Public Participation

Can BetterMeans Mean Better Government?

Working in the public sector can be challenging, especially during those times when the strict hierarchy of government dictates priorities, timelines and tasks. Unfortunately, without rejiggering the machinations of government, this top down approach will not change anytime soon. Of course, that hasn’t stopped all of us in the Government 2.0 movement from hoping and dreaming that we can begin to change the lumbering institutions at the local level all the way up to the federal. As this blog can attest, that change has begun, but incrementally. So maybe we do need to think beyond web technologies and open data to question the social structures which make change in government so difficult.

Look no further than BetterMeans, a radical open enterprise governance model masquerading as a slick new project management tool.

Citing Web 2.0 examples of collaborative decision making such as Wikipedia and open source software, BetterMeans, itself an “Open Enterprise” project, aims to let other organizations “use the same decision-making rules, and self-organizing principles behind open source to run your project.” Make no mistake, this software aims to fundamentally change how we work in groups and, in the process, so much more:

To change our world, we need a new agreement of how we work together. How we make decisions. How we decide on who gets to work on what. And who gets paid what.

Now that’s change we can believe in.

The software itself is a neat mix of project management and social capital platform that opens up the doors to the decision-making process for a given project or set of projects. Users contribute ideas to the projects which hold their interest in an open and transparent way. Users themselves are ranked by others that have worked with them on previous projects so that everyone is kept accountable. This collaborative approach then helps the group rank options for how to proceed based on the experience and insight of the entire group instead of relying solely on direction from management. Definitely check out the video above, you’ll see how well thought out this platform really is.

So, getting back to government. What is our tolerance for really incorporating the ideas of every member of a team? What would happen if our departments were more democratic in sourcing ideas and setting priorities? Or what if our elected officials were required to balance their agendas alongside those of rank and file public employees, or the general public at large? It might be pie in the sky, but I’m guessing that we’d garner more than a few great ideas, while engaging and inspiring a whole swath of disinterested civil servants. Just a thought.


3 thoughts on “Can BetterMeans Mean Better Government?

  1. Lawrence – I’m so glad that you found bettermeans. I was actually just speaking with some folks last week about how bettermeans could be used in community organizing and even government settings. By actually giving everyone a voice, this platform gets closer to offering a true democracy. I’d be happy to chat with you about how you can make this work, and in the meantime thanks for the blog post.

  2. Pingback: Can BetterMeans Mean Better Government? «

  3. Pingback: Can BetterMeans Mean Better Government? | Lawrence Grodeska

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s