CHAPTER 14 ________________________________
Web 2.0’s Knowledge Management Potential in the Public Sector

To begin addressing how to manage knowledge, one must first think about where the knowledge resides. In the public sector, the work environment is changing, and much knowledge resides in the multi-sector workforce, which comprises three main elements:

• Political government appointees, who are largely in charge of setting policy for the agency

• Career government employees, who execute the administration of policies and programs

• Contractors, who are hired to provide services under the direction of government employees (either appointee or career).

Clearly, many other supporting players are involved in program execution—other agencies and jurisdictions (state, local, or foreign governments), the academic community and nonprofits—and these elements further complicate the modern government work environment.

If one also considers the dynamic nature of the governmental workforce, due to military and foreign service rotations, limited-term political appointments, and a more transient career workforce that, no longer satiated by hefty pensions, changes positions more frequently, then getting a handle on the knowledge management challenge seems even more daunting. In fact, government entities can have an easier time leveraging knowledge from their contractors than from their own workforce simply by stipulating the specifications or requirements in the procurement process. Thus, knowledge managers must consider the different segments and sources of work products when designing a knowledge management strategy.

Moreover, because the nature of governmental work is increasingly knowledge-based and requires less transaction processing, much of the knowledge resides in the workers’ heads as they solve problems in real time. Therefore, a knowledge management strategy should seek to capture this tacit (or unshared) knowledge and expand its scope to accommodate the multi-sector workforce.

Capturing Tacit Knowledge through Web 2.0

If we accept that government seeks to benefit from its tacit knowledge, then employing Web 2.0 applications should be a key part of the strategy for capturing and managing this knowledge. Web 2.0 comprises a variety of online tools intended to facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration (see Table 12-1). Web 2.0 captures knowledge as part of task execution in the primary work function, not as separable collateral duties which often become highly segmented. Asking work group members to contribute to a wiki, a website that allows visitors to edit and collaborate, contextualizes the knowledge captured and has a direct impact on meeting the work objective.

Web 2.0’s open environment and use of informal networks allows an organization to transcend traditional bureaucratic knowledge management structures, another key challenge to be overcome in today’s government work setting.

Web 2.0 has transformational potential. The ability to work more seamlessly, without geographic constraints, and even asynchronously, without time constraints, widens the possibilities for collaboration within and across agencies.

Table 14-1: Web 2.0 Tools

So how can these new tools help address the challenges of strategic knowledge management? As discussed earlier, Web 2.0 captures the tacit knowledge through primary work activities. Web 2.0 is a solution to the problem of tacit knowledge capture. It lays the foundation for knowledge management by allowing users to locate and share expertise and analyze the information needed to make better decisions.

Tacit Knowledge

Often, employees are given policy guidelines or standard operating procedures that they are supposed to use to determine how best to address a situation. Online forums allow users to tap into networks of fellow practitioners for advice on how to address nuanced business problems that aren’t easily addressed with such formal procedures. Discussion blogs, wikis, and other collaboration tools can help a user capture ideas from the multisector workforce in real time to address live situations. This knowledge sharing may happen in the hallway or on the phone, but if it happens through an online forum, such an exchange of information can be reviewed by subject matter experts for validation, shared among peers, and adapted to address similar questions.

For example, Communities @ State is an initiative launched by the U.S. Department of State to connect employees from across the agency to discuss issues or events, request or respond to requests for assistance, share knowledge, develop best practice solutions, and connect a network of interested and knowledgeable people. State’s workforce is highly mobile and highly dispersed. With employees assigned to more than two dozen strategic business units domestically (primarily bureaus that cover specific regions or foreign policy subjects) and more than 260 embassies and offices abroad, a solution was needed to bridge gaps in communication and information sharing. Employees needed an easy and reliable knowledge management, collaboration, and information-sharing method that could be accessed throughout the world.

As of May 19, 2009, the program had 55 active communities. The communities fall into at least one of three categories: office- or bureau-based, topic-area-based, or professional-dialogue-based. PD in Europe, a bureau-and professional-dialogue-based community, allows public diplomacy staff from more than 40 European posts to share their public diplomacy best practices. Another highly successful bureau-based intermission community focuses on specific topics rather than a specific profession. The North American Partnership, a community of staff in the large U.S. diplomatic missions in Canada and Mexico, provides a forum to discuss common homeland security, commercial, economic, and environmental issues. Another community in the program spans all three categories. Iran Watchers allows staff in the Near East Affairs bureau to report and discuss Iran-related issues at the classified level.¹

Decision Forensics

Emerging tools like DeepDebate (http://deepdebate.org) capture discussion threads or arguments about a question or issue in an atypical way: Comments are grouped by theme rather than chronologically, as they are on most open blogs. This allows all points and counterpoints to be captured and connected.

Why is a structure like this useful? One reason is that certain ideas or suggestions may not have been feasible at a particular point in time, but the underlying issues can change, making them more practicable. If the debate on these issues is laid out in a way that is easy to follow, the larger organization will be better able to understand how decisions were made and the points of view that were considered, creating greater transparency among stakeholders. This transparency will support the trust building needed for organizations with fewer boundaries, which we’ll discuss in more detail later.

After-action reviews are greatly enhanced if the information that led to the decision is still available. It is easy to second-guess decisions in hindsight, but imagine the ability to review a decision by highlighting information known at the time to determine the efficacy of the decisionmaking process. Such rigorous reflection can be a fantastic leadership development component, including insights into what information is truly needed when faced with certain challenges or decisions.

Expertise Locators

As mentioned previously, the workforce is changing more frequently than in previous eras. We often hear that employees are unsure of who to talk to when they are faced with a large, complex problem. Social networking tools can help locate expertise within and across organizations. Position descriptions are usually written with compliance with human resources policy in mind, and they may not fully describe individuals’ knowledge and expertise that could be applied to specific problems.

In June 2008, Young Government Leaders co-founder Steve Ressler launched GovLoop, a new social networking site that strives to build a strong online community connecting government professionals and promoting knowledge sharing. In an interview with Harvard public management professor Steve Kelman, Ressler explained,

Ressler is also seeing early personal success stories immerge from Gov-Loop. For instance, he notes that “I already have a master’s student in public administration at Iowa State who has connected with several government employees who have provided him advice and potential resources for his thesis.” This “Facebook for Feds” includes individual social profiles, an events calendar, career resources, and a diverse collection of blogs.²

By viewing each employee as a whole person and as part of the voluntary workplace community, not only can we appreciate his or her strengths, but we are more likely to make connections at a personal level—a dimension critical for community trust-building.

Considerations for Implementing a Web 2.0 Strategy

Much has been written about the benefits of Web 2.0, some of which is more hype than thoughtful analysis. Those who might have assumed that Web 2.0 would be a passing fad are probably more bullish on its staying power after seeing its significant impact on the recent presidential election and the White House’s subsequent emphasis on Web 2.0 technologies. However, Web 2.0 is not a panacea that can be used blindly to solve every problem. The tools can be used to extend current knowledge management and communications toolsets, but using them this way may not tap into the full power a Web 2.0 strategy and culture can bring. I will discuss some of the unique considerations for implementing Web 2.0.

Resetting Expectations about Knowledge Management

The notion of managing knowledge implies that there is an underlying sense of hierarchy and control in historical management models. The Web 2.0 culture is based on an opt-in mentality. Moderating input to Web 2.0 tools is generally a grassroots effort. In fact, if the effort to manage knowledge and contributions smells too much like a mandate, typical early adopters may resist participating due to this external pressure alone. Part of the appeal of Web 2.0 technologies is the opportunity they create for users to rally to a common cause (e.g., interest in networking with other young professionals, collaborating on related research topics or management challenges).

What does this mean for management in a practical sense? Interested parties must be given the freedom to co-create the knowledge-capture program and, if necessary, take it in different directions than originally imagined. The success of the effort depends in part on how it was launched. The sponsor of a Web 2.0 tool must be open, authentic, and real. If it is perceived to be too “headquarters” or party line, then it may not capture the hearts and minds of its users.

Management’s role may shift from managing knowledge to inspiring knowledge-capture and drumming up energy and interest in the tool. This energy is essential: There are plenty of dormant wikis and blogs that did not attract attention or garner participation, in part because the inspirational element was missing.

A U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee website, IdeaFactory, is an example of a tool that has inspired agency workers to collaborate on the issues they deem important—without mandating the issues to focus on. In April 2007, TSA launched the IdeaFactory, a forum on which employees can post their suggestions for improving agency operations. As of July 2009, there were 4,500 suggestions on IdeaFactory, and employees have added more than 58,000 posts to vote for specific suggestions. The number of general comments posted now exceeds 39,000.³ Only the ideas that generate the highest ratings and votes are promoted to the next round of consideration for possible implementation. The site allows the community to weigh in on the feasibility of the ideas and agree on top priorities, thus generating broader community buy-in and making implementation easier due to a shared sense of idea ownership.

Allowing for a Learning Curve

Web 2.0 is meant to operate in a flatter, more open environment. Many government institutions have not traditionally operated in this manner and may not be aware of the unintended consequences. Governments experimenting with blogs may not initially be aware that that up to 15 percent of blog comments will be negative. Negative comments are not necessarily bad; they imply that the blog is credible and not overly controlled by the host. But imagine the initial reaction of an unsuspecting deputy secretary when negative comments are posted and the team is not prepared to handle the situation.

Taking proactive action—for example, posting rules of engagement and a firm statement that abusive comments will be removed—can help mitigate some of these risks. In addition, government blog administrators can encourage blog readers to report unwarranted negative comments or counter them with relevant facts. Such a system might be more effective than simply censoring or closing off discussion. The process of reading, responding to, and approving comments on Web 2.0 sites often evolves naturally over time, as the leadership better understands the community and issues it wants to address.

The TSA’s blog (http://www.tsa.gov/blog) was launched at the urging of the agency’s former administrator, Kip Hawley. Hawley pushed to make the blog happen because he believed that an open and transparent blog was a powerful forum for communicating directly with TSA’s customer base. A TSA blogger explained, “When Kip started the TSA blog, honesty is what he was after. He wanted it, warts and all. We sometimes get pushback from our officers in the field though. At times, it can seem as if we’ve tied ourselves to the whipping post and created a demoralization machine. But that’s not true at all.”⁴

Hawley and other forward-looking leaders realize the power of public comments; now they can be discounted by peers. An organization will need sufficient time and experience to get used to administering a public blog, so pilot efforts are highly recommended.

Clarifying Decision-Making Authority

For collaborative sites such as blogs and wikis, be clear in your user instructions about what the community is being asked to provide. Are members part of an open community, or are they being asked to contribute different inputs and opinions that reflect their particular expertise? While much has been made of the wisdom of crowds, it is unlikely that top agency policy will be decided by someone who simply logs into a wiki. However, there is great benefit in getting diverse perspectives that allow policymakers to consider many different ideas before they make a decision. For example, the State of Utah launched a site called Politicopia (www.politicopia.com) to collect input from citizens on bills coming up for a vote. A bill on school vouchers drew many comments that several legislators sited as influencing their stand on the bill.⁵

Ensuring Adequate Stakeholder Representation

There is an adoption curve for Web 2.0. While its tools are not used solely by one generation, there is a “digital native” demographic that is very comfortable with the use of wikis, blogs, and texting, while the older generation may be less familiar with these same tools. One must be wary of unintended biases when collecting input through Web 2.0 channels. There is still a digital divide; for example, less-affluent communities are less likely to have Internet access. These inequalities can be overcome, but they definitely need to be considered when seeking to collect a wide range of input from a large spectrum of stakeholders.

Determining How to Accredit Expertise

The Wikipedia entry on the “free encyclopedia’s” own history documents the difficulty of trying to determine who should have the authority to provide “expertise.” Each of Wikipedia’s founders espoused a different school of thought:

Depending on the business need, a hands-off approach might be appropriate; the community itself decides which assertions are valid and should be promoted. However, if the topic is very sophisticated or the timing urgent, a more controlled expertise model may be warranted.

Unifying under a Common Cause

Participation across diverse groups is greatly facilitated if the groups recognize a common cause that can unite them. Knowledge sharing or collaboration requires an underlying level of trust and an ability to relate to other members of the community. Many civil servants are sufficiently motivated by the agency mission to transcend organizational conflicts. Allow venues for the groups to authenticate their commitment to the common cause (e.g., through blogs, podcasts, e-forums, etc.) and the contributions each brings will help generate energy and drive for knowledge-sharing and collaboration. Stephen Covey has written a book, The Speed of Trust, illustrating how trust has a direct impact on the speed and cost of work. The greater the trust, the faster work can be done and the lower the costs. If there is low trust, then every action has to be mandated and enforced, thus slowing the process and further decreasing trust. Covey explains:

Conclusion

The last consideration discussed in this chapter, trust building, is the most important of all. When trust is established and motivations are clear, forgiveness for any bumps along the way is more likely to be shown. As the use of Web 2.0 functions grows, promoted by the current administration, we stand at the beginning of what will surely be an interesting era in knowledge management.

Notes

1. National Academy of Pubic Administration, “Communities at State,” (case study from Collaboration Project), http://www.collaborationproject.org/display/case/Communities+at+State (accessed September 18, 2009).

2. Steve Kelman, “The Lectern: GovLoop Gives the Public Sector Community a Voice,” Federal Computer Weekly (July 11, 2009), http://fcw.com/blogs/lectern/2008/07/the-lectern-govloop-gives-the-public-sector-community-a-voice.aspx (accessed September 18, 2009).

3. Brian Bain, “4 Studies in Collaboration; Case 2: TSA’s IdeaFactory,” Federal Computer Weekly (February 29, 2008), http://fcw.com/articles/2008/02/29/4-studies-in-collaboration-151-case-2-tsa146s-ideafactory.aspx (accessed September 18, 2009).

4. Steve Radick, “An Interview with Blogger Bob from TSA’s Evolution of Security Blog,” Social Media Strategery (March 10, 2009), http://steveradick. com/2009/03/10/an-interview-with-blogger-bob-from-tsas-evolution-of-security-blog/ (accessed September 18, 2009).

5. National Academy of Public Administration, “Utah Politicopia,” Collaboration Project website, http://www.collaborationproject.org/display/case/Utah+Politicopia (accessed September 18, 2009).

6. Wikipedia, “History of Wikipedia,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_History (accessed September 18, 2009).

7. Stephen M.R. Covey, The Speed of Trust (New York: Free Press, 2006), 6.