Shaping Network Society

Sometimes very simple ideas are counter-intuitive. Radical transparency clearly is one of them. Let me define the concept, ask why one would want (not) to go “radically transparent,” and how to implement the strategy.

What is radical transparency?

Radical transparency is a management approach in which all decision making is carried out publicly and the work flow has open application interfaces. It is a radical departure from existing processes, where  (a) decision making was never fully open, to ensure security and the discretion of the decision makers and (b) the work flow was a black box, where outside intervention would be looked upon as outside meddling.

What is the value added of the approach?

It is important to realize that radical transparency is not a requirement put upon a process from outside stakeholders, but an actively chosen strategy. So why go transparent? Radical transparency impacts value identification, capacity, and legitimacy of any project.

When to apply it?

As with any management strategy, radical transparency is not a panacea. So the question is what types of problems are amenable to the approach and what types of problems are better left in the dark.

When to not apply it?

There are other issues, where it is best not to pursue a radical transparent approach:

How to design radically transparent procedures (a rough guide to implementation)?

Radical transparency is the hottest new management approach in business and government. It has become possible because of open data standards, search, discovery, filtering, and visualization. However, why would you want go “naked” or radically transparent?

1. Transparency increases legitimacy. Because transparency is possible, it is expected, so there will be punishment for non-transparent ventures.
2. Transparency allows us to improve our processes. Following Linus’ Law “with enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow.”
3. Transparency allows us to outsource parts of the process to interested third parties. They can build on our data and co-produce. Radical transparency saves us money.

So you are convinced of the approach. Here is the rough guide to implementation:

1. Define what data you will free. Explain the limitations explicitly, outline the next steps to full transparency.
2. Make sure you make all data available in machine-readable format, ideally in real-time. Do not massage or edit it!
3. Do not define who will be able to access your data, let your collaborators self-select.
4. Define standards for participation, do this in code and convention.
5. Do not ask open questions like “what do you think of Europe? How do we integrate minorities?” Structure the conversation, define expectations, but allow for flexibility and participation in the debate about the core principles of the collaboration.
6. Design reflexivity into the process. Use work flow mapping and meta-data on the deliberation processes to mirror the community back at its members. Sophistication will increase.

This posting is based on my teaching notes from this week’s strategic management lecture at the Erfurt School of Public Policy, Beth Noveck’s WikiGovernment, and the brilliant insights of my colleagues at PepsiCo. It is a work in progress, so please comment!

What makes technologically mediated social interactions different? What are the conditions of possibility of networked governance?

The Technology Principle: Network Society is mediated through technology. Corollaries:

• The Path Dependency Principle: Path dependency makes it costly for us to exercise choice and leave any given network.
• The Scale and Network Effects Principle: Network effects are the glue of network society.
• The Critical Mass Principle: Some things only work when a critical mass is present.
• The Modularity Principle: Modularity allows complexity by combining simple parts.
• The Granularity Principle: The smaller the useful contribution, the easier the scalability.

The Social Principle: Any network participant chooses to participate or to leave at any point in time. Corollaries:

• The Consensus Principle: Decisions in choice-communities are made by consensus (not unanimity…and forking is allowed)‏.
• The Outcome Legitimacy Principle: The legitimacy of a policy that aims to create public value is derived from the public value created (as defined by its stakeholders choice to stay-or-leave).
• ‏The Peer Collaboration Principle: Commons are produced by peers, for peers.
• The Transparency Principle: Transparency takes the role of democracy as the standard which any governance situation is evaluated against, this necessitates documentation (transparency through time).
• The Reflexivity Principle: any decision-making situation can be reflected at all times (this is what Beth Noveck calls visual deliberation).

Anything I am missing? What types of governance does such a world allow? What are the limits and possibilities of networked governance?

Tonight at 8 pm New York time, Stephen Wolfram will launch WolframAlpha life on television/webcast. You can be there from the comfort of your home and do not have to be there in person like the people waiting in line for 24 hours to be the first in the Best Buy 5th Ave for the Green Day Autograph session tonight (we were driving by there on Thursday night and they had put up their tents). Of course, the webcast is a marketing gimmick, but it also shows how radical transparency is being mainstreamed as a strategic management tool. And watching a few old English men turning on the light in a data center with more than 3.800 CPUs sounds like fantastic friday night fun, doesn’t it? – To prepare you can watch the trailer.