Comments on: Suddenly, we appear to be even further behind the times

By: Public Strategist

Public Strategist — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:24:00 +0000

Thanks for the comment. I agree that the three stages are not distinct – indeed, that’s one reason why I feel uncomfortable with the 1.0/2.0/3.0 labels which imply (to my ear at least) that they are. I also strongly agree that, whatever the label, participation beyond government itself will be increasingly important for the reasons you touch on in your own blog post. I don’t know – I don’t think any of us can know – what that will eventually mean for government, but I am pretty sure that, as Paul says in his comment above, we won’t be calling it Government 4.0 or 5.0.

By: Dave Griffin

Dave Griffin — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:57:09 +0000

It is interesting to read your take on Gov 3.0 from your position within government. I have written about the prospect of this from the perspective of those waiting to have access to government data sets (http://innovationandenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/03/government-30-coming-to-browser-near.html)

Although there is undoubtedly hype associated web 2.0/3.0, some of this driven by technology companies wishing to ship product, and a whiff of technological determinism, there is something more complex occurring. Socio-cultural changes are also driving some aspects of government innovation as is the desire to gain ‘competitive advantage’ as a nation.

I would also suggest that the three stages of website and process ‘growth’ are not distinct from each other. At any time, some areas will have a gov 1.0 presence, whilst others have a gov 2.0 service.

As a final comment, I would suggest that the development of gov 2.0 and 3.0 services doesn’t just rely on government officials to turn them into reality. Citizen participation will also have a substantial impact on the degree to which this takes place.

By: Steph Gray

Steph Gray — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:05:26 +0000

Well, I agree that it’s not hugely helpful, though I suppose it’s a shorthand trying to bundle together generations of features/approaches into more manageable concepts. Otherwise, the sense of one-thing-after-another can get a bit overwhelming.

From where I stand, the most – perhaps only – worrying thing about the trend is the one you make in your opening paragraph: that version 2.0 means the book is closed on 1.0.

Government 1.0 is still about publishing effective information. Government 2.0 is still about enabling discussion and interaction. Government 3.0 adds a layer of transparency and enables third party services through adopting open data standards. Government and its web teams could and should be working hard on all three.

By: Paul Johnston

Paul Johnston — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:29:05 +0000

Well, your points seem very valid to me, so maybe I am still a bureaucrat too. Don’t worry though, eventually someone will hit on a new metaphor, so in five to ten years time this one will no longer seem so annoying. Even before then, no one is surely going to seriously talk about Government 4.0 and Government 5.0?