The technology sector has created countless new tools that could enhance government transparency, but this is not the primary reason they were developed. Innovators designed these products to meet the demands of consumers in a competitive and rapidly changing marketplace. Will consumers still drive innovation if the federal government begins picking favorites?
The federal government spent $80 billion on IT contracts in 2008. This is more than the annual revenue of Microsoft and Google combined. As a singe customer, therefore, the government could exert more influence on the market than hundreds of millions of individual users. Any government preference for one technology over another will have a profound impact on the pace and direction of innovation.
To ensure that implementing transparency does not destroy a thriving and competitive market, the government must remain neutral and avoid choosing winners and losers. Creating an expensive and massive centralized system will give unequal power to only a few technology providers, decrease competition, limit choice, and slow the pace of innovation.
Because the same technologies transforming modern communications are also ideal for organizing and displaying government information, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Instead of building a cumbersome transparency infrastructure, the government can save money, promote competition, and enhance openness by embracing the Internet's greatest advantages. Releasing all information in raw format without bias will empower competition among entrepreneurs to create the most user-friendly, creative, and helpful tools for informing the public.
Comments (2)
The CIO Council's ET.gov site/process enables anyone to indentify emerging techologies around which they'd like to try to build .gov/.mil communities of practice. http://et.gov/
Makes sense. Government has to avoid using its purchasing, regulatory and taxing powers to stifle competition and innovation.