I am pleased to announce that Happy Family Brands will be bringing smoothies for our Snacktime event on 2/16…yummy!  

If you’re a company or non-profit interested in providing in-kind sponsorship, distributing relevant materials or showcasing your capabilities at our event, please contact me. This is a collaborative event that should maximize value for all involved.  I am going to see if we can have tables set up so that people can learn more about all of the terrific nutrition, fitness and health programs.  Will keep you posted.  

Since I was selected to participate in First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move tweetup at the White House back in October, I have been focusing a lot of my personal and professional efforts in this arena.  As a healthy foodie, avid exerciser, and mom of two, I am passionate about making America healthier, one snack choice, one jumping jack, one restaurant menu item at a time.

So, when I was invited to contribute to Social Media Week DC–the theme of which is Empowering Change–I decided to bring together three communities that are important to me to see what actionable ideas we can co-create:

1. Social media evangelists and technologies who are proponents of collaborative problem-solving, crowdsourcing and transparency and understand how to creatively apply technology;
2. Non-profits and government agencies that have fantastic information and are leading education, fitness and food programs that replace bad habits with healthy ones;
3. Parents and kids who are looking for, and in need of, creative ways to weave healthy choices into their lives and communities.

I will write more over the next few days about the details of and participants in this event.  I encourage you to sign up on the Social Media Week DC site!

A Reawakening of Humanity

      I believe we are seeing a reawakening of humanity. People are discovering and feeling, maybe for the very first time. They understand that they can actually stand up and affect change not even realizing that is what they are about to do.  

      Although I still think that there is a need to have face-to-face interaction with people. These technologies allow an intensity in terms of connectedness we can feel. When we can read someone’s Facebook status and start to cry as a result of it, or laugh hysterically, or just smile, we realize that through this digital medium, feelings are emanating. For example, if you have searched someone on twitter, or wrote something and you cried because of it, maybe it was the loss of someone, or maybe it was frustration, then you have experienced this connectedness. As a result, words are turning into feelings and those feelings are turning into synapses in our minds.

      There is a different world out there. If we close your eyes, we will start to visualize a world, which is not necessarily the one in front of us. When we get to the point where we can start hearing people whose voices are based on what we are reading and believe that when we type something we are really speaking back, it is a much different place than what we see.

      There is a virtualization even though we are in the physical. There is still something happening spiritually, that is touching, changing, and connecting many of us. Some of us, unfortunately are kind of numb to it. They do not get it. They feel something but they do not know why they feel it. There are other people who actually have this intense ability not only to feel, but sometimes affect positive change. So these technologies are helping us accelerate some things.

      Where does this leave us in terms of negative consequences? Well, short term tactical, yes, there are probably some negative affects because nothing is perfect. We are always evolving. I would like to believe that there is such a thing as a good failure. We have good mistakes. We learn, we develop, and we apply. The only failure I think is not to use these technologies. To ignore them, that is the failure. To try them out and see where it goes, to see where it takes us, that is the blessing of being alive.

My presentation was followed by a terrific panel comprised of:

• Joe Boutte, Strategic Advisor, Strategies, New Media & Collaboration for TASC, Inc. who has done a great deal of work  for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
• Dana Clark, Social Media Manager & Public Affairs Specialist for the Army Corps of Engineers
• Dan Wade, Social Media & New Technology Chief for Strategic Communication, U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)
• Christopher Zember, Deputy Director of the Information Analysis Centers at OSD’s Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)
• Rob Pinkerton, Senior Director of Enterprise Solutions for Adobe Systems Incorporated

Here are a few highlights and key learnings that I took away (on my sad 5×8 lined pad–not on an iPad) and wanted to share with you.

When I was Director of Strategy & Business Development at washingtonpost.com in the early 2000′s, I remember being part of strategic discussions about whether Editorial–as keeper of the public trust–should continue to drive content decisions in an emerging (at the time) age in which website analytics could provide user preferences in real-time.  In short: should we give them what we know is good for them or should we step down off of the pedestal and just give them what they want?

Like the shift on news sites from editorial to user-driven content, government’s web content managers are now faced with this same strategic decision.  Just because an agency website has been designed and maintained to convey the agency’s mission, no longer means that that website must exist.  Web Reform necessarily shifts agencies away from policy-required websites to priority-driven websites.

What people search for on government websites draws a map of their priorities and interests.  Agencies can use these search queries as strategic guideposts to prioritize their content.  In fact, all agencies have access to free search tools for their sites at Search. USA.gov) to drive their Web Reform efforts.

As with most things Internet, I would imagine that an 80/20 Rule applies to website searches: 80% of the queries will likely be for 20% of the content.  Agencies that can harness the power of this queried 20% will have a road map and business case for their web reform decisions.

This includes incorporating IbCs into a number of already-existing training programs regarding the safe and secure use of DoD systems and handling of information: OPSEC, IA and Ethics.  It also includes developing and deploying NEW training that educates the DoD workforce about:

1. What are IbCs, social media and other emerging tools and technologies,
2. How to use these and technologies, and
3. How these tools and their FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES, e.g. collaboration, crowdsourcing, information sharing, can improve mission effectiveness and efficiency throughout the Department.

Training the workforce on the RESPONSIBLE use but not the EFFECTIVE use of IbCs would be a tremendous missed opportunity for DoD. Learning to effectively utilize the IbC toolkit and concepts can increase mission effectiveness for public-facing areas like Public Affairs and Recruiting, AND ALSO for myriad other DoD missions which will benefit from internal, cross-component and cross-agency collaboration and information-sharing. It’s not about the tools and technologies; it’s about the behaviors that they enable.

IbCs not only enable people to work differently, they ENCOURAGE people to work differently.  This is a big cultural shift for all of us “digital immigrants”–especially within the command and control structure of DoD.  However, information sharing and collaboration are the behaviors that enable success in this network-based field of maneuver.  We can’t afford to stay in our hierarchical, need-to-know comfort zone.  The safety and security of our nation depends upon successfully leveraging the power of networks.

This is not just about Public Affairs Officers who officially manage DoD’s External Official Presences or senior leaders who officially represent the Department.  IbCs afford all members of the DoD workforce the access and influence previously only available public-facing functions. With anyone as a potential spokesperson for the Department in their professional communities, it’s critical that they are educated on the guidelines for using IbCs for Official Use.

Beyond the scope and substance of their official responsibilities, the DoD workforce and their family members–stakeholders with access to mission critical information–are using IbCs for personal use.  Therefore, responsible use includes extending (requiring?) OPSEC, IA and Ethics training to the entire DoD workforce and their families.

The challenge with moving these concepts forward is three-fold.  First, as a lowly contractor at DoD, I have the vision and ideas, but no authority to affect change, or even to secure the ear of a senior leader who does.  Second, even if I could secure an ear, its another thing to get DoD senior leaders to embrace these concepts and do things differently — not business as usual.  Third, “not my lane syndrome: these are cross-functional approaches which, in and of themselves require collaboration in development and deployment–not a single champion.

There are two ways to interpret this challenge. First, we can take the “push” approach and assume that information will be released unless there are security or policy reasons why it should not. Alternatively, we can take the “pull” approach and release information as an internal or external strategic need requests or requires the information. This latter approach can be likened to our current policies and practices around release of information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Open government poses a somewhat unique challenge for DoD, in particular. Last Tuesday, I participated in the fourth Open Government Directive: Lessons from the Playbook workshop. The purpose of this workshop was cross-agency sharing of emerging open government best practices, thinking and challenges. Attendees included representatives from many Federal agencies as well as from think tanks, corporations, non-profits, etc. We broke into smaller groups to discuss challenges including organizing data sets, culture change and measuring success. The wiki from this workshop is available here. I was amazed by the priority the OGD has for many agencies and wondered why it seems like a compliance-driven side project here at DoD…

The next morning, I participated in the National Academy for Public Administration’s Collaboration Project meeting at which representatives from four agencies–HUD, USDA, EPA and NASA–discussed their agencies’ efforts regarding the OGD. So I posed a question to the NAPA panel: openness is one thing for more public-facing agencies for which data transparency and citizen engagement are a part of their missions, but for DoD, openness is diametrically opposed to our core mission: to protect and defend. How do we reconcile this? Should open government become a secondary mission for DoD? Given the primary mission, will it not always be subverted? Or, should open government be seen as a new way to approach our core mission? I–as well as the panel–believe it’s the latter.

If this is the case, the objective of DoD’s Open Government Working Group is to weave the intentions and principles of open government–as well as the tools–into the fabric of DoD so that components ask “why can’t we?” rather than “why should we?” regarding transparency, participation and collaboration. This is a much bigger charge than shepherding the obligatory release of non-threatening data sets or encouraging the use of social networking. This requires a core shift how we think about and execute against our missions.

Networks are the power source. Not social networking tools or technology networks, but, rather, people networks. What would surface if information sharing and access became the rule rather than the exception? What if there were members of the DoD community focused on the white spaces between components and missions rather than dedicated to the missions themselves? What if everyone was–and felt–responsible for contributing not just to their group’s mission, but to the larger DoD mission? We’d see things we don’t currently see. The network effect would exponentially enhance our situational awareness, strengthening it beyond what our current hierarchical structure is capable of.

Open government is not a side project. It’s not a secondary mission. Open Government can be the catalyst, vision and initiative for tying together disparate programs and concepts to strengthen the whole organization. The Open Government Working Group has the opportunity define and drive the cultural shift that is necessary for DoD to continue to successfully meet its core mission in a networked world: to protect and defend our nation.

In the traditional, 1.0 world, knowledge = power.  Senior leaders and subject matter experts are powerful because they hold unique and specialized knowledge.  Web 2.0 tools and the collaborative approaches upon which they are built undermine the traditional organizational paradigm.  In the Web 2.0 world, knowledge ≠ power.  Rather, knowledge SHARING = power.  This is, obviously, enormously threatening to those who are experts, those currently in powerful leadership positions.

Because social media and Web 2.0 tools and technologies enable this sharing, many leaders’ instincts are to stop people from using these tools.  If they can stop employees from doing this silly “collaborating,” they can stop the knowledge sharing that’s really the root of the power shift that’s (often subconsciously) seen as a threat to their power positions.

However, the approach (instinct?) of those with collaborative mindsets — “Collaborators” – is to band together with other like-minded individuals (online and offline) to problem-solve…. So, at first, Collaborators try to apply collaborative practices, processes and tools within their organizations.  They know that there are better ways to do whatever business it is that they do.  They see that missions can be accomplished more efficiently and more effectively.

Collaborators self-organize and pursue one or some combination of three approaches:

• Analogy: introduce  external, but industry-related case studies that illustrate the value of collaboration
• Pilot: to the extent possible, do small test cases that actually prove collaboration can work within their own organization
• Convince: just talk the talk, meet with leaders and build bridges throughout the organization to create influence

At some point they either break through and make headway or their effort disbands, just as organically as it came together, because they find themselves banging their heads against a weight-bearing wall.