The time has come to build a reliable, open platform that allows local governments to post development requirements and give private developers the ability to respond and build these applications for free.

Going a step further, we need to build a free, open source platform specifically for government, making it easier for government to install and implement and leverage plugins or modules for anything from standard contact forms to 311 citizen requests applications.

Fundamentally, we need a central repository for code and a governing organization, private or non-profit, that coordinates specifications and provides a reliable management process for deployment. Additionally, there needs to be sample usage and, ideally, implementation case studies that highlight how government is leveraging this tool and how others can follow suit.

We need a GitHub meets Taproot meets WordPress or Drupal for government.

Matthew Burton’s A Peace Corps for Programmers, comments like Kevin Curry’s recent “We need craigslist for government” tweet and inside open government baseball chatter echo these sentiments.

To date, contests to create killer Web and mobile applications from open data combined with developers with gumption have spearheaded much of the tech efforts. This approach has showed positive results, however, they don’t effectively address a customer-driven approach to product development (see Steve Blank), where the customer (government) defines the specification, instead of developers building applications of no direct benefit to government.

Government must begin to define the specification. Instead of putting it out to bid, government needs to put it out to BUILD.

Government needs to break the mold and take advantage of what Clay Shirky calls the cognitive surplus, leverage the enthusiasm of the civic developer and significantly lower the cost of its technology projects. Government must also move away from a ‘build our own’ approach to technology. This mindset is a waste of time and resources and financially irresponsible.

Sure, there are procurement hurdles around non-licensed software, but many of these can be re-defined, as done in places such as San Francisco, Portland, Vancouver.

Philanthropists or foundations with deep pockets need to step up and support a new organization or a current one truly dedicated to making this happen. Government could also ‘pay back’ with funding of its own, at a significant discount to what it would otherwise pay. Something like this needs sustainable investment and support.

If the private or non-profit sector and government could each eliminate any hurdles and actively engage an idea like this, we’d change the way government uses technology and how it serves its citizens.

Who can make this happen and how do we get started?

June 15 is Gov 2.0 Hero Day and I’m using it to highlight the work of GovFresh founder Luke Fretwell. Luke started GovFresh a little more than a year ago, and his passion for open government has been a driving force in the Gov 2.0 world.

I occasionally post critical comments when government is operating outside my definition of ‘open’ and only do so when I believe it’s important for the community at large to consider it in context of their own actions. By and large, GovFresh posts are positive, educational and, at times, congratulatory pieces that highly offset the critiques.

What’s interesting about the critical posts is that they never get much openly shared traction. You don’t see high-volume tweets or Facebook ‘Likes,’ especially when it concerns large, federal bureaucracies.

When reviewing traffic analytics on these posts, the pageviews and unique visitors traction is noticeably different than what you would expect related to social network ‘chatter.’ This is interesting, not only because it affirms email’s influence as a content sharing mechanism, but more importantly, the critiques manage to make the rounds despite the appearance otherwise. People ‘feel’ it, but won’t say it.

This is understandable. Whether you’re a government employee or contractor, the last thing you want to do is upset the 8 million pound gorilla. Not only may people in the agency be your friends, but they also hold the purse strings to significant business opportunities.

While I’m not naive, it does concern me there can’t be an open discussion about what is wrong with certain aspects of the way government does business. It’s as if we’ve scratched the surface, and that’s as far as we’re willing to go. It’s fine to superficially engage with technology and transparency leaders, deploy Web 2.0 tools and open source software, but when it comes to acknowledging the contrarian, ‘open’ suddenly becomes ‘closed.’

If you consider yourself an open government advocate or practitioner, and these critiques incense you, you can do one of two things. Either do something about it, address it publicly and move on or disregard it completely and revert back to business as usual.

Open government is the former. It’s an ideal and opportunity to fundamentally change the way government works, and if you’re incensed by it and don’t want to engage, look in the mirror and ask yourself this: ‘Am I honestly building a better government?’

I’ve had a number of conversations with colleagues inside the Beltway, and they acknowledge the dynamics. People appreciate the perspective, but they won’t openly express it.

This type of culture leads me to ask myself, “Is there a place for something like GovFresh to exist and sustainably maintain itself? Will government contractors or service providers support a blog or news site that at times is critical of its customer? Does GovFresh have to choose between watchdog or ‘play inside Beltway?’ Can you have it both ways?”

Maybe I’m too idealistic or naive to think open government means ‘open government.’ As democracy matures into a more transparent, collaborative and participatory role, I hope more people, be it government employees or contractors, feel comfortable about publicly expressing their concerns without being chastised or ostracized. I hope the leaders of these institutions, especially government, openly engage with the criticisms and set an example for others, including industry, that’s it’s OK to do the same.

If anyone can’t respect that, perhaps I’m overly-idealistic or maybe, instead of ‘two steps forward, one step back,’ we never fundamentally left square one.

Have you heard of GovFresh? It, along with Federal Computer Week, GovLoop, Fedscoop, and the many Gov 2.0 leaders on Twitter, are my primary sources of all things Gov 2.0. GovFresh was created last year by Luke Fretwell with the goal of inspiring government-citizen collaboration and build a more engaged democracy and is a great source for all things Gov 2.0.

New GovFreshTV video interview with Gov 2.0 Expo co-chair Dr. Mark Drapeau (@cheeky_geeky).

Here’s the video interview I did with Craigslist founder Craig Newmark for the GovFresh ‘Gov 2.0 Hero’ series.

In an earlier post, I offered recommendations on centralizing U.S. Government Web operations, which seemed naive or misinformed to some.

Here’s what I recommended:

• Centralize all government Web operations under one agency
• Hire a Chief User Experience Officer
• Unify look/feel of all government/military Web sites
• Hire talented writers and editors to produce quality content

As I’ve added new GovFresh feeds for various departments, agencies, military branches, and more, I’ve visited many of the government-operated sites over the past month.

Here’s what I’ve found:

• Lack of unified design
• Disjointed use of Web platforms
• Inconsistent editorial and content
• Outdated Web design practices
• Development redundancy

While all of the above don’t hold true for every site (there are several fantastic government sites), at least one of the above does.

Here’s why the U.S. Government must centralize its Web operations:

Development

One open-source platform would allow for a more agile development process and more scalable, cross-site features to be built quickly. Code could be re-purposed, rather than re-created. Eventually, interactivity, preferences and personalized updates could easily be built, which would allow citizens to actively engage in the political process or manage their government services, 21st century style.

Usability

Centralized usability tests and site metrics reviews across a more unified design would allow managers to re-vamp the UI/UX accordingly. Best practices could be realized and executed immediately across all sites. This includes design and editorial. Actively soliciting user feedback and executing cross-sites would be invaluable to the user experience as a whole.

Brand/design unity

In the corporate sense, “U.S. Government” is a brand. When a user arrives on an official U.S. Government Web site, it should be apparent. The brand and aesthetic should convey “this is an official U.S. Government Web site.” Fonts, colors, consistent top-level navigation or a uniform toolbar could achieve this. You can still retain micro-brands within the major. Agencies wouldn’t dilute their individual branding. They would just be more aligned with the U.S. Government style guide.

Content

A content management strategy, standardized writing style guide, solid editorial staffing and content managers that liaison with respective agencies would go a long way in presenting content in a more clear, concise, accessible format.

Financial

An open-source platform would allow for cheaper development costs. Not having to wait for budget allocation or go through the government contract proposal process for an entire Web project means more agencies will get a stronger Web presence. You could better staff and meet demands, especially with a strategy.

Strategic

A strategic management team would see the entire U.S. Government Web operations from a high-level perspective and direct the user experience accordingly, free from silo operations. It would work with key contacts within various agencies to assess objective, mission and help focus and execute the appropriate Web strategy. This includes social media activity.

Transparency

The more user-friendly the Web site, the easier it is to understand what’s happening throughout the public system. Agencies can receive feedback and interact with their core constituencies to know what services should be offered, and what shouldn’t. The side affect of a unified Web platform breeds transparency that allows us to hold the government accountable and more actively participate in the democratic process.

While I understand each agency may have a need for different tools or design, non-standard needs can be addressed and properly integrated. It doesn’t have to be cookie-cutter, just more unified, efficient and strategic. Actively collaborating with internal agency contacts allows them to focus on what they do best and leverage the expertise of a solid Web operations team.

America has the best and brightest Web minds in the world. There’s no reason why we can’t build a flexible but “united” U.S. Government Web platform that gives citizens a better customer experience than the 1.0 version we’re getting today.

• Designed logo and front-end user interface.
• Lead editorial strategy.
• Manage social media, press inquiries, partnerships.
• Conduct video interviews with government technology leaders, edit videos for GovFreshTV.

Website:

Sample GovFreshTV video: