Thanks to everyone who participated in the live webcast of the event! Your engagement was key to making the event a success and we hope to continue the conversation. If you missed it, you can watch the video here and feel free to leave comments!
The audio file is available at CSIS's site.
Highlights from the Online Discussion
“[We need to] bring fearlessness of failure into the culture of government."
- Beth Noveck, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
“Right on, Beth! It's not the technology, so much as the mindset against EVER failing.”
– online ustreamer participant
“Employees want more than a "sense" that's its okay to innovate. They want to TRUST that it's oaky.”
– online ustreamer participant
“Take away RISK to one's job first! Otherwise, "championing" is meaningless!”
– online ustreamer participant
What the online audience wanted more of...
“I love Beth's example of Peer-to-Patent but wish there was more examples. Waiting for the TSA ideas example to be mentioned and apps for democracy” - ustreamer-9860
“The patent program is a great example of how public interaction (crowd sourcing) can make government work more efficient” - ustreamer-74467
Questions from the online audience...
On bringing technologies behind the firewall
-
As one of the GIS "internet mappers" that was mentioned, I would suggest that the state dept. allow it's staff access to the new versions of Google Earth and access to different browsers besides old versions of IE. It can be hard to work with government agencies when they aren't allowed to use the tools. Are there any efforts going on inside USAID to make innovative tools like Google Earth available for employees inside the firewall? For example, google earth mashups?
On the role of government agencies
-
Regarding the comments by Ms. Turner regarding working with partners, etc. and the broader question posed as the purpose of this panel- is she suggesting the broader role of USAID is to serve as an intermediary and connector?
-
How will this commitment to collaboration and participation be used?
-
A question for the panel from Averill Doering in San Francisco: Beth Noveck and others spoke about the willingness of the government to utilize new technologies to listen to public comments and draw from the collective intellect. Beyond openness and collection--how are agencies aggregating this information and using it to inform strategic decision making?
-
Could the panel elaborate a bit more about how all this information that's being shared will be used and how it relates to broader strategic planning, as well as the broader communications strategies?
-
This isn't a criticism, but while the increase in communications and opportunities to participate and be heard are really appreciated, I’m wondering what this impact has been on staff and internal capacity?
On measuring impact
-
Speaking of agency goals, metrics and accountability is there a plan to expose these key performance metrics to the public?
On barriers to technology or innovation
-
How did you make it safe for their people to innovate (especially with those who are scared of the openness or constrained by their technology tools)?
On sustainability
-
Communicating with the public is good- transparency and feeling a direct connection with the government and policies is a welcomed change, but all this communicating takes time and resources- how do you balance between these actions as well as other goals and purposes of these agencies?
Question from Bernise Ang in Singapore:
Beth Noveck talked about the role that metrics might have to play in the broader "open government" project. What are 1 or 2 examples of such metrics, and how might this translate in terms of implementation across various relevant agencies involved in making such an agenda successful. To what extent is the US government willing to share - or even promote mechanisms and metrics relating to this open government project to other countries? If so, how might this happen considering i) how such a project may necessarily go beyond "technical" assistance, and ii) a countries' unique political sensitivities?
This was the last question taken by the panelists. Skip to the end of the webcast video for Beth Noveck's answer.
From Jeff Howe at WIRED.com -- The Center for Strategic & International Studies is hosting a panel on "open innovation in government" at 3 PM ET Tuesday. I know — nothing like a handful of government bureaucrats quoting from white papers to liven up an otherwise drab, spring day. But if you're open gov geek (and isn't every red-blooded American?) this is a must-see. It features interesting thinkers ("open government champions," according to the press release) from an array of federal agencies, including USAID, NASA, and the State Department.
From the openNASA blog - Open Innovation in Government
President Obama on his second day in office issued a Presidential Memorandum on openness in government. This is a bold vision of creating a more effective, open government. The approach outlined in the memo is guided by the core values of transparency, participation and collaboration.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Global Development Commons convened a panel on Tuesday in Washington DC about Open Innovation in Government. Fortunately, the Global Development Commons streamed it live via www.ustream.com and you can see it archived here.
Doug Comstock, the Chief of the Innovative Partnership Program at NASA, was on the panel, along with a representative from the Department of State, USAID and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Dr. Beth Noveck, now at OSTP, clearly articulated that things are changing in government. As she put it, we are at the beginning of a new era applying available technologies to make public policy in better and more effective ways. From her previous projects you can see she has been experimenting with different approaches and technologies to bring about openness and collaboration.
The panelists from government agencies spoke of projects that people are doing within their organization to innovate and become more transparent, participatory and collaborative. NASA was shown to be extremely innovative within our government statutes, and in some cases working with legislators to get permission. We should be quite proud of the infrastructure we have in place to bring technology into NASA and shift technology out of NASA. We have the COTS program, Centennial Challenges (prizes), SeedFund, SBIR, STTR, Innovation Ambassadors, and have representatives at each of NASA’s 10 field Centers across the country.
