In Matt Bigge’s previous article with FCW entitled “Social Media: Threat or Revolution?” he wrote that the Social Web offers our nation a foundation to build a new strategy, based upon trust, our citizens’ participation, and the world’s assistance as we solve the complex threats of today and tomorrow.
We firmly stand by this assertion, however, I’d like to further clarify this and say that countering complex threats, enhancing interagency cooperation and engaging both the American people and those around the world will not be solved by embracing social networking tools alone. A 20% increase in followers on Twitter or adding a thousand friends on FaceBook does not necessarily mean enhanced prospects for mission success. Rather, it will be what we define as an Enterprise based approach to running our nation’s defense, diplomatic and intelligence agencies. Thus, Picks (FaceBook) and Shovels (Twitter) are not a strategy.
Web 2.0 has for the most part left those in the Department of Defense, State Department and the Intelligence agencies far behind the curve due to concerns around Information Assurance and Operational security (OPSEC). This is putting our National Security community at serious risk not only from an operational/down range perspective i.e. Our enemy is adapting its Tactics Techniques and Procedures on the fly and utilizing the social web to communicate and organize; but also from a more holistic, Enterprise point of view. The Social Web, or National Security 2.0 as we define it for the defense, intelligence and diplomatic organizations, holds tremendous promise in helping enhance inter agency collaboration and position the community to make more efficient Command and Back Office decisions.
National Security 2.0, which we define as the convergence of Real-Time Communication, Collaboration and Command Visibility (RTC3), enables more effective leadership decision making, thus enhancing mission effectiveness. These three areas Communication, Collaboration and Command Visibility are unique to National Security 2.0:
Real-Time Communication: Web 2.0 is characterized by the instantaneous acquisition of information, continuous feedback loops and, as Tim O’Reily says, it is about harnessing collective intelligence. National Security 2.0 is about the integration of strategic networking tools, Enterprise applications and social media into a common view.
Real-Time Collaboration: For national security practitioners, being able to understand and synthesize large amount of data is essential to accomplishing the mission. National Security 2.0 allows for Real-Time access to Enterprise tools, feeds from work groups and micro-communities.
Command Visibility: Harnessing Real-Time Communication and Collaboration enables our leaders to make better informed and more effective decisions, which in turn enhances mission effectiveness. The reality of leveraging the social web to enhance mission effectiveness must be an Enterprise wide effort.
National Security 2.0 must be about enhancing our ability to more effectively utilize resources and share and disseminate mission critical information (collaboration) and communicate in Real-Time to stakeholders, allies and enemies alike.
Communicating in a National Security 2.0 world also means rethinking antiquated legislation and policy regulations that do not jive in an era of technology enabled mass collaboration. The Smith Mundt Act for example, which prohibits the dissemination of information by the US abroad from being consumed by the American public is illustrative of the kind of policies and legislation that will have to change. In a world where a micro-blog can be seen all over the planet in milliseconds, the concept of legislating away the capabilities of the internet is ludicrous. Laws such as Smith Mundt are antiquated and are basically impossible to enforce.
If our National Security infrastructure is going to tackle the threats and seize the opportunities that exist, then it must begin to leverage the power of the social web in a more strategic and holistic manner and begin to put social networking tools in their rightful place in the kit bag. National Security 2.0 requires full enterprise integration of social tools, enterprise IT and open source data. Please join the conversation so we can bring our Nation’s security into the 21st Century.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Matt – I agree with your points of real-time communication, collaboration & visibility. I am happy to see it’s being done in the IC, with much success, and am assured by the responses that these practices are becoming part of the natural order of doing business in our government & military, although still in the nascent stages of participation & deployment.
Isn’t it amazing how this revolution in communications has occured bottom up rather than top down, leaving the establishment floundering in both conceptual and technical communications capability? The ‘picks and shovels’ you mention reinforce the ‘now media’ environment, leaving the National Security sector a huge informational space to react and communicate with. The difficulty is now the filtration of data and speed of reaction. It is exactly the same for other stakeholders such as the post conflict sector. Often with a fragmented media and communications infrastructure, it struggles with both grass roots communication as well as the now media environment. Yet without discourse in the latter, countries struggle to emerge from violent conflict in the eyes of the international community. There is a synergy in the use of those picks and shovels between National Security and Post Conflict development; but I wonder which will be most effective?
Paul – Thanks for your comments and insights. You bring up some great points and we agree that there is a desperate need for governments to develop a more holistic and descriptive narrative around Nat Sec 2.0. A narrative to encompass the entire spectrum of operations from pre-war planning through Security, Stability, Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR). The ‘now media’ as you so aptly name it, will maintain throughout all phases of the operation from kinetic operations to the soft power of reconstruction and economic empowerment. What’s missing is the overarching strategy or architecture required to enable Real-Time Communication, Collaboration and Command Visibility. Look forward to continuing the dialogue and hearing how this evolves from where you sit.
“Bottom up rather than top down” is exactly how the PC entered the government (or at least the USAF) as well! Air Force Comm owned the data centers and print facilities and didn’t want to support desktop computers… and lost that battle only AFTER many staff agencies had created islands of automation linked by sneaker-nets. Had we embraced the technology early, BEFORE our customers had created their own semi-automated business processes, the USAF might have actually seen some of the predicted manpower savings that automation (with business process simplification) was supposed to bring.