Seventh in a series by guest author Vincenzo Cammarata.

Strictly linked with transparency concept, openness is at the base of the principle that people work better if they have access to the right information and possibility to assume that all over the organization.

The simple access to other group member data or the possibility to know activities scheduled also in other groups are normal operations in a mature context such as is allowed to look to other team solutions or results in order to decide something for the own team.

Related WIOWA Questions:

7.a Collaboration (support to effectiveness)

Is it possible to access other groups’ contact data?

7.b Openness to ideas (organizational services)

Is it possible to know when other groups meet and, if you want, participate?

7.c Decision Making (knowledge and collaborative support)

In order to take decisions, do you usually look to other groups’ or departments’ work results and choices?

7.d Communication (communication and socialization)

Have you ever participated in other groups’ or departments’ discussions?

Sixth in a series by guest author Vincenzo Cammarata.

A common element between Wiki philosophy and innovation successful case histories, is the partial or total absence of structure or, saying better, of hierarchy. The possibility, in fact, to contribute in the same way, indifferently at which level you are involved in the organization, is one of the first steps towards the reduction of barriers to collaboration, participation and involvement in the organizational life.

Peering is to intend in the two ways of organizational commitment: from both the perspective, the access to common information and the possibility to contribute to corporate knowledge.

Related WIOWA Questions:

6.a Supporting people (support to effectiveness)

Is everybody able to update useful information like telephone numbers or scheduled meetings?

6.b Resource Allocation (organizational services)

Is everybody able to book meeting room or, in general, common resources?

6.c Flexibility on process design (knowledge/collaborative support)

Is everybody able to recombine documents and then publish it?

6.d Communication (communication and socialization)

Is everybody free to publish (in the intranet or wiki) information useful for your colleagues?

We don’t know whether the president has ever personally used a wiki, but his staff at the White House Office of Management and Budget uses one.

Washington Post columnist Stephen Barr explores how the OMB is using a wiki to track earmarks in the federal budget. Earmarking is a process by which members of Congress designate money for specific projects, often in their home states or congressional districts.

With the wiki, federal agencies compiled a database of 13,496 earmarks in 10 weeks. In the old days, it would have taken six months to get the information to the OMB.

That’s a great example of the improvement in efficiency that a wiki can bring.

The budget wiki is not as freewheeling as Wikipedia, the sometimes-controversial online encyclopedia. It is the government, after all. For security, federal officials have to ask permission to join; it is not open to the public or Congress.

And a good example of how a wiki fits into the existing landscape of an organization. Security and Permissions are there, and it’s not an open playground for the public. What’s more, it gives people inside OMB a way to work more closely and make better informed decisions that take multiple viewpoints into account:

Karen Evans, who oversees government-wide technology policy at the OMB, views wikis as a way to provide an opportunity “where everybody gets a say” that then leads to “a very informed decision” by officials.

The wiki permits budget officials to work in real time with one another, rather than sort through e-mail chains wending through the government. It allows officials to hold online meetings when time is short or bad weather makes in-person meetings difficult to schedule. It is open around the clock, so federal budget officials may post comments from home at night or on weekends.

This is good for greater communication, handling issues that come up at odd hours faster, and enabling government to work more efficiently.

Then there’s the networking factor. The wiki features a directory of users, with their telephone numbers and e-mail addresses, an important feature in a government where people transfer among agencies or take different jobs every few years.

There are rumors flying around of YAWS (Yet Another Wikipedia Scandal). How should it affect peoples’ perception of wiki use in organizations?

Here’s a good perspective on it from a person who commented on a San Francisco Chronicle article this morning:

There is one important fact that should be kept in focus, however. Wikipedia is not some hierarchical top down business where one misbehaving leader can wreck havoc (such as can occur with our government). Rather, it represents a highly democratic and very loosely connected organization that has been mostly built on the dedicated efforts of a few thousand core volunteers. Therefore, regardless of the [alleged] misadventures of Mr. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia will continue to grow and serve.

(If you want all the details of the alleged allegations, the Chronicle article has them. I’m not going to reprint them here in the interest of focusing on the impact of Wikipedia on organizational wiki use.)

This is the kind of news item that prompts people to think all wikis – including those that organizations might use – pose the same risks for inappropriate behavior that happens on Wikipedia. [Read more]

A WikiCharter is a set of guidelines to ensure productive interaction between members of your wiki community. Here are five guidelines from the Sony Ericsson Developer World wiki:

Tim Karr, Director of SavetheInternet.com wrote to me about a new bill introduced in Congress this week that would guarantee Net Neutrality by restoring it in the foundation of communications law. Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (HR 5353) to stop relentless corporate attempts to set up roadblocks on the information superhighway.

The new bill requires the FCC to actively protect the free-flowing Internet from gatekeepers, enforcing protections that “guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet.”

I’ve written before about Net Neutrality:

• time to blog about Net Neutrality
• Help make Net Neutrality a law in 2007
• Blogger call tomorrow on internet blocking and Net Neutrality

It’s an issue I feel strongly about, and you should too. The success of the Internet is a direct result of its openness and lack of hierarchy and preferential treatment for any group of users. It needs to stay that way to continue reshaping how we interact. Click here for a quick form to contact your representatives in Congress and ask them to support HR5353.

Kirk Zurell wrote today to tell me about Suffr, a module that allows, in effect, collaborative system administration using a wiki. Here’s how he describes it:

Users can compose recipes of changes to system configuration, and then sign off on them; when enough users approve, the wiki (through this module) implements the changes. Wiki users could democratically accomplish potentially any sysadmin tasks, including administering their own web server or applications, mail/news server, VOIP PBX, or peripherals. They can (and may have to!) even restart or shutdown the machine by majority vote. [Read more]

Dave Atkins of Westwood, Masachusetts wrote last week to tell me about a post he’s written on Using a Wiki to Improve Town Governance. Many people aren’t involved in their local governments because there are too many barriers to participation. Dave’s description of the barriers gets right to the heart of it: [Read more]

Beth Simone Noveck, Director of the Peer to Patent Project, has written an article on Wiki Government for Democracy Journal.

She opens with that line above above, from George Bernard Shaw. It’s powerful, and it was said all the way back in 1911¹. Now that’s not saying that professions are inherently bad, or that they shouldn’t exist. It’s really suggesting that lay people have just as much to offer as experts. [Read more]