eaves.ca

Excellent post David.

While I agree with you that GCPedia isn't going away, I do fear how it will be adapted into the public service.

It will not be abolished. Not now that it has gained a foothold (or toehold) in many departments. However, what I fear is that Sr. Management won't abolish it, but impose multiple levels of rules and policies on GCPedia's inclusion in their department, based on flawed logic.

I.e.: Sr. Management agree that GCPedia is a great resource, however they don't get the fact that to be useful, it has to be inclusive. Instead, policies are put in place to regulate who gets to contribute, what level of vetting does it have to go through before it can be submitted, what subjects are off-limits, briefing notes to explain the risk management for postings, etc. etc. etc. I could even see something as ironic as having to meet in person with everyone to draft and review a submission before posting it, essentially circumventing GCPedia's goal entirely.

To me, that's the scary part of GCPedia's future. Bob Chartier's quote keeps coming back to me on this: “The best way to kill a good initiative is turn it into a program.” That's what I fear might happen to GCPedia. As an early-adopter, here's hoping that won't happen!

Every time I try to access the GCpedia site I get a page load error. Is it real, in Beta or behind a fire wall?

Hi Harold, apologies for that, it is behind a firewall. It was however, working last night when from outside the firewall (which I cannot get behind – I'm not a public servant) but is no longer working. Not sure why I had access however briefly…

Great comment Stephane, your fears are good ones (or bad ones?) – going to sleep on these, see if I can think of a strategy for minimizing the risks they create.

Harold – yeah the tbs link was working last night but now it is down. Only people behind the government firewall can see GCPedia.

Good post David. I only have a small team but we have started adding GCpedia content about our projects and include reference to it in our communications, outreach and learning plans.

Those who run GCPEDIA will point out that it's spelled all in caps, and refers to a broader architecture of other tools, i.e.: a social networking tool, social bookmarking.

I think both are faulty – GCPedia is a better way to spell it, and ought to only refer to the wiki, with another name in the architecture. But I digress.

Also, with all those people retiring from the public service, though it looks good IN THEORY that they offload their memories and knowledge onto a wiki, I doubt it will happen. Why? cuz
1. GCPedia is not the Matrix that you can plug into the back of your head and offload. The typing, structuring and Information Management practices to follow to add value to these facts and knowledge are arduous.
2. We're doing things differently than they're used to
3. We'd do it a lot more differently if they'd just hurry up and retire

Yeah, that's right. #3. The number of knowledge workers in the government has doubled in the past 10 years. Meaning people retiring are NOT getting replaced. Because they don't need to be.

Maybe the saving grace for the Public Service is for those to retire, and quit pulling it down to the lowest common denominator. Then we can progress and advance and use tools like GCPEDIA to help with our productivity than being lambasted by those who don't get it.

With all those people retiring from the public service, though it looks good IN THEORY that they offload their memories and knowledge onto a wiki, I doubt it will happen. Why? cuz:
1. GCPEDIA is not the Matrix that you can plug into the back of your head and offload. The typing, structuring and Information Management practices to follow to add value to these facts and knowledge are arduous.
2. We're doing things differently than they're used to;
3. We'LL do it a lot more differently after they retire, when they retire.

Yeah, that's right. #3. The number of knowledge workers in the government has doubled in the past 10 years. Meaning people retiring are NOT getting replaced. Because they don't need to be.

Maybe the saving grace for the Public Service is for it to finally reinvent itself, so the rest isn't compromised but can move faster ahead. Then we can progress and advance and use tools like GCPEDIA to help with our productivity than being lambasted by those who don't get it (i.e.: “old guard”).

David, can you give firm examples of some of this prized knowledge these soon-to-be-retirees can offload onto GCPEDIA? What would be some typical examples? The history of the department? Grants and Contributions application process steps? Contacts for Typewriters repairmen in the NCR?
If we actually go through the exercise, we may be surprised to see how redundant and antiquated what some of this knowledge is, and how it's already being archived with Library and Archives as it's already supposed to be.

Natural Resources Canada is somewhat ahead of the game with the NRCan Resource Wiki, and I can't say enough about what a valuable tool it is. I'd like to emphasize to everyone that a Wiki is not simply a tool for storing information — it can be used for collaboration on documents, project management and task tracking, event coordination, polling, online handouts or manuals, reducing email attachment buildup and photocopying, news updates, interactive maps… the list goes on.

I will shortly be leaving the Public Service, and I am making an effort to put my frequently-needed knowledge on the Wiki before my departure. I really should be making a point of considering whether my knowledge benefits NRCan exclusively or if it would merit posting on GCPEDIA to benefit the Public Service at large. I'm guilty of prioritizing the NRCan Wiki over GCPEDIA — perhaps due to its superior functionality.

Regardless of age, I recommend to all (especially soon-to-be-departing) public servants that you keep a list on your desk where you can track every time someone comes to ask you a question, and the subject of the question. You'd be surprised how long this list can get in a week or two… and more importantly, you'll be surprised how much of that knowledge is hard to find anywhere else. This is the type of information (both explicit and tacit knowledge) that we need to make an effort to preserve.

I think the most value-added input we can get from the “old guard” before they leave is to know how they do things, so we don't lose what they've come to understand about the process.

Yes, we'll do things differently. But that doesn't necessarily mean we'll do it BETTER, unless we can fully understand why the old way worked.

The key here is the intricate, “off the books” type of info. Who to contact to get the extra info, who you need to check with to vet the information, who you need to talk to for tips on what priorities are gaining ground, etc. As transparent and accessible as we aim government to become, the truth of the matter is that networking is still an invaluable ingredient in getting things done today.

The other point is that “we” might want to scrap the old way and reinvent the entire process, but the transition needs to be done without jeopardizing our raison-d'être of delivering services to Canadians.

We can't scrap the EI system and start from scratch, because people depend on those cheques coming in on a regular basis to live. We can't temporarily suspend food inspections while we overhaul our processes, because people depend on food safety.

It's about implementing the change gradually. You don't blow up a hospital to clear the way to build a more modern version. Too many people depend on the services. Same goes here, no matter how bureaucratic it might be. People depend on the outputs of your division, branch, department, etc. If they don't, then the process isn't what should be questioned, but the purpose.

Will GCpedia save the public service or at least perserve some of it? I have to agree with your arguement. The GCPedia is a a foundation on which to capture and manage knowledge, if only because it allows public servants to post their information and make connections to other sources in a widely accessible environment and over time.

But it is only a foundation element to what has to be a broader approach that looks at blogs and video, twitter and all those other tools that we will use to capture the narrative of a public servant's worklife. I believe also that this broader approach means getting out of departments stovepipes and sharing our own wiki information with the broader world through gcpedia. Scale is everything with Wikis so is community writ large.

Finally, sorry to hear that youre leaving Chelsea

Will GCPEDIA save the public service, or capture all the tacit knowledge that will walk out the door? No, of course not! To suggest otherwise is, frankly, naive hyperbole.

As great and as promising as GCPEDIA and other Web 2.0 tools are, tools will never save the public service. People are the public service and only people have the capacity to save the public service, and it will take a whole lot more to improve the weak areas of the public service than a tool. Things like leadership play a pretty important role in organizational effectiveness. There are many good Organizational Excellence models (I have researched this area) and they all include people and leadership as two elements, but funny enough, tools aren't included. Why? Because it is not so much a tool issue as it is a craftsman issue.

With respect to your comment about tacit knowledge and social capital (not the same things by the way), I think you may be beneficial to brush up on what tacit knowledge is, and what Knowledge Management is.

It is unquestionably true that the public service continues to face a potential impact from demographic changes that are both extremely significant and yet unquantified. It is also unquestionably true that most public service organizations haven't truly understood or addressed these potential impacts, to say nothing of the potential of improving their effectiness right NOW from better Knowledge Management (productivity, innovation, etc).

These issues need to be addressed by public service leaders in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. Tools can and certainly should help but only when wielded by craftsmen and women. For too long vendors have made grandiose and unrealizable promises about their 'solutions'. I thought we had learned our lessons from all that experience.
Let's not get the cart before the horse, shall we?

Paul McDowall
Knowledge Management Advisor
and chairperson of the Interdepartmental Knowledge Management Forum

Will GCPEDIA save the public service, or capture all the tacit knowledge that will walk out the door? No, of course not! To suggest otherwise is, frankly, naive hyperbole.

As great and as promising as GCPEDIA and other Web 2.0 tools are, tools will never save the public service. People are the public service and only people have the capacity to save the public service, and it will take a whole lot more to improve the weak areas of the public service than a tool. Things like leadership play a pretty important role in organizational effectiveness. There are many good Organizational Excellence models (I have researched this area) and they all include people and leadership as two elements, but funny enough, tools aren't included. Why? Because it is not so much a tool issue as it is a craftsman issue.

With respect to your comment about tacit knowledge and social capital (not the same things by the way), I think it might be helpful to brush up on what tacit knowledge is, and what Knowledge Management is.

It is unquestionably true that the public service continues to face a potential impact from demographic changes that are both extremely significant and yet unquantified. It is also unquestionably true that most public service organizations haven't truly understood or addressed these potential impacts, to say nothing of the potential of improving their effectiness right NOW from better Knowledge Management (productivity, innovation, etc).

These issues need to be addressed by public service leaders in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. Tools can and certainly should help but only when wielded by craftsmen and women. For too long vendors have made grandiose and unrealizable promises about their 'solutions'. I thought we had learned our lessons from all that experience.
Let's not get the cart before the horse, shall we?

Paul McDowall
Knowledge Management Advisor
and chairperson of the Interdepartmental Knowledge Management Forum

[...] of the Public Service and chairperson of the Interdepartmental Knowledge Management Forum, wrote the following comment in response to a blog post from several months ago entitled "How GCPEDIA will save the public [...]

I don’t really see much purpose for these closed-off projects.

We would be better off it public servants just updated Wikipedia pages and interacted via Facebook. There would be occasional embarrassments, but it would lead to a lot of good information getting out there.

When it comes to sites like Wikipedia, it takes a lot of knowledge and dedication to get the community running properly. The real Wikipedia has procedures and knowledgeable people. GCPedia will take a long time to ever coming close to matching what is already there.

Milan – thank you for the comment. I agree it will take time, but that isn't reason not to try or do it. We should at least be able to match, and really improve on, Wikipedia – which is now, just over 8 years. So maybe 5 years? That also feels like a reasonable time frame. Probably a lot shorter than the timeline around the introduction of the telephone, computer or email into the public service. And, probably right around the minimum timeframe anyone should be thinking about on the issue of renewing the public service or bringing it into the 21st century.

It is certainly a real challenge. The people within government with the most useful information and personal knowledge are usually the busiest, the most senior, and often the least tech-savvy.

While I was working at a certain federal department, two people either retired or moved on, each of which had a huge body of institutional knowledge. They had been working on a particular file for several decades, taken together. They didn’t even hand over any paper files, much less put any of their knowledge into an easily accessible forum.

Admittedly, I have raised two rather separate issues. Getting people with knowledge to put in the time and effort is one thing. The question of whether to put a firewall around the whole project is another. They are linked in one way, however: the more people who have access to the information, the more value it has. While a person might not feel motivated to input data into a site used only by a geeky subset of civil servants, they might be more willing to put it onto the public internet if encouraged to do so and given good tools.

[...] es fundamental para la continuidad de la administración pública del Canadá por el efecto de pérdida de conocimiento que se producirá al jubilarse en un corto periodo de tiempo un porcentage muy alto de [...]

[...] March of 2009 David Eaves suggested that GCPEDIA will save the public service .  As a public servant and a GCPEDIA administrator, I’d like to believe he’s [...]

The whole purpose of the internet is to share information ie: collaborate, with as large an audience as possible….. An intranet behind a firewall cannot allow this to happen.

It would be better if the Government allowed Project Managers to commujnicate via something like Twitter.

offgrid, thank you for the comment. I agree the purpose of the internet
is to share information. I also think that organizations need a space
where they can organize and plan in which a limited number of people can
participate. I don't expect GM or RIM to create their next invention on
a public facing wiki. The goal of GCPEDIA is not to be public facing,
but to leverage a tool like the internet within government, to let
public servants work together across departments and other silos. In
this regard I don't think they should have the widest audience possible,
just the widest audience possible within the public service.

This of course, does not mean that I believe they shouldn't be allowed
on twitter as well – it is just that that would serve a very different
(and good) purpose.

In the problem area for this sight is the fact that whistleblowers won't be protected in the most important areas of concern.

I have seen from the recent release of the reorganization of the public service that the rise by merit is going to be one of the issues related to the filing of a grievance and job postings are no longer going to be the subject oof as much scrutiny.

You know that there is an excuse going out from the auditor general's department with regard to the refusal to protect RCMP investigaotrs for whistle blowing when it comes to exposing fraud in the public sector. For examp,e if you take a look they are exempt from the Public disclosures protections as are those who are lookin=g after the Canada Pension Fund. They can't tell anything about what they are finding in the mamoth fund.

People have contributed to this fund through a lefetime and investigators and fund managers are open to attack. I”m not sure how much you know about Union Politics but the Public Service has had some extraordinary battle which were so beneficial to Candians in all walks of life. Here we had public servants as activists in many areas of industrial safety. Behind the scenes and often in private after hours the use of asbestos and asbestos handling was investigated by supplies and services personell and shop stewards. The research was important for people who care about the people they represent. In the new regime people like this are going to be stiffled. They will not be able to act if their superiors have room to bully. The new Canadain concern about law suites and emotional involvment with others as opposed to excellence in work related or advocacy roles will mean that a political attack can be based on what is seen as unco-operative behaviour. Anger which is a call to action for many can be seen as a mental health issue. In political issues which can create polarization prior to resolution the dulling of discourse by this technique can mena that safety concerns that are genuine and not the outcroppings of a sensitive or bullying nature can be lost in the shuffle.

Check out the use of the conflict resolution model which gives a less appealing referenece for a person who has a genuine beef and has issues that effect a group. Group grievances can be cut off from organization by this technique because while the conflict resolution is ongoign the bosses get their ducks in a row. If the word is out on you and you aren't favoured by the nepotism friendship or other reasons such as timing which can get a job to a less qualified person now over a better qualified applicant you can't serve others and you can't be an excellent advocate for not just co-workers but for the public. If the cover-up or reclassification is complete before your grievance really gets off the ground a fair resolve can sink into debatable compromise. I'm not sure about you but I have some very highly held values and beliefes about how to treat my fellow employees and about an honest days work for an honest days pay. i've seen the sinking into arbitration and the rise of the divisive movement lead by Joseph Campbel against the Post Office.

I don't want public service employees going postal and the only way to ensure that is solidarity and a fair resolution process. I've seen some horney handed straw bosses in my day too and I've been a little angry that a quiet resolution lead by a tough shop steward with some political clout is no longer going to be an option. How's your self esteem and your personal life instead of fair treatment.
Sexual harrassment is a tough issue I don't want to be asked if I'm upset or if I need a glass of water or if I have been having truble at home during dispute resolution. I want my shop steward to go over there and say look distribute the wrk-load fairly and stop playing grab ass with your new sweety or there is going to be a stink. It's a done deal.

In the problem area for this sight is the fact that whistleblowers won't be protected in the most important areas of concern.

I have seen from the recent release of the reorganization of the public service that the rise by merit is going to be one of the issues related to the filing of a grievance and job postings are no longer going to be the subject oof as much scrutiny.

You know that there is an excuse going out from the auditor general's department with regard to the refusal to protect RCMP investigaotrs for whistle blowing when it comes to exposing fraud in the public sector. For examp,e if you take a look they are exempt from the Public disclosures protections as are those who are lookin=g after the Canada Pension Fund. They can't tell anything about what they are finding in the mamoth fund.

People have contributed to this fund through a lefetime and investigators and fund managers are open to attack. I”m not sure how much you know about Union Politics but the Public Service has had some extraordinary battle which were so beneficial to Candians in all walks of life. Here we had public servants as activists in many areas of industrial safety. Behind the scenes and often in private after hours the use of asbestos and asbestos handling was investigated by supplies and services personell and shop stewards. The research was important for people who care about the people they represent. In the new regime people like this are going to be stiffled. They will not be able to act if their superiors have room to bully. The new Canadain concern about law suites and emotional involvment with others as opposed to excellence in work related or advocacy roles will mean that a political attack can be based on what is seen as unco-operative behaviour. Anger which is a call to action for many can be seen as a mental health issue. In political issues which can create polarization prior to resolution the dulling of discourse by this technique can mena that safety concerns that are genuine and not the outcroppings of a sensitive or bullying nature can be lost in the shuffle.

Check out the use of the conflict resolution model which gives a less appealing referenece for a person who has a genuine beef and has issues that effect a group. Group grievances can be cut off from organization by this technique because while the conflict resolution is ongoign the bosses get their ducks in a row. If the word is out on you and you aren't favoured by the nepotism friendship or other reasons such as timing which can get a job to a less qualified person now over a better qualified applicant you can't serve others and you can't be an excellent advocate for not just co-workers but for the public. If the cover-up or reclassification is complete before your grievance really gets off the ground a fair resolve can sink into debatable compromise. I'm not sure about you but I have some very highly held values and beliefes about how to treat my fellow employees and about an honest days work for an honest days pay. i've seen the sinking into arbitration and the rise of the divisive movement lead by Joseph Campbel against the Post Office.

I don't want public service employees going postal and the only way to ensure that is solidarity and a fair resolution process. I've seen some horney handed straw bosses in my day too and I've been a little angry that a quiet resolution lead by a tough shop steward with some political clout is no longer going to be an option. How's your self esteem and your personal life instead of fair treatment.
Sexual harrassment is a tough issue I don't want to be asked if I'm upset or if I need a glass of water or if I have been having truble at home during dispute resolution. I want my shop steward to go over there and say look distribute the wrk-load fairly and stop playing grab ass with your new sweety or there is going to be a stink. It's a done deal.

[...] What is GCpedia? – GCpedia is the Government of Canada interdepartmental wiki. It is only accessible within the GoC firewall, but can be used and accessed by employees of nearly every department and agency; but not accessible by crown corporations. David Eaves argued when it launched that GCpedia would save the public service. [...]