were going to pick one reference (video, article, book, etc) that best discusses this shift in a way that a non-technical laymen could understand, which would you recommend?
Great questions. I’m responding as a member of the Web2.0 Technology Community, but also as a contributor in the “Collaboration” category of the Open Government Initiative, sponsored by OSTP. I am intrigued by the open government push, and encouraged to see a continued solicitation of public input -
Frankly, I think both public & industry have some work to do to step up to your challenge – so, for my part, here are some thoughts:
PORTABILITY is a significant gap in today’s Web2.0/SM space. The need is for a common, single-source entry with multi-vendor re-use for personalization data (profile data about the user and their preferences) as well as social network data (who the users is connected to, and importantly, why, defined by tags). Owing to massive proliferation of applications and a general lack of standards, this has not been possible to date. Moreover, central or “top down” management of anything (including ‘standards’) is generally counter culture to the Web2.0/SM approach. However, web services and XML serve as powerful enablers. In this case, technology is not the problem. The gap is the ability and willingness of stakeholders — vendors, users, developers, large stakeholder coalitions (eg., government) — to organize around a minimal, practical set of common guidelines. I believe an open source consortium for Web2.0/SM Data (Personal & Social Network) Portability Guidelines is needed. Google, Twitter, Linked-In and Facebook, at a minimum, should be at the table. In such a process, it would be important to retain user-defined extensions and customizations to any resulting open source model. This is necessary to ensure adoption by the Web2.0 community. In short, a ‘meeting in the middle’ to achieve a shared approach for ‘top down’ and ‘bottom-up’ data exchange would be ideal. The faster this gets done, the more quickly portability gets solved, which will lead to accelerated adoption of Web2.0/SM.
WEB2.0 IMPACT ON BUSINESS PROCESS. Social media and Web 2.0 are ultimately about connecting people and content in more intuitive ways, so the business processes impacted are those involving human interaction and content messaging. Examples:
1. Collaborative Research. Connecting disparate researchers and solution engineers to identify untapped synergies, engender more cross-functional collaboration, and accelerate research findings; this is particularly important in key foundational areas such as science, technology, engineering and math (STEM).
2. Customer Service. Building customer relationships with real-time exchange of content via on-going human interaction; drives improved retention of business, interactive 1:1 PR, market data (‘what customers really want’) and expanded sales opportunities.
3. Software Development. Enhancing exchange of best practice and solution information among disparate developers, driving improved and accelerated output.
4. Marketing & Media Communication (1:n PR). Expanding channels for message distribution, adding a new two-way feedback mechanism; forces companies to take a fresh look at what levels of the organization own the “message” and the process for getting the word out – and, now, in.
5. Collaborative Solutions (Knowledge Management). Enhancing and accelerating the capture of contextual information on both sides of the firewall, resulting in enhanced value – and more engagement – of all knowledge stakeholders in the company, which is just about everyone; could result in virtual global work groups, increased critical mass, and more productive use of co-creation tools. [enhances capability/value of 1-4 above]
6. HR Talent Acquisition & Supplier Sourcing. Enhancing the talent acquisition process through expanded access to real-time, holistic resource profiles to build a dynamic, optimal workforce (balance of internal & external resources, able to scale on demand, to include individuals, consultants, and traditional suppliers).
WEB2.0 DEFINITION. Connecting people and content in more intuitive ways through adoption of social technologies; this drives enhanced user experience and interaction capabilities, with benefits that include: (a.) expanded user personalization, choice, and content filtering, (b.) propagation of rich, more intuitive multi-media, (c.) facilitation of all aspects of community building and interaction, and (d.) empowerment of local contribution on a global scale.
AUTHORITATIVE REFERENCE. To me, the best reference in this space is “Wikinomics” by Don Tapscott (2006), laying out a comprehensive framework for change with a fresh, rigorous view of necessary Web 2.0 imperatives.
Footenote: An important question you didn’t ask (here), but that is somewhat implied: what do we need to do to make this work?
For adoption in business, government or academic organizations, Web2.0/SM requires cultures of trust & empowerment, with team environments that encourage knowledge sharing and collaboration.
I feel strongly that any work in this space must put attention to these imperatives somewhere in the overall framework or mission. This is especially important in items 1, 3, 4 and 5 above, since culture issues often block success in these areas, when tools & technologies would otherwise be helpful.
Hope this moves the ball forward a bit.
I welcome any additional discussion and/or comments; these perspectives will be available shortly on my blog as well.
Again, thanks for asking -
Chris Jones (@SourcePOV)
Cary, NC
For extracting actionable intelligence, the combination of social data and sensor data using semantic web technologies offers new possibilities. More on that, in my post: http://efasoft.blogspot.com/2009/07/semantic-social-computing.html
[...] http://web20guidanceforum.dodlive.mil/2009/08/02/understanding-web-20-near-future-direction-and-impa... [...]
[...] here: Understanding Web 2.0: Impacts and Future Direction « DoD Web 2.0 … [...]
Succinct Web 2.0 Definition: Difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0: Taking 90% of the rungs from a ladder, but being able to climb higher and with more ease –online communication goes from transaction between two to interaction among many.
Best Web 2.0 Reference: Has to be in “real-world” examples that are being supplied in real-time. These examples all focus on “Closing the Chasm,” helping bring the public and public sector back to a dialog around accountability, transparency, representation, power vested in the public not the public institution, etc. It has yet to be realized. We are finding just how wide this chasm is and it is great. But we are on a track. It may not be the right the track, yet, but it is moving in a direction and most folks can participate whether actively and passively; their choice.
SNS Portability: ex today – when LinkedIn or FB mine your gmail/yahoo/hotmail account for contacts to add to your network; Oauth; Disqus – claim ownership of blog comments
Biz Process Impact of W2.0 Technologies
- user is both data creator and consumer; W2.0 units the two end-points
- W2.0 removes information “editor” function; editing is performed by the users surfacing valuable information through their networks by passing information along. MSM became an information devaluer; their editing actually destroyed informational value because of conflict of advertisers as sources being reported on.
- putting users closer to the data: shifting away from long cycle time of data > application > report to user cycle times. W2.0 shortens that cycle and makes data almost immediately available to user; quickens cycle time of data value/usage for user. Moves focus from data collection and process cycles to “what does the data mean?/what can I do with this data?” cycles. More easily accessible analytics.
- simplification of the application: break the app down into smaller components that are more consumable by the user
Environment required to make W2.0 type transform:
- understanding of the efficiency gains to radically alter application platform to a central data model with spoke applications
- willingness to invest heavily
- willingness to rearch dev group to W2.0 style (data & web oriented, agile methodologies, etc…)
- bottoms up approach (find one good app, like chicago crime maps, to turn people’s light bulbs on)
- end results (v. process) orientation
W2.0 Definition: Rearchitecting data flows to be derived naturally through crowd-sourcing and surfacing for faster and higher quality informational content.
Interesting that this blog is addressing things that the USAF and Marine Corps (just announced) currently ban from official computers.
Instead of saying it is too hard to secure the DoD internet and the social networking sites and Web 2.0 are too porous when it comes to security, the services and DoD should be making DoD users smarter and security savvy…perhaps it is also time to consider seperating the government internet entity from the commercial/private internet. Segregate the two (the wwwgov.dod.com system would require formal access such as log in and ID/CAC card to access, while the http://www.regularinternet.com would continue to limit access to porn, illegal, and other inappropriate websites) and then allow military personnel the access they need to both systems to perform their duties.
In the mean time, each member of the DoD, whether civilian or uniformed personnel, should strive to be effective communicators. This enables us to provide transparency (opsec permitting) to the civilian population depending on us for their protection and to those we seek to assist (for example, providing information on how we assisted tsunami victims to the world audience). It provides us the chance to interact with those who may know next to nothing or very little about those of us who choose to serve in the military and helps us to explain why we choose this lifestyle. Finally, it makes every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman a public affairs representative…it will provide our perspective on the narrative of events instead of the often one-sided perspective provided by our would-be enemies (or in some cases, our enemies who quickly discount our actions as malicious in their public affairs campaigns.)
Please do not ban social networking/Web 2.0 from DoD systems and personnel. Educate us and trust us to use these tools effectively in the performance of our mission.
Here’s a cool post on GovLoop of people’s Must Reads on Gov 2.0 w/ 45 comments
http://www.govloop.com/forum/topics/what-are-the-must-reads-on
I agree with the comment above. Personally I know people that have responded well to Wikinomics.
Social networking portability – Between Facebook Connect and Google Connect and OpenId, most of the major social networks have a data portability plan. In the future, I expect one will be able to sign-in and provide pieces of their identity to various online sites and applications depending on their preferences. For example, I imagine I’ll allow the Cincinnati Bengals fanclub to take some of the personal side of my profile vs a professional site where I may want to share my resume/skill set but not my hobbies.
Steve Ressler
Founder, GovLoop.com
In Washington State we are struggling issues related to our state’s Public Records Act and records retention requirements. Is there any guidance on how federal agencies are addressing these issues under FOIA?
Specificly, under Washington law, it is not clear what is the “public record” that must be produced and that must be retained when information is posted on social network sites.
Tim O’Reilly offered a short definition of Web 2.0 at http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web_20_compact_definition.html:
“Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an “architecture of participation,” and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.”
In my view, Web 2.0 is fundamentally social, treating the individual at the center of the universe as opposed to groups or organizations, and then basing communication and information paths on social relationships between individuals. The other factors that O’Reilly mentions are either supports or outcomes of the core social dimension of Web 2.0.
As in Washington State’s situation, Florida (whose public records and open government laws are some of the most open and accessible in the country) is taking a good look too. While our statutes have been very useful over the years and have provided citizens better access to government information and political processes, these laws were written and enacted in the 1960s and 70s when the communications capability we have today was unimaginable. New rules are required for these new circumstances. Ultimately, our legislature will have to engage in this discussion in order to create a new open government and public records framework that protects and maintains privacy for citizens on one hand and provides for open and accessible government on the other. I am excited to be able to watch it all unfold.
Succinct Web 2.0 Definition: In delivering workshops on Web 2.0 for government agencies and other key stakeholders, I ask audiences to imagine themselves walking up to a main street storefront. I ask them to envision peering through clear panes of glass to marvel at the merchandise – watches and widgets and whatever else may be sold. They turn their attention to the door, eager to enter the venue and explore the possibility of purchasing something they see…or just to engage the shop owner. However, they reach for the knob to find themselves locked out. The owner is standing inside, but he is not allowing anyone to enter. “But the sign says ‘open’,” the shopper protests. “Sorry,” the shopkeeper motions. “You can look, but…” We know how the interaction ends…or fails to begin. That’s Web 1.0: a one way push of information. We might even grant that the shop owner cuts a whole in the glass to allow for the exchange of goods for money, but that’s the extent of our operation in a Web 1.0 world.
Now imagine an African marketplace or a flea market not far from your home. People from all over have brought the things they’ve made in order to allow their customers to touch and trade and buy. Prices are negotiable and products are hand-crafted. That scene is more akin to Web 2.0, where the currency is content and the wares are ideas and information. In addition, the tables or tents where people set up their products (read content) are mobile/portable for placement in any number of venues. With Web 2.0, government agencies coordinate an exchange that seeks to harness the intelligence of the crowd…and this need not happen at the main website of the agency. Rather, it occurs in places where people are already gathering to share information and ideas.
I also make a distinction between Gov 2.0 and Web 2.0 – with Gov 2.0 being the overall concept of openness, transparency and participatory government and Web 2.0 as the collaborative technology that is both driver and enabler.
Best Web 2.0 Reference: I don’t think there is one book right now that could capture the essence of Web 2.0 or Gov 2.0, but I just finished “Wiki Government”‘ by Beth Noveck and it was a great read with a real example of Gov 2.0.
Portability is key, like you said. The technology for it is getting better all the time but seems restricted to major cities. I suppose though, that’s the key limiting factor with any portable device receiving data from an earthbound broadcasting source. As for the business side, Web 2.0 seems like it’s just tapping the surface of the business changes that will come in the near future. It’s fascinating to speculate what will happen and is already happening to customer service, the hiring process, and employee relations.
[...] such as facebook.com, myspace.com, twitter.com, among hundreds of others around the World, as Stowe Boyd said on the Department of Defense’s Web 2.0 Guidance Forum, “Web 2.0 is fundamentally social, treating the individual at the center of the universe as [...]
I’ve been presenting to corporate clients on this for a few years; the deck that I typically use as a starting point is here:
http://www.slideshare.net/marc.danziger/some-fast-thoughts-on-web-2-v3
Marc
Web 2.0 definition:
Making the world smaller.
Reference:
For a great broad based reference (mainly news) to the web 2.0 and technology industry is TechCrunch (www.techcrunch.com). This is the technology industry’s leading blog, and is a great read for people looking to be on the cutting edge of the state of consumer Internet applications.
Shane