Cynics believe that government is never innovative. They're wrong. There is abundant evidence of public servants finding new and more effective ways to serve citizens. You only need look for it.
Twenty years ago, the Ford Foundation was concerned that this cynicism had infected the American political system, starting right at the top with then President Reagan. So the Foundation developed a program to look for and reward the best innovations in state and local government.
Ford gave a grant to the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University to run an awards program and support research on innovations in government. Over the last 20 years the program has thrived and grown to encompass the U.S. federal government and to become the hub of a global network of government innovators and innovation awards
The Kennedy School has supported my own research on innovation in government and, to commemorate the coming of age of its awards program, asked me to produce a new book.
The book addresses a variety of leading edge questions:
- How can a large government bureaucracy become more innovative? Professor John Donahue, of the Kennedy School, reports on the experience of the U.S. Department of Labor from 1993-97 under then Secretary Robert Reich.
- How do innovations in developing countries differ from those in advanced countries? Professors Marta Farah and Peter Spink of the Fundacao Getulio Vargas in Brazil explain.
- While the awards initially went to innovations that had their impact within an agency's four walls, there are an increasing number that involve co-production by citizens and/or citizen participation in decision-making. Professor Archon Fung of the Kennedy School examines this new wave.
- What challenges must be overcome to keep an innovative program in operation? Professor Eugene Bardach of the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley looks at the experience of a sample of long-surviving innovations.
- How are innovations replicated? Professor Bob Behn of the Kennedy School argues for the importance of communicating tacit knowledge and Professor Jean Hartley of the Warwick Business School looks at the experience of an awards program for English local government that emphasizes replication.
- Finally, journalist Jonathan Walters of Governing magazine recounts the history of the Kennedy School's innovation awards and Professor Steve Kelman analyzes and critiques the "school" of research on innovation that the Kennedy School has fostered.
The Internet is responsible for the deaths of time, distance, and deference. I wrote about how online opposition to the Harper Government's copyright proposalsand sousveillance videocamsillustrated the death of deference. This time, it's the death of time.
After last week's post about licence plate renewal went up, I e-mailed Ron McKerlie, Ontario's corporate CIO, about it at 7:56 a.m. He responded to me at 8:11 a.m. His message: Ontario's Web site "has the capacity to handle significant additional online volumes" and "you'll see better communication of what services can be obtained online over the next year." I hope so.
Ontario's simple e-mail address system - firstname.surname@Ontario.ca - makes it easy for citizens to reach public servants. Yes, McKerlie knows me, but I'd like to think that he would respond as quickly to any thoughtful e-mail sent by any citizen.
Finally, I've always found that early-morning is the best time to send an e-mail to a public servant, when my message is at the top of the inbox and before the day's meetings begin.
Going a step further, what I'd really like to see is Service Ontario sending me an e-mail with my licence renewal form as a PDF. The problem is, with all the viruses that are circulating in cyberspace, would I believe the e-mail is legitimate rather than a virus or spam? I doubt I would believe it, which suggests that authentication is a two-way street with road-blocks in both directions.
A second version of the death of time concerns Saskatchewan MP Tom Lukiwski's homophobic video. I added up the views for all versions of the video that have been online for the last three weeks, and the count now totals 30,000.
The rate of growth of views of that video and of commentaries on it does not appear to be viral. Also, new instances of Lukiwski's homophobia have not emerged. The online numbers confirm my impression that this issue has faded from acute public consciousness and the Harper Government has succeeded in toughing it out.
Whether it has an impact on Lukiwski's fate in the next election is another matter.
The two stories show, in different ways, the impact of online technology on government and politics.
In the Ontario vehicle licence case, the blog and e-mail created a positive feedback loop between me and a senior Ontario public servant, with the results out there for all to see.
YouTube creates the potential for an issue to go viral through escalating view counts, comments, and related videos. What you see on YouTube and the number of times it is seen tells you if this happening, and in the Lukiwski case, it isn't.
I just renewed my vehicle licence plate online and it was easy. The problem was that nowhere on the form that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation sent me was there any indication I could do it online: the form referred only to walk-in "regular service outlets" and electronic kiosks. I wrote about this last yearand nothing has changed since then.
Last year, I suggested three reasons for this omission:
i) no one at MTO ever thought of publicizing online service on the form
ii) the Ontario government's Web site can't handle large volumes
iii) MTO is protecting its partners, namely the small-business operators of the service outlets and IBM, which built and runs the kiosks.
Based on a discussion with an Ontario public servant, I would add a fourth. MTO has a huge supply of the current forms and they want to use them all up. I can't comment on the second explanation, possible limitations on the capacity of the Web site, because I did my transaction early in the morning, when there is little online traffic.
Of course, doing transactions at low-demand times of day is one of the virtues of online service delivery.
In any event, if Ontario and other jurisdictions are to get serious about migrating users to the online option, they have to break the silence of soft launches. Here, the federal government's publicity for online tax filing (E-file) stands as a good example.
Here is a second story about online service delivery, this time in a private sector setting. In contrast to Ontario's good but unpublicized online vehicle licence renewal, Aeroplan illustrates well-publicized but deficient online service.
Yesterday I was attempting to redeem 60,000 Aeroplan points for four tickets from Toronto to Quebec City. I went online, something Aeroplan encourages because it charges a $30 per ticket booking fee if you talk to an agent. Online, I could only find acceptable itineraries for 122,000 points. But as I attempted to view the details and book them, the itineraries vanished from my screen.
Frustrated, I called Aeroplan, and got through almost immediately - in the early afternoon, no less. The agent found the itinerary I wanted, and it cost only 60,000 points.
So the extra $120 booking fee was well worth it. Probably Aeroplan made money on the booking fee for four tickets, though it is not clear that it makes money on the booking fee for one or two, likely the most common transaction.
In future, I will book Aeroplan flights on the phone, not online. It's elementary that if Aeroplan wants customers to use the online option, it must offer the same choices as dealing with an agent. And this time the online option didn't.
To conclude more generally, if public or private sector organizations want to encourage migration to online service they must ensure the service is well-publicized and that all modes present the same choices.
At a recent meeting I attended the topic of greatness and leadership came up. We were discussing how effective leaders inspire greatness in others, often through encouraging creativity and thinking outside the box. The question arises though, just how is greatness defined?
Does greatness in one endeavour transfer to greatness in all things? Have we as a culture or as individuals' defined greatness? In light of the ongoing leadership debate in the United States, greatness is a point that shouldn't be overlooked.
We've heard that everything from military experience, to foreign affairs and inspiring change leads to the qualities that make a great leader. However, when I think of great leaders there's something intangible about them that somehow translates into this elusive 'greatness'. Often passion, commitment and integrity are characteristics that come to mind.
Also, great leaders are not afraid to take risks and to challenge the status quo. While these qualities are standard for business, they are not so amenable to the public service, where risks equal chances to jeopardize taxpayer dollars.
So what have I learned over the past year working as a new public servant? I've learned that public servants often demonstrate greatness by their drive, passion and commitment to the work that they do to serve the public good.
No organization is perfect, but within the provincial public service there is a growing trend to foster leadership development, and promote a healthy workplace. When organizations foster leadership and growth among their staff, the net benefits go beyond the organization and spill over into our communities as a whole.
I am confident that my leadership journey has by no means ended; in fact it has just begun. I look forward to the opportunities ahead, and hope to learn from both the success and the failures in order to develop leadership ability.
The discovery and dissemination of a video tape of Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski making homophobic statements brings to mind the case of former Virginia Senator George Allen's videotaped use of the racist epithet "macaca", the subject of my blog of last September 26.
There are two important differences, however. First, Allen made his racist remarks in the present, while Lukiwski uttered his homophobic words back in 1991. Second, Allen spoke during an election campaign, while Lukiwski's words came to light in the middle of the government's mandate - a mandate that looks increasingly likely to stretch right to its legislated limit of October 2009.
How do these differences make a difference? That so much time has passed since Lukiwski's words means that much could have happened since.
Lukiwski profusely apologized, saying that such words should not be tolerated now or in the past. His apology would have been stronger - indeed conclusive - had he been able to say that some time ago he changed his views of gays and had since acted in accordance with his changed views. It is in his interest to demonstrate a conversion experience. One can doubt its depth or sincerity.
Had Lukiwski's past homophobia come to light during an election campaign and before the deadline for putting a name on the ballot, there would have been considerable pressure on the Conservatives to dump him and scramble to find a candidate who would not have been a liability.
Lukiwski's candidacy would have hurt the Conservatives both in his Regina riding and in the urban ridings throughout the country where they were attempting to make inroads. In mid-mandate, the government can attempt to ride out the criticism and hope it will be forgotten by the next election.
Those who find homophobia abhorrent - a population which includes but extends beyond the gay and lesbian communities - have a choice. They can forgive and forget or they can follow the adage "don't get angry, get even." If they choose the latter, I suggest three courses of action: investigate, communicate, and retaliate. Interestingly, each will to a great degree be played out in cyberspace.
First, investigate whether there are other more recent instances of Lukiwski using homophobic words in speech or in print. Politicians are voluble and their embarrassing statements often turn up in cul-de-sacs on the information highway. This search will take a while. I googled "Lukiwski + gay" and, of the 9150 pages, the first few hundred are all from the last week.
Second, communicate. The original comments have now been posted on YouTube, as well as some intelligent critiques, such as that of Nathaniel Christopher. The view counts will be an indicator as to whether this issue has legs.
Third, retaliate. Raise money and organize to find an alternative to Lukiwski, either within the Conservative Party or in the two national opposition parties. It ain't over till it's over. It will take a while to see whether this one's over.
InterGovWorld provides links to resources for government job seekers and current employees, including: current job postings, job search strategies, career options and training, and employee rights, provided by all levels of government from everywhere across Canada.
