While NPM had its time, it is now losing favor. This decline in part “reflects the cumulation of adverse indirect effects on citizens’ capacities for solving social problems because NPM has radically increased institutional and policy complexity.” (Dunleavy, 2005, para. 1). 

 

Furthermore, advocates for change see NPM as a resistant theory and in contrast to DEG.The benefits of simple substitution in the form of digitizing alone have created simplification in government programs and processes.  But with the integration capabilities of the Web 2.0, where clients/consumers are able to process forms and interact digitally has not only streamlined processes and procedures but has further empowered citizens with knowledge and processing all in one place. Additional benefits of integration are that data itself has become a tool for determining accountability and measuring desired outcomes. This is evident in the level of accountability within the Patriot Act (government benefit of tracking certain activities, transfer of monies in accounts), ease of access and sharing of information, and satisfaction with the user experience.

 

Next comes governance 2.0 with its social networking aspects and features or real-time communications and data analysis.  Within DEG, politics rises to the top of the social networking aspects of the web. This phenomenon was made evident in Barack Obama’s 2008 election campaign and the Arab Spring, where social media and Internet technologies became the conduit of change.  It is evident then that public input is powerful and important in the government process.

 

Therefore, it is prudent the public sector recognizes the significance of technology transformation and its capabilities for a better government.  The Technology Enactment Framework (TEF) aims to do two things:  1) Improve social interaction with government in an effort for greater policy effectiveness and delivery of higher quality services, thereby increasing the public value of policies and programs, and 2) More efficiently develop “interagency capacity” (Fountain, n.d.), recognizing dependencies and interdependencies, which would streamline and promote efficient and effective data sharing and e-delivery.

 

To this end, “knowledge mapping, social media scanning, and social network analysis as promising research directions” (Chen, 2009, para. 19) in obtaining the social pulse of a program and information, communication and technology (ICT) has “the potential to affect production (or capacity) as well as coordination, communication, and control.” (Fountain, n.d. p. 4).  “The technology enactment framework attempts to capture the complex and dynamic relationships among information technologies, organizational forms, and institutional arrangements.”  (Luna-Reyes, Picazo-Vela, Luna & Gil-Garcia, 2016, para. 8).  TEF then improves and enhances inter-organizational collaboration (the public-private contract), greater public value (public management actions equal public value), and increased public participation in government that leads to promoting democracy. 

 

As a result of the incorporation of TEF, we move to the transformation level of the SAMR model in realizing modification and redefinition of processes. The change to DEG is essential. It must occur, however, to date the public sector has lagged behind the private sector in embracing technology transformation to this end. Private sector decisions are made with constant, standardized information and consistent reporting mechanisms in place. Where common goals and well-defined outcomes drive the process.

 

Public sector decisions are traditionally made in closed sessions of small groups, where inadequate or incorrect data is used, poor evaluation methods may be applied, and politics may influence decisions. Add to that, the level of inputs and influences on decision-making within the realm of government is often overwhelming and that makes it difficult to distinguish criteria that would drive positive change from emotional or unsubstantiated criteria.  Technology transformation has the ability to change this. Since government has transformed at least in part, to the augmentation and modification level or transformation, to simply neglect the integration of the redefinition level of technology into government is a mistake. The power complete transformation offers, is too important and beneficial to ignore. Furthermore, citizens have the expectation that they should be involved in the process of democracy.  “Citizens’ expectations that their voices are heard and views and opinions are considered can be fulfilled, and greater transparency and accountability can be achieved.” (Kő, Gábor & Szabó, 2013, p. 227).

 

Through the improved use of the modification level and a continued move in the redefinition level, citizen participation is at the forefront of policy making.The use of artificial intelligence could solve a multitude of problems in this area.  It could easily impact in a positive way, citizen involvement, analysis of data that derives meaning, problem-solution analytics that are more insightful, report analysis compared to desired outcomes that provides summaries for different audiences similar to budgeting types for various purposes, and its ability to provide a higher level of quality of accountability and transparency. But perhaps above all, it would bring about what Daniel Castro to refers to as “the perceptive” (Castro, 2016), where the technology can learn, which is referred to as machine learning as was discovered with the IBM Watson project (Nova, 2015), and with their ability to manage complex analytics the machine can reason (algorithmically) and hence, make decisions based on the analytics. 

 

These analytics presented in a wide variety of visual formats could alone totally change the communication and understanding of complex political challenges. It is with these types of visualization capabilities that allows for greater redefinition of tasks and processes.  Suddenly, policy makers, organizations, and citizens can see government challenges and outcomes in a clearer and more comprehensive way. This level of AI equates to the thousands of people and man-hours involved in a process of government policy making of only one policy with the added benefit of citizen participation. 

 

AI would prove superior to the current practices and time spent in policy making and it would make all types and government agency services “more insightful and intelligent.” (Castro, 2016, para. 3).  Yessica Jones CIO of Arkansas, discusses her state’s experience with Artificial Intelligence and the use of Chatbots remarks, “Citizens don’t care what agency or division they are dealing with. They see government as one giant entity. They don’t care about state and local boundaries, either.” 

 

Her suggestion for moving forward with government 3.0 is to develop the means for integrating “information and services across the organizational boundaries.” ("Four Questions: Yessica Jones, CIO Arkansas", 2017). Collaboration and communication could improve between state and federal organizations and agencies as well as with private organizations involved in e-delivery of government services.  Data sharing and analysis would become more simple and effective, and delivery of programming would thus become more efficient and practical.  The means for determining performance of programming in relationship to the intended outcomes could be available at any time in a more precise and visually analytical way.  Input and feedback from participants could be calculated into the performance of a given program.  And transparency of information regarding a program could be made easily accessible by legislatures, participants/citizens that could lead to greater accountability.

 

The role of legislatures and government in leading this digital era movement to Government 3.0 requires leadership to accept, embrace, and promote technology transformation.  They must face head on the challenges of privacy and protection considerations and the user experience.  They must find ways to involve, to a much greater degree, citizens in the politics and governing process. And, they must recognize the legal implications in data collection and the security of sensitive data, informatics, digital forensics, and information handling.  They will need to apply vision and a think outside the box mentality.  Important to Government 3.0 is the recognition that citizens are and should be a part of the process.  It is incumbent upon leaders to find ways to get more citizen input in policy making, budgeting, decision making and so on, which in turn will lead to better programming and spending. 

 

But perhaps the greatest benefit is the impact of governance by democracy impact.  “By strengthening the relations with citizens and engaging them in policy making will contribute to building public trust, raise the quality of policies and politics that will result in better quality of democracy and improved civic capacity.” (Kő, Gábor & Szabó, 2013, p. 226).In the transformation from Government 2.0 to 3.0, government agencies should currently be in the process of transforming the current architecture, developing interfaces that work with current data collection and processing systems, begin working with similar systems to Siri, Alexa, and Cortana (early AI interface systems) that provide avatar interactions in a “smart” manner.  “Leaders are therefore the most important success factor of managing, realizing and implementing such changes.”  (Nograšek, 2011). 

 

The requirements needed for this paradigm shift will be the successful transformation too, of the leadership role.  Leaders will need to change their way of thinking in addressing problems and challenges and find better ways to empower citizens to be involved in the solutions.  They will need to challenge themselves to think more visually and how to “see” the improved information and analytics to evaluate programming and processes.In considering the obvious design of humans to that of a computing machine it is easy to see the similarities:  Skin-case, nervous system-wiring, brain-cpu, etc., as well as the symbiotic relationship that exists between the two. If the capacity of AI is equivalent to the brainpower of thousands of people (perhaps more), why not incorporate it into government?  AI can do the heavy lifting of processing, tabulating and calculating, providing highly meaningful forecasts and predictions, and can include the input and feedback from citizens (perhaps through social media evaluations, surveys, Virtual Reality (VR) interactions), all through the rules based system currently incorporated in government policy making.

 

The current policy makers, the civil servants, and legislatures are currently defining the roles and procedures of Government 3.0, hence, “The perspective of the public servant is critical to understand because…they are the chief architects of transformation.” (Fountain, n.d., para. 13).

 

Public Administration Advocates and the Contemporary Movers and Shakers 

 

“In large part, the complexity of the policy process in this country is the result of the Founding Fathers fear of concentrated power, a fear they sought to allay by organizing the federal government into the branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--so that no branch could exert itself above the others.” (Denhardt, Denhardt & Blanc, 2014, p. 36).  This purposeful division requires collaboration and cooperation among the various parties that comprise these branches and the relationship is crucial to the effectiveness of government management and the delivery of public programming. Not only has public administration naturally evolved and morphed as government, society, and the world changes, but it has also undergone many necessary changes as needs, functions, and policies change.

 

The concept of federalism was an early guide for the federal government and states to share or divide responsibilities and management of the country. Hamilton and Jefferson essentially and unwittingly in their beliefs developed the foundation of what we know today as centralized vs. decentralized government.  Hamilton believed more that a government was stronger when centralized and that people were foolish and therefore decisions had to be entrusted to those of high standing and education. He wanted to expand the control of the federal government. 

 

Jefferson, on the other hand, thought the people and states should enjoy more control over themselves and was interested in reducing the size and control of the federal government leaving more decision making power to the states.  (Jefferson/Hamilton Viewpoints, n.d.). 

 

Federalism presented an interesting dilemma for Wilson’s beliefs in that it placed few state and local governments in a policy-making role. Woodrow Wilson, prior to his presidency, is credited with initiating the concept of public administration as study of science in the United States in his 1887 essay The Study of Administration. Wilson considered many juxtapositions in our democracy; the “rulers and ruled”, “democracy and efficiency”, politics and administration, the rights and voice of the people (public opinion) and political authority; and how these connected to his strong belief that government and the workings of it as it connects to the people is an organic system in terms of the sum of the parts are greater than the whole, and that government cannot be fragmented but rather should work as a whole living organism. These tenets lead his thinking and the course of his contributions to the concepts of public administration. (Cook, 2007, pgs. 48-52). 

 

Wilson leaned heavily on the concept that public administration and politics were two distinct fields and that administration is a process, where politics is the rule making, guiding principles that govern the nation.  He also did not feel that, in general, the people were qualified enough to have input into the political system. But it's surprising that while administrating a government seems to be the most prominent and visible part of government, it hadn’t entirely been considered a working part of the government until Wilson garnered the idea.

 

Under Franklin Roosevelt, the Reorganization Act of 1939 was enacted, whereby the Executive Office of the President was created. This act allowed the president the “initiative in reshaping and reorganizing the executive branch…” (Denhardt et al., p.37).  The Reorganization Act of 1939 also gave more power to the president’s executive office through the appointment of cabinet level positions that could help the president manage the government.

 

Public administration since these early years has experienced ebbs and flows of change by each presidential administration in an effort to better manage the ever-growing size of government.

 

President G.W. Bush sought to bring about more centralized management in a “more coercive” (Denhardt et al., p. 92) manner to the government after years of a more cooperative federalism position, while President Obama returned to a softer management view to cooperative federalism. Obama was the strongest advocate to date for technology integration in government.  But not to give Obama too much credit, the iPhone was still in its infancy when he took office in 2009 and the potential use of cognitive computing in government had not yet even arrived.  However, Obama did embrace technology and did advocate for integration of technology in government.

 

Clinton, for his part in the 1990’s, instituted virtual agencies whereby all services for a specified sector, elderly, students, etc. would be incorporated on one website.  These virtual sites would “encompass within one website all information and services in the U.S. government regardless of agency as well as from relevant organizations outside government.”  (Fountain, n.d., p.8). At that time, this was the limitation of the technology, a web-based address that would provide information and hyperlinks, but it did provide a closer connection between citizens and government.

 

The George W. Bush administration furthered Clinton’s technology agenda in his E-Government plan through the objectives of the ‘Quicksilver’ projects. These objectives were essentially to “simplify access to government information by individuals; to reduce the costs to businesses of providing government with redundant information; to better share information with state, local and tribal governments; and to improve internal efficiency of the federal government.” (Fountain, n.d., p.8).

 

But before technology could be considered a useful tool in government processes, a new development was changing the slant of NPM to reinvention. Reinvention focused on performance management and it was also George W. Bush that brought about PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool) in 2002, whereby the objective of PART was to rate outcomes of programming which in turn helped to determine if the performance of a given program warranted continued programming (Denhardt, Denhardt & Blanc, 2014, p. 375). PART is said to be “the most ambitious public sector management reforms adopted in the last half century” (Gilmour, 2007, p. 3) and as a result, PART through its analytical review also brought greater accountability to government programming. But PART also had failings. 

 

First, if a program did not meet the specific criteria of PART, then the analysis was askew.  Second, some programs did not necessarily align with the PART requisites.  (Denhardt, Denhardt & Blanc, 2014). Obama determined that while PART had a place in government measurements, it needed a central focus, thus, the OBM (Office of Management and Budget) was given the responsibility to ‘maximize the productive use of performance data’ (Denhardt, Denhardt & Blanc, 2014, p. 376). 

 

At this point it was becoming clear that a means for better analysis, one that can account for a program’s nuances, diverse components and processes, and each program’s individual criteria would lead to better performance management. 

 

Could AI or cognitive computing and its progressive analytical ability be the solution?

 

The term OGD (Open Government Data), sometimes referred to as Open Data in Government became conceivable around the time Obama took office, OGD is shifting the concept of open source information to the government and is slated to bring improved transparency and accountability to government. “Already, 39 states and 46 localities provide data sets to data.gov, the federal government's online open data repository.” (Shueh, 2017, para. 2).

 

The change that OGD will bring is still yet to be seen, however it is certain to provide transparency and accountability.  To this end, Emily Shaw, the national policy manager at the Sunlight Foundation said ‘…it is a manifestation of the idea of open government’ (Shueh, 2017, para. 6) which suggests a very big schema shift in how we (citizens) view, relate to and interpret government. This schema shift is being recognized and taken seriously in government as evidenced by the passing of the DATA Act (Digital Accountability and Transparency Act), “if approved, would publish all federal agency expenditures and would require that data be standardized and reviewed to prevent abuse.” (Shueh, 2017, para. 17).

 

However, now comes the Trump administration making strides to reduce transparency in government by reducing public access to public information about the environment, energy, and climate change on federal websites, including EPA, DOE, DOT, State Department offices, and the White House.” (Rinberg & Bergman, 2017). 

 

In summary, transparency and accountability may be in jeopardy, at least in terms of the DATA Act and OGD, but this may be temporary and in a new administration hopefully clearer, more progressive minds will prevail.

 

Delivery of public programming will still be held at the forefront of government and with it the need to simplify and save.  To first conquer the transformation of government and the delivery of programming, the direction and goals must be clearly defined.  “The experience of successful government transformations points to four essential features of the delivery approach: putting in place effective cross-functional coordination, managing execution through detailed plans, aligning budgets with transformation objectives and delivery plans, and creating ownership and accountability for delivery (Corydon et al., 2017, p. 144).

 

Currently, various forms of AI and/or higher-level analytics are being utilized in government that lead to greater efficiencies (potential cost savings) and better policy outcomes.  “In public safety, for example, one US state used crime data from previous years, combined with geospatial techniques, to predict when and where armed robberies were most likely to take place—and to thus deploy police to high-risk areas.

 

This preventive action led to a 40 percent reduction in armed robberies.” (Corydon et al., 2017, p. 115).It doesn’t take a science fiction novel to help us see today how AI or cognitive computing could help employees to function and do their jobs, to assist legislators in complex decision making by predicting outcomes and identifying challenges and providing analytics to help meet those challenges, and to the citizens in providing a means for more accessibility, smoother transactions, and a level of transparency and accounting the people have not seen before. Imagine the liberation of a nation when politics as usual, value systems, and production are no longer an overwhelming portion of the process.  A place where climate change, abortion, and racism are no longer debatable as AI is only looking at the best-case scenario outcomes both in policy and costs. 

 

While people will always be involved and a part of the equation; the machine will be logical, rational, and competent in its decision-making. This is the convergence of where Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Simon, and Dwight Waldo wanted to meet and see public administration conducted and managed with their visions and concepts in mind. (More on this in the next unit.)

 

The use of IoT as well, and Smart technologies – which include AI – will bring our nation to realize a smarter society, smart economies (Hanna, 2016) and smart cities in addition to the across the board savings this structure would elicit.  

 

Impact of Web 3.0 on Public Administration Leaders 

 

The idea of what a democracy is and should be, on the surface, appears quite simple and ordinary.  But under the surface democracy has many facets. Early on his intellectual exploration of public administration Woodrow Wilson focused more on the relationship and cooperation between governing bodies and the people they governed.  He saw democracy as maintaining “full efficiency” (Cook, 2007, p. 51) between the governing forces that would set policies and laws and those who live by them, but yet that which would not destroy leadership and still allow the government to maintain its authority.  He believed in part that the administration of government was separate from politics. Or as David Rosenbloom suggests in his article, The Politics – Administration Dichotomy in U.S. Historical Context, what Wilson was unable to articulate is “administration should not be driven by partisan patronage and electoral politics.” (Rosenbloom, 2008).

 

As Wilson’s career into politics progressed his stance had changed somewhat to include more emphasis and “action” playing an important role in democracy (Cook, 2007, p. 52) since government could not be static or it would not be effective.  In fact, “action” began showing up in his works as an integral part of sovereignty (“…sovereignty was not complete without administration, the quintessential manifestation of government action.” (Cook, 2007, p. 52)), but also it had gained a higher level than public opinion or thought, which had previously in Wilson’s mind had been nearly equally as important as government.It is clear to see that even as Wilson worked through and contemplated public administration and bureaucracy within our democracy, he grew to see the complexities evolving over time.

 

Democracy in the United States considers three important values; “…individualism, equality, and liberty.” (Denhardt et al., p. 3).  But it also includes the administration of policies, rules, procedures and laws set forth by the government. Overall, the intentions of democracy is to operate efficiently, where the “…interests of the people at large prevail.” (Denhardt et al., p. 3). 

 

To this end, our government has found it increasingly difficult to administer to the interest of the people in an efficient manner.  In contemporary administration of government we see increasing involvement of non-governmental organizations playing an important role in administration of our government primarily in the form of private and non-profit entities.  Both federal and state governments have gradually developed stronger and wider relationships with the private non-profit sectors in administering to the people.But to speak of individualism, equality and liberty the discussion cannot only include the banality of the process of public administration alone.  It must include the human factor and the psychology of people, groups, and group dynamics, the “…underlying psychology and behavior of individuals and groups." (Grimmelikhuijsen, Jilke, Olsen & Tummers, 2016). During the 1940’s Herbert Simon and Dwight Waldo were, among others, catalysts of the considerations and impact of psychology and behavioral psychology in the administration of government and a nation.  

 

Simon felt that human behavior and psychology was intertwined in the fabric of public administration. In other words, the science of psychology was an impacting factor in the public administration study and the delivery of public administration itself.

 

“In his Nobel Prize speech of 1978, he cited how his 1947 book, Administrative Behavior, grew out of the conviction ‘that decision making is the heart of administration, and that the vocabulary of administrative theory must be derived from the logic and psychology of human choice’. (Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2016).  Simon’s saw psychology and public administration were unmistakably intertwined and that the study of public administration would be remiss in not connecting the two in study.

 

However, in practice, in order to properly administrate a government, he “insisted that achieving maximum efficiency was possible only when facts, minus values, were involved.” (Lowery, 2001).  This was known as “logical positivism” (Harmon, 1989), whereby fact and value must be separated. (Harmon, 1989). 

 

It is also interesting to note that Simon later developed an interest in artificial intelligence as a means for better management, effectiveness and efficiency in public administration. Waldo, while recognizing the connection between psychology and public administration, “…noted how psychologists see ‘that man is in small part rational’ but rather is motivated by emotional drives and urges.” (Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2016). 

 

Waldo saw people as inconsistent, driven by emotions, peer pressure, group think dynamics, that could easily be influenced by a great many factors, leading them to not necessarily process information and relationships logically.  He challenged the pervasive thought at the time that the administration of the government should be conducted in a dispassionate, “value-neutral” (Lowery, 2001) manner.  He viewed himself a “…theorist who thought of himself as more of a humanist than a social scientist.” (Lowery, 2001).

 

Upon arriving as the Albert Schweitzer Professor of Humanities (the designation carrying great funding with it) in 1968 at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Waldo set forth putting together a conference “of the best young minds in public administration” (Lowery, 2001) at Minnowbrook in upstate New York. The conference rendered insights that proper public administration requires a more value free (without partisanship) view and more active participation from the governing bodies.  This became known as “the beginning of the ‘New Public Administration.’” (Lowery, 2001). 

 

Clearly, this view incorporated into public administration would have a huge impact on the thinking of public administration of our government and the people that oversee it, as well as the people affected by it.  In spite of Simon’s and Waldo’s effort to bring to the surface the importance of including the study of aspects of psychology in public administration, it has seen a lackluster development in the study of public administration, at least until recently. 

 

Data from the Public Administration Review article Behavioral Public Administration: Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology, illustrates that there is increased professional journal activity in behavioral psychology in public administration primarily since 2003.  (Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2016).  This, at least in part, demonstrates a wider understanding of the important role the study of behavioral psychology plays in public administration.  In fact, it’s difficult to comprehend the absence of the psychology factor in public administration since every aspect of it pertains to people.  People make the decisions and the corresponding group dynamics of party systems, agencies, departments, and now all the public to private sectors relationships by which the public is affected.

 

In their research Grimmelikhuijsen et.al., sum this up by saying “…using psychological insights can be beneficial to our understanding of various important phenomena in public administration research and practice.” In today’s governmental/administrative climate, one can see the connection and study of psychology in public administration proliferating to a level that would make Simon and Waldo proud.

 

But Simon’s early interest in AI as a means for guiding government is the real story here.  He could see that the use of AI could be instrumental in progressing the separation of fact and value in the process of logical positivism. The real powerhouse behind AI is its ability to render the facts to logical outcomes that also can demonstrate its own viability. The value components, either those of legislators that should not be an influential factor in many decisions, or the value of the outcomes can be separated from the logic of the process and delivery of the programming. Hence, creating greater efficiencies, equity, and transparency.  

 

The Public Administration Dichotomy and the Future of Governance 3.0 Politics

 

The making of laws and defining of policies, and public administration, the execution, management, and implementation of the laws and policies made through the process of politics.  This defines the basis for the public administration dichotomy established early on in Wilson’s work, which has been a consistent and persistent view in government and public administration. 

 

Should elected officials work in a dispassionate and detached manner making policy, that is separated from the administration of their work, or should they behave in a role where they work up and down the scaffolding ensuring the people are being fairly and properly served? 

​

Due to the interconnected nature of politics and administration it is often difficult to distinguish any separation between the two.  Many great scholars have advocated for both sides of the model, and yet the debate continues. As times, people, and needs change, so do the concepts and practices of administrating government.  The “..complex webs of people and organizations—public, private, and nonprofit—means that new skills are required of the public manager.”  (Denhardt, Denhardt & Blanc, 2014, p. 120). But Woodrow Wilson, Simon, and Waldo were all right, each in their own visions of appropriately administrated public service. Wilson with his desire to separate politics from administration; Simon with his concept of logical positivism where facts and values must be separated to properly legislate and administrate public programming; and Waldo with his value-neutral decision-making in political leadership. 

 

There needs to be a way to separate each of these concepts in government.  

 

Enter technology transformation, AI and smarter economies, cities, and states; where collaboration, “ubiquitous connectivity” (Hanna, 2016, p. 15), safer and smarter communications, more efficient and effective processes, the constant and consistent review of policy and programming effectiveness, the analysis of outcomes and goals; and the ability to gather collective intelligence that makes for more favorable decision-making, or crowdsource opinions, input, feedback from the public, that can all lead to a more highly functioning government.

 

How do our leaders today manage this new territory in a successful manner?

 

“The potential prize is enormous, both in terms of financial savings and better services for citizens (Corydon et al., 2017, p. 109), so what is the way forward?To begin we must “define digital-era governance by comparison and contrast with its immediate predecessor, NPM”  (Dunleavy, 2005, para. 6). 

 

Today’s public administrators should move toward Governance 3.0, while still maintaining the better tenets of NPM and NPM reinvention. This is the place where Wilson, Simon, and Waldo could see their beliefs of proper public administration played out. Here, citizens are more closely tied to governing, policymaking, program delivery and oversight. They have more faith in government because there is greater integrity and transparency in it, and they have the ability to see accountability through OGD.  Citizen involvement drives legislators' work.  Program review through the use of AI or cognitive computing, will provide better analytics for outcomes and be able to analyze program efficiencies and failures in real time. The costs associated with public programming will also be controlled and managed better when AI can ferret out where the inefficiencies, waste or abuse lie, steering legislators and administrators to make proper and effective corrections. “Information and communication technologies [ICT] have the potential to affect production (or capacity) as well as coordination, communication, and control.  Their effects interact fundamentally with the circulatory, nervous, and skeletal systems of institutions.”  (Fountain, n.d., P.4). AI or cognitive computing create a new presence in government that brings a higher level of analytical reasoning and logic to the table whereby people (citizens, legislators, and administrators) are, thus, able to better guide, govern, and deliver government programming.

 

Governance 3.0 is perhaps where we can take the best of public administration and transform the processes associated with it to be smoother, cleaner, cost effective, trusted, equitable, accountable and transparent in the delivery. To arrive at Governance 3.0, leaders must take their professional lives to a higher level of understanding and knowledge around IT (information technology) and the prospect of cognitive computing and AI.  While some legislators are reluctant to do this, citing safety and privacy concerns, it is really their lack of knowledge that is behind this excuse because if they truly understood, they would also understand the means for instilling and enhancing security.  But in order for governments to advance, leaders must take a convincing and forward thinking leadership role in transformation to Governance 3.0 like their change producing predecessors did in the study of public administration. “There is a need for the public sector to be more creative, innovative and less risk averse in order to adapt to our rapidly changing world.” (Tassabehji, Hackney & Popovič, 2016, sect. 6.3).