Posts

Getting the Best from Your Employees: Leverage Their Ideas

Have you ever struggled with getting the best from your employees? If you have spent even minimal time managing people, your answer is probably going to be 'yes.' Managers often struggle with getting their employees to give their best or to punch above their weight. This topic has been a focus of many dissertations, books, and pundit advice sessions. Among the multitude of reasons why managers struggle with their employees, I submit one of the most critical: most managers lack capabilities to leverage their employee's ideas. Based on my research and consulting with over 30 global organizations (see Intrapreneurship: Managing Ideas Within Your Organization), here are five simple good habits to internalize , if you want to get the best from your employees and their talent.

  • First, design an idea-friendly environment for your employees.
  • Second, be an advocate for your employee's ideas.
  • Third, connect your employee to networks that can harness their ideas.
  • Fourth, collaborate with your employees on experimenting with their ideas.
  • Fifth, mobilize your networks to support the diffusion of your employee's ideas and expertise.
P.S. This is an excerpt of an article that I am writing for a magazine. For more details, send me an email.

What is a Smart City?

Within the past 18 months the concept of smart (and intelligent) cities has been become popular in the media. For instance, Scientific American ran a special issue on smart cities. Industry players (e.g. IBM, Siemens, etc) have specific programs and practices dedicated to advancing the cause of building smart cities. Government agencies are dedicating resources and making investments in designing smarter cities (for e.g., see - EU invests $450 million in smart cities). Despite its intuitive appeal, we have limited empirical knowledge within the design, planning, and policy fields about the dimensions of smart cities—its characteristics, the barriers, and the potential opportunities. One reason is the term smart city is still new and it appears to means different things within different fields. In some ways the term is complex and vague. Some experts use the term smart city to highlight advances in sustainability and greening of the city, while others use the term to portray infusion of information via technologies to better the lives of citizens that reside in these spaces. Even others, consider the presence of high-level of citizen engagement in the design and governance of the space as a key attribute of smarter cities.  Therefore, no consensus existing within the academy on the characteristics of smart cities and how they fit within existing conceptual frameworks, such as sustainability and policy informatics.

In a working paper, I propose the following definition: A smart city is livable, resilient, sustainable, and designed through open and collaborative governance.

  • A smart city is resilient in that it possesses the capacity, desire, and opportunity for sensing, responding to, recovering, and learning from natural and man-made disasters.
  • A smart city takes a sustainable approach to the management of its economic, social, and ecological resources to ensure that they have vitality going into the future.
  • A smart city infuses information for automated and human, individual and collective, decision-making on optimal allocation of resources, design of systems and processes, and citizen engagement.
  • A smart city enables intelligent decision-making through leveraging information via technology, platforms, processes, and policies across its environments, infrastructures, systems, resources, and citizens.
  • A smart city operates as a seamlessly integrated platform where information links the various infrastructures, systems, organizations, and citizens’ goals and values.
  • A smart cities engage citizens in planning and design of public spaces and govern use of public resources through open and collaborative governance platforms that generates, and leverages, collective intelligence. 

In some respects the description resembles a vision statement with supporting principles or goals that make the vision of a smart city come to life. First, the overarching goal of having a smart city is that it is livable, resilient, and sustainable. These goals increase the value of the city and contribute positively to the lives of the citizens that interact with, and reside within, the city. Second, we must recognize these goals as a function of infusing information into the fabric of the city. Technological devices enable citizens to leverage information as they conduct their daily activities, while they also enable planners and designers to have accurate situational awareness about the city. Information is infused into the planning and design apparatuses as public sector projects are conducted. For example, the use of computational platforms and simulation technologies can enable city planners and designers think through various alternatives, test assumptions, and visualize the impacts of various interventions on critical outcomes. Through harnessing information, the smart city is able to conduct public projects in a highly effective and efficient manner. Third, smart cities use a wide assortment of information pipelines and platforms to integrate the often disparate physical and human sub-systems, infrastructures, and processes. Through building viable connections, information flows between the various parts of the city seamlessly so as to enable for real-time intelligent decision-making. Fourth, smart cities leverage the collective intelligence of its citizens, residents and, even transients (e.g. people who commute to work in the city) using participatory platforms. The smart city has viable vehicles and platforms through which its citizens can contribute to its governance processes and the future design of the city.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the definition and the elements of a smart city.

Presenting at the NSF Workshop on Participatory Challenge Platforms with a Public Intent

I had a wonderful time exchanging ideas with policy makers, researchers, practitioners, and even students at the NSF Workshop on Participatory Challenge Platforms with a Public Intent put on by the Center for Policy Informatics at Arizona State University. My formal remarks during the workshop drew on research results from our study of Challenge.gov. Since the workshop, I have heard from over 30 managers across the public, non-profit, and even private sectors for copies of the draft report. The feedback on the findings has been overwhelmingly positive. I hope to have a revised draft out for circulation by the end of the month.

See for a press release on the events in D.C. - "ASU Concludes White House Initiative in Nation's Capitol," ASU News, June 12, 2012.

Report now Available – Challenge.Gov: Landscape Analysis + Citizen and Agency Perspective

I have just completed the first draft of my report on the Challenge.gov platform. This paper has been a few months in the making and builds on my recent work in community intelligence platforms, citizen apps, and innovation in the public sector. To receive a copy of the report, please send me an email.

Challenge.Gov: Landscape Analysis and Implications from the Citizen and Agency Perspective

To solve complex social and policy challenges we need to broaden the conversations, involve more minds and talent, and collaborate effectively and efficiently. Traditionally, public agencies have felt the burden to tackle challenges by relying on their own internal intellectual capital or through structured contracting with external partners. Seldom could an individual citizen share his or her talent, expertise, and skills with a public agency directly. Today, public agencies are becoming more participatory, inclusive, and transparent in how they engage with citizens as well as with each other. Challenge.gov is the crowdsourcing platform for US federal agencies that seek to engage citizens, leverage collective intelligence, and tackle complex social and technical challenges. In this paper we report on an exploratory landscape analysis of the competitions run on Challege.gov. We interviewed citizens who took part in competitions on Challenge.gov as well as public managers and government executives to understand their motivations, experiences, lessons learned, and future plans. Drawing on these interviews, we arrive at a set of actionable guidelines presented through implications to improve the state of competitions hosted by Challenge.gov. 

Acknowledgments: This project was made possible through funding received from the IBM Center for the Business of Government. Tim Moon and Akshay Bhagwatwar served as research associates for the project. I am grateful to the assistance provided by Eric Park and Lauren Bulka during the project. I also thank all solution contributors to challenges and public managers who designed challenges that participated in our interviews. All errors and omissions are solely my responsibility. I acknowledge the thoughtful discussion and comments from participants at the NSF Workshop on Participatory Challenge Platforms with a Public Intent. The views represented in this paper are our own, and do not represent official positions of IBM, any of its affiliates, or the NSF.

James Pol, US Department of Transportation Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office.

As part of our Citizen App project, we interviewed James Pol at the US Department of Transportation on his experience with the Connected Vehicle Technology Challenge.

Current Position: Team Leader, Program Management and Evaluation at the US Department of Transportation Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office.

Bio: James is a classically trained civil engineer, receiving his Bachelors from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a MS in Computer Systems Management from the University of Maryland. He has experience in both the public and private sector. Over the last decade, James has worked in the Federal Highway Administration as a program manager, with a particular focus of real-time information. In 2008, he began work with the US DOT and currently supervises the US DOT’s Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) research projects.

Federal App Challenge in Focus: The Connected Vehicle Technology Challenge is centered on collecting innovative ideas and uses for dedicated short range communications (DSRC); wireless technology enables vehicles to communicate. The challenge did not require technical submissions, and winners were awarded with a free trip to the Intelligent Transportation Systems World Congress. The challenge received a total of 76 submissions.

Motivation for initiating the challenge:

  • In general: The Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office has an eye towards advancing technologies, and helping to generate forward progress in the transportation practice. The office focuses on getting newly developed technologies out of the research space and into deployment. The challenges help them to carry out their mission, which includes engaging a larger audience of stakeholders and connecting beyond the usual RFPs. James notes that often when one works in the contracting arena, one is limited to certain audiences. This lessens one’s ability to reach some of the newer and more innovative technologies.
  • Challenge specific: ITS sought to broaden awareness of connected vehicles technology (establishing a network of communication between vehicles), and its role within the research field. Moreover, they targeted students, seeking to engage the next generation of engineers, economists and others interested in this arena. The ITS program realizes that these individuals are the ones coming into the workforce, therefore being in touch with this technology is essential.

Process for organizing the challenge:

They defined a challenge, targeted a specific group of participants and determined a prize. The prize was a paid trip to attend the World Congress on Intelligent Transportation Systems and provided exclusive access to technology demonstrations. A total of 3-4 Individuals were involved in defining the challenge, while an additional 6 provided further input. There were 10 panelists to review the challenge submissions upon their completion.
In terms of managing the challenge.gov platform, once a challenge is created and coordinated with GSA (the manager of challenge.gov), a moderator is established for the account. Both the moderator and James reviewed content and submissions on the site. In this challenge’s profile on the challenge.gov platform, some example submissions were provided. In addition, they also provided access to background information on connected vehicles to aid participants in understanding the underlying technologies.

They did borrow from existing programs, for things such as their judging criteria. However, the challenge was written by DOT’s ITS. The planning and design of the challenge was done prior to the establishment of the America Competes Law.

Publicity:

ITS developed a publicity plan to build awareness on the work the government was already doing with connected vehicles. The challenge was announced at a PR event at the annual Transportation Board Meeting. From there it immediately took off, and subsequently received 200 press impressions of all sorts; from blogs to webpages, to Wired magazine. One result of the immediate and extensive press coverage was the ability of ITS to refocus on other efforts and research. However, they did maintain support for the challenge, re-engaging the public at other events held by the agency.

Judging:

Internal judges were volunteers from around the DOT and ITS. The department varies significantly, and ITS worked with 6 other agencies (Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, and Federal Railroad Administration) within the department. These internal judges then chose the five best submissions, while also eliminating irrelevant or unrelated proposals. In total 90 submissions were gathered, 75 submissions were made available for public voting. A submission from a team out of Clemson University won the people’s choice award. After the ITS World Congress, the agency has had minimal contact with the winners.

Meet expectations/goals:

Overall, the response out paid their expectations. They would’ve been happy with 40 submissions, however they received close to 90 submissions. Challenge.gov allows people to ‘like’ and comment on the challenges, this is one way to gauge interest. The challenge was well within the top 10 of the challenges listed at the time for activity and submissions. The challenge out performed even those with cash-prizes.

In terms of content, the challenge was devised to gather new concepts. Overall, the submissions helped validate some of their research endeavors, such as electric vehicle fleets and autonomous vehicles. However, nothing specific from the challenge has been directly translated into their research activities.

Critical Lessons:

  • Spend time early-on developing and crafting easy to convey messages. Connected vehicles is an inherently complex research field; the solver community out there, even for smart people, requires a bit of effort to express what it takes to achieve this and submission expectations.
  • Low barrier to entry for this challenge. As such, must be very specific as to what is expected for submissions.
  • Require that it be an original thought. One concept was very closely aligned with another research project from around the country. Thus, better safeguards are needed against this type of submission.

Do you see challenges being important to other agencies:

In short, the answer is yes, but it is difficult to quantify. The Department of Transportation is rather committed to applying this type of initiative. In terms of, conducting research he sees it as evolving into a major component. Moreover, it is a useful method of achieving a knowledge/technology transfer, and a way to boost participation by individuals. Other agencies have contacted him on advice and he has been invited to judge other challenges.

Currently, there are three other agencies in the department defining challenges. He has been approached by agencies within DOT and colleagues in the ITS program with ideas for new challenges. James is additionally a part of a department-wide work group to provide guidance to agencies in conducting challenges.

Major risk/concern with running these challenges:

Major risk is making sure to abide by America COMPETES Act, whether or not the challenge is being conducted within what the law establishes agencies to do. A lot of discussion and negotiation with legal and procurement must exist during the design and implementation of a challenge. Challenges are new for agencies, and it will take time to gain awareness and a level of comfort. However, enthusiasm is building for it.

How clear is the America COMPETES Act:

Interpreting the law is still a work in progress and questions do remain. America COMPETES includes requirements such as, requiring judges from both agencies and the industry. As a result, vetting conflicts of interest becomes necessary. This adds a significant amount of time to just defining and selecting a judge. Efforts are still underway to figure out how early in the process to include the judging panel. As well as, how to compensate non-federal employees.

Community Intelligence Platforms: The Case of Open Government

Akshay Bhagwatwar (Kelley School of BusinessIndiana University) and I have a paper accepted at the Eighteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), to be held in Seattle, Washington, August 9-12, 2012. This paper builds on our ongoing work in policy informatics, citizen apps, and design of participatory platforms.

Community Intelligence Platforms: The Case of Open Government

The focus on collaborative and participatory governance has led to interest in studying how ‘intelligence’ in citizen communities can be leveraged towards creating robust solutions for complex social and policy problems. In this paper, we present four models that uncover the process of leveraging community intelligence. We analyze multiple case studies that capture the varying roles of citizens and public agencies in the problem-solving process. Employing Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen participation as an analytical tool, we outline the strengths and weaknesses of each model, and suggest design recommendations for the development of participatory platforms for open government. 

 

Visit to the Rotman School of Management – April 3, 2012

I enjoyed my recent visit to Toronto. I had the privilege of addressing a sold-out crowd at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto. If your organization is interested in having me come by and talk about my recent book, Intrapreneurship: Managing Ideas Within Your Organization (University of Toronto Press, 2011) please send me an email. See below for a brief excerpt from my talk at the Rotman School of Management.

John Schimmel, Creator of Access Together App, Runner Up and Most Replicable @ FCC and Knight Foundation Apps for Communities Challenge

Third profile of developers who have contributed apps to federal challenges. Click to see Brad Larson and Curtis Chang profiles.

Developer: John Schimmel

Bio: John is currently an adjunct faculty member at the NYU Interactive Telecommunications Program. He focuses on teaching courses on assistive technology design for the disabled and web programming.  His background is in tech hacking, with a focus on web development (code/design/engineer).

App in Focus: Access Together
Federal Citizen App Program: FCC and the Knight Foundation Apps for Communities
Recognition: Runner Up and Most Replicable

Description of the App: Users open Access Together via their mobile phone’s web browser to check-in to places, and are prompted to answer a series of accessibility questions. The information provided on the app is primarily crowd-sourced, and provides individuals with accessibility restrictions with invaluable information.

Who is the App Intended to Serve: Citizens seeking to provide and view accessibility information about their community.

Why was the app developed: Access Together started in Spring 2011. The app idea was sparked at the New York Hall of Science during a discussion about human abilities and accessibility information in the city. Simultaneously, Foursquare released their location API, allowing individuals to query their system for information (venues). The timing was ideal to integrate accessibility needs because of the ability of the new API. John learned of challenge.gov through Twitter, and was interested in it due to his development background. The combination of accessibility and needs information along with the API could contribute additional, useful data as well as pave the way for future challenges. John thought, “Why not just build it?” so he started app development with a friend (designer).

The app challenge did provide motivation, but it was seen as more of an opportunity to present their app to an audience. The challenge did not start the development of the app, but helped motivate them to get the app project completed for the challenge deadline.

How was the availability of the app communicated to potential users: John shares information about his app to networks accessible to him such as his Facebook network. He also tries to directly contact the organizations he thinks will benefit from his app, and those he would also be interested in working with.

Advice for other developers/Lessons Learned: Using the data available from the government is the motivation behind the challenge. However, developers should not just focus on the provided data, but look towards integrating the data with the community involved and making it engaging. Don’t just make a client to access the data, but make it so that people can engage and interact with it. That was the appeal of this challenge. The only real challenge they faced was their data, as they created it from scratch. They had to create some accessibility data initially to make the app presentable and usable.

Issues of Privacy: Only issue was people with an “older mindset.” Individuals log in using a Google account or Foursquare account, but from there the user may to choose to stay anonymous, use their first name, or use a display name. This way the user’s identification is protected. Some people like to gain recognition by associating a name, but some people don’t want to be known, particularly when giving a negative review.  Few concerns were raised regarding privacy so it didn’t need to be addressed.

What recommendations do you have for government agencies that are trying to incentivize the creation of citizen apps and the leveraging of open data programs:

  • Having a monetary prize is good, but not sufficient. Provide a way for developers to create closer relationships with the organizations and other pertinent stakeholders. The idea would be to help developers find more resources to continue the project, or to potentially find someone to sustain/hand the project off to if the developer needs to move on to something. In place of money, you could find government organizations that might have some need or interest in the applications. If they want to have government involved, then try to build it into a sustainable program with people involved who keep the ball rolling instead of making it a quick hack competition with a cash prize. If the people involved aren’t pushing it then it won’t go anywhere.
  • Increased advertising. There were a lot of false endings when the competition was supposed to end in July, but was pushed back to November due to lack of submissions. They could’ve pushed a little harder in terms of marketing by going to their target people like posting on Hacker News.

After the competition: The app got picked up by a few news sites focused on disability and accessibility, but during that time it didn’t have all the features it does now. John tries to tweet the FCC from time to time wondering if they’ll engage with Access Together more, but no response so far. He has also pursued engaging the city government, but he needs to create a 501c3 (non-profit) for this. However, he would rather be a sustainable business corporation. For now, he uses his networks on Facebook and direct contact.

What do you plan on doing next with the Access Together app, and your interest in app development for tackling social and technical problems: Used the prize money to spend 2 months to further enhance the app. The challenge now is to build an audience, adding new features to the mobile and desktop version, and making it more useful. He didn’t want to walk away when the project was over since he believes this can become something more. John has been in contact with 2 different organizations with similar apps. One organization is in Berlin, Germany called Wheelmap.org, and the other is AccessMap. He plans to meet with them to figure out how to combine their data into one accessible system because they share a common goal and the data is bigger than the individual apps.

Curtis Chang, Creator of Homeless SCC App, Second Prize @ FCC and Knight Foundation Apps for Communities Challenge

Our second profile of developers who have contributed apps to federal challenges. The first profile was on Brad Larson.

Developer: Curtis Chang

Bio: Curtis Chang is the CEO and founder of Consulting Within Reach (CWR), a firm that works predominately with nonprofits and government agencies. He maintains expertise in the realm of social entrepreneurship and innovation, writing for both the Skoll Foundation’s Social Edge and Stanford Social Innovation Review.

App in Focus: Homeless SCC
Federal Citizen App Program: FCC and Knight Foundation Apps for Communities Challenge
Recognition: 2nd Prize

Description of the App: Frontline agency staff members during the referral process enter the profile of a client which then matches them to a provider that best serves their needs. The application shares useful information on how to reach service providers, up to date services available, while also tracking all referrals made. Ultimately, it streamlines the process for homeless referrals, and captures useful information for service providers and government agencies to better collaborate.

Who is the App Intended to Serve: The target audience for the Homeless SCC app is frontline staff assisting the homeless, as well as the government and philanthropic agencies.

Why was the app developed: The motivation for the app stemmed from the widespread recognition that many of the most challenging social issues are complex, constantly changing, and often have duplication. The organizations serving the County’s homeless had little data compiled, and furthermore had little idea what others were doing. The app emerged as a response to the understanding that the public sectors and these organizations need a rational way to better collaborate; having data is essential to planning and collaborating effectively. CWR developed the app with funding from private sources with an interest in homelessness. CWR is a private entity, therefore although they conduct work seeking to improve and address challenges in society, they must also think about how to cover development costs.

How was the availability of the app communicated to potential users: CWR worked with the County, who endorsed the application but did not mandate its usage. There was no real incentive for usage. To these ends, the consulting firm produced and conducted several presentations, individual reach-outs/visits, and mobilized a ‘sales team’. This was gauged as partially successful.

What were the key lessons learned during the development of the app: 1) There is a need for someone (e.g. a foundation, influencer, etc) or public agency with a big stick or a big carrot, or even better both with the authority to mandate and build urgency to ultimately spur usage of the application. 2) The amount of work it took to publicize and market the app is not seen as the best method moving forward. The consulting firm itself ate the cost of these efforts. It is not a sustainable process to have the developers themselves hitting the pavement. 3) The technology was the easiest part, building a coalition and getting the app in the hands of users is challenging. Public agencies should provide support and access to their networks for diffusing apps into communities. 4) Public agencies should do more to stay involved with the app developers after competitions so as to learn from their efforts, support them, and work on future iterations of the app.

What recommendations do you have for government agencies that are trying to incentivize the creation of citizen apps and the leveraging of open data programs:

  • Cash-prizes very important. Usually these apps have been developed out of some cause-motivation or low-budget gig. Nice to have development costs covered by prize winnings.
  • Follow-up motivation and commitment on the part of federal agencies to publicize and market these apps.
  • Federal programs need to market the apps submitted, as app developers are looking at this as a viable marketing platform.
  • Don’t put property rights on the apps developed for the competition. Too much burden.
  • Public agencies who collaborate foundations to develop challenges is seen as attractive.
  • As a consulting firm, they target competitions where a suitable app is already developed. Developing an app for a particular competition is pretty risky.

What do you plan on doing next with the Homeless SCC app, and your interest in app development for tackling social and technical problems: The Homeless SCC app model has already been replicated in Northern California and its outdoor youth programs. In this case, organizations and programs are mandated to use the app. In addition, Santa Clara County has expressed interest in developing a similar application for networking local church services for recently released prisoners.

 

Brad Larson, Creator of Molecules App, Honorable Mention @ NIH/NLM “Show off your Apps” Competition

As promised, in my previous post, my research team and I will be featuring various app developers who have contributed to challenges run by federal agencies on challenges.gov.

Developer: Brad Larson
Bio: Brad Larson is technically gifted with a track-record of programming. He has been working in the mobile app realm since the days of Palm. He is an engineer by training, earning a BS in chemical Engineering with a minor in Computer Science from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, in addition to an MS and PhD in Materials Science from the University of Wisconsin. His current interests in the mobile development space focus on advanced 3-D graphics and high performance image and video processing, particularly when used in scientific applications such as machine vision.
Current Position: Co-founder and Chief Technology Officer at SonoPlot, Inc., Consults and develops through Sunset Lake Software

App in Focus: Molecules
Federal Citizen App Program: NIH/NLM “Show off your Apps” Competition
Recognition: Honorable Mention

Description of the App: Molecules is an app that displays 3D renderings of molecules. It allows users to access and download various molecules from the RCSB Protein Data Bank or NCBI’s PubChem. Both are public repositories for molecules and compounds. Once a specified molecule or compound is downloaded, the app displays a 3D rendering and permits the user to manipulate their view; to zoom, pan or even to change from ball-and-stick to spacefilling visualization models. The molecules once downloaded are stored on the mobile device for later review.

Who is the App Intended to Serve: The original target audiences were researchers and high-end knowledge workers in the sciences. Now the primary users are in the education field, with usage even at the high school level.

Current Statistics: The application runs on iPhone, iPod touch and iPad. As of March 22, 2012, Molecules has been downloaded by 2,040,480 people.

Why was the app developed: Initial work on the application began on June 15, 2008 and the first version was submitted on July 6, 2008. It launched with the iPhone App Store on July 10, 2008. Molecules was created to solve a challenge identified by his brother, and one that if solved would benefit many researchers. It began and continues to be developed as a hobby project that focuses on 3D renderings of molecules and compounds. In addition to generating 3D renderings of specific molecules, the application was intended to provide mobile access to users anywhere.

How was the app developed: The development of Molecules began with the normal design process (defining the scope, etc.). With its development contingent upon Brad’s learning and mastery of particular skills, such as 3D rendering. The Apple Developer conferences played a critical role in not only teaching him some of these skills, but also in connecting him with others in the development community. Once able to 3D render, he partnered with RCSB Protein Bank and the NCBI’s PubChem to leverage their databases of molecules and compounds. Molecules makes its source code publicly available, allowing other developers to research and fix bugs/other issues. Complications and challenges in the development process were addressed via two avenues; his network of developers built through conferences and the online resource, StackOverflow.com.

How was the availability of the app communicated to potential users: As one of the first 500 applications on the iPhone App Store, it was fairly visible from the launch of that service. It was the eighth most downloaded free utility in 2008. Since then, it has been featured by Apple multiple times on the App Store, and has appeared in passing on Apple's television commercials and in a couple of their keynote presentations. Other websites have listed it in collections of scientific and educational iOS applications. Beyond that, Brad has told friends and associates about the application, but have not actively advertised it beyond occasional mentions on various developer websites like Stack Overflow.

What were the key lessons learned during the development of the app: 1) Build small, throwaway test applications to explore specific areas that I didn't understand and then to use the lessons learned from these experiments in the larger finished application, and 2) Attend conferences for networking to build partnerships and working relationship with other developers.

What recommendations do you have for government agencies that are trying to incentivize the creation of citizen apps and the leveraging of open data programs:

  • Increase the visibility of the challenges and competitions. Many app developers do not know of them.
  • Improve communication with app developers and external parties. Leverage the app developer networks to increase the reach of the message.
  • Cash prizes while good need to be in touch with realities of developers. Seldom do developers have extensive resources to support travel to D.C for events (even when they win prizes or receive recognition).
  • Support the development of local events for app developers to meet, share ideas, learn from each other, and work on problems.

What do you plan on doing next with the Molecules app, and your interest in app development for tackling social and technical problems: Brad plans to continue the development and refinement of Molecules based upon the reviews he receives online. To-date 389 reviews have been written for all-versions of the app, referencing features such as color coding, interface layout and inclusion of more molecule information. His most recent efforts have been focused on adapting and improving the application for the iPad 3. He also, as noted above has begun work in ‘assisted visioning’ applications.