Will Federal Budget Pressures Help or Hinder Adoption of Collaboration & Social Networking Applications?
Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 10:02AM Last year I published Are Federal Acquisition Practices Accelerating the Move of Government Computing to the Cloud? I wondered then if complexities in cumbersome government acquisition processes might have the unintended consequence of stimulating a move to “cloud computing” and a resulting shift in both IT infrastructure and application architectures. Now I’m wondering if the huge Federal deficit in the U.S. will help or hinder the adoption of collaboration and social networking technologies by Federal agencies.
While it’s true that vendors such as Cisco are now experiencing pressures on public sector sales, I don’t yet know the extent to which cloud computing in the Federal sector is really serving as a replacement for more traditional architectures. Still, it would be unwise for technology vendors not to anticipate some sort of downturn given dire Federal budget pressures.
One question is which technology sectors will be hardest hit. One area is adoption and use of collaboration technologies, social media, and social networking by Federal agencies. For example, organizations as large and as traditional as the Department of Veterans Affairs — a client — have established blogs, Facebook groups, and special medical data download applications to communicate with veterans. Such innovations are examples of many Federal agencies’ increasing use of web based systems to improve public communication.
I don’t see public demand for such services diminishing given continued acceptance of web based systems for all kinds of relationship management and communication applications. But given worsening agency budget situations there will be a challenge to the way that agencies adopt new technology based services. This will probably affect adoption of collaboration technologies, social media, and social networking tools by Federal agencies. The question is how.
This brings us back to possible pressures on using “cloud based” services. Consider social networking tools such as Facebook. Many Federal employees already use Facebook regularly for personal networking. They have grown to expect certain features and performance when using this tool. Can home-grown Federal systems compete with such features and reach as Facebook supplies, especially now that Facebook is adding email-like messaging as a service? Doesn’t use of systems like Facebook “raise expectations” about system attractiveness and ease of use? Won’t the “low cost” and public acceptance of tools such as Facebook accelerate their adoption by Federal agencies as one of the tools used for communicating with the public?
Consider what Jim MacLennan says in Why Corporate IT Fails when Competing with Consumer Tech … and How to Change the Game. There area couple of reasons why, he says, that consumer oriented applications seem to be more attractive and easy to use than “corporate” applications. One is that features of consumer systems are more targeted, selective, and focused on delivering value. Another is that rapid experimentation — and even mistakes — are encouraged by the market. So maybe it’s not surprising that a Federal employee will look at what’s available in the public marketplace and ask the question “Why can’t we have something like that?”
When it comes to incorporating social networking and collaboration into Federal operations we’ll continue to see pressure to adopt low-initial-investment solutions such as Facebook in outward facing situations where there’s a need to communicate rapidly with external groups.
A greater challenge may come with upgrading internal collaboration and social networking tools to internal agency operations. These may require more changes to internal business processes and this is where significant change management and cost challenges will arise.
For example, agencies and individuals increasingly may recognize the inefficiencies of using email as a collaboration tool given how poorly it performs in situations requiring collaborative work on single documents in situations such as policy development, acquisitions, rulemaking, and general administration.
Will this realization accelerate adoption of internally managed tools such as SharePoint or Jive? Or will use of externally hosted and potentially lower cost tools such as Facebook, Ning, and Groupsite start looking more attractive for supporting workplace collaboration, given worsening budget pressures?
One challenge will not just be in changing habit and behavior among those more comfortable with email-dependent communication and siloed operations, but in understanding what the cost and budget implications of moving to new collaboration and networking platforms really are. It might cost less — initially — to move to a cloud-based or remotely-hosted networking system when compared with more traditional internal networks requiring per seat licensing, maintenance, and support costs. But when the possible costs of transition, retraining, and modifications to impacted systems such as security, email, and back-office HR and financial systems are taken into account, will the “total cost of operation” really be less for externally hosted collaboration and social networking technologies?
Copyright (c) 2010 by Dennis D. McDonald
Reader Comments (7)
The ease of use and adoption of consumer vs. corporate apps makes sense for faster user adoption but regarding Federal ACQUISITION (I know that is not the subject of this blog, per se) versus NETWORKING, obviously the Federal apps will be the first choice (and probably required).
Regarding Federal cost savings addressed in your last paragraph here, I'm still unsure how Federal agencies (and therefore taxpayers) will recognize savings as a public "benefit". I still believe that in general the more you SPEND as a Federal agency, the more you "EARN" at the agency, or GROW (akin to revenue in a Corporation). However, this is the opposite of how "corporate america" survives, including the corporate Government Contractor sector (where the less you SPEND, the more you really EARN), unless we are assuming a cost-type contract or grant revenue source specifically.
My belief is based on my undergraduate studies at George Mason's "Center for Study of Public Choice" and Nobel Prize knowledge made famous by James Buchanan and others. It is critical that we begin to deal with the economic incentives around our Government structure, rather that just push for transparency and agency savings without understanding the paradigms that really exist within the Federal marketplace.
Thanks for such a thoughtful comment.
Regarding cost savings: it may not be cost savings that are a primary benefit from more efficient collaboration, it might just be that people are able to do things faster than they could with just email support, especially when documents or meetings are involved.
- Dennis
The other reason for difficulties is the issue of security. The facebook type platform and most others that are social collaboration systems are notorious for being deeply flawed when it comes to security. In wartime the security of the system is paramount and when the popular systems do not lend themselves to being security conscious, the DoD must take a stand. Most of the senior level executives would like to correspond with their spouses and family members, but they readily recognize the fact that if the systems are brought to their knees by some surreptitious evil-doings, "I don't want it to happen on my watch!" That sentiment is brought into very high relief with disasters like the Julian Assange dorkup where the military may take many years to recover from the deadly work of just a few very reckless and dangerous people. I didn't mean to rant but government takes a lot of time to move through the processes and sometimes there's no means to lean out the processes.
Great comments. I would certainly not argue about the reality of security concerns -- I do point out, though, that the DoD has approved social networking usage in areas that do not involve security requirements. Whether that might be extended to certain acquisition processes is a topic worthy of further discussion.
On the matter of lengthy procurement cycles, I would logically take from what you say that the process itself is long and complex for a reason and that approving any major changes would itself be a long drawn out process. I obviously defer to your expertise on such matters. On the other hand, though, there is also the possibility that making more aggressive use of collaboration technologies and networking technologies to streamline existing processes through increased efficiencies in meetings, document creation, and staff training would help, not hinder, the process, without requiring a major overhaul of acquisition regulations.
Again, thank you for your thoughtful comments!
- Dennis
There is still a tremendous gap between those people who have embraced and love the tools and those who believe the only way to get real work done is face to face. Give me any group of 20 people and I bet 2 will be fans of these tools and 2 will not.
I have always been a fan of transparent technologies that just work and stay out of the way. Unfortunately, many of these new tools present a learning curve that continues to be a barrier to productive work for many.
These tools should be working for us, not vice versa.
John Suffolk who is the UK Government CIO made a comment the other day that budget constraints are fueling new ways to achieve mission. It is clear that new collaborative Web 2 technologies are less expensive and more flexible than the previous generation. As you've already observed, cloud computing represents another opportunity to reduce costs while improving services.
Shaun - ain't it the truth. If people don't want to collaborate, no tool will overcome reluctance. But some tools just are not good for collaboration, so leadership is needed in presenting better tools to people.
Thanks to both of you for your comments!
- Dennis