If you haven't been over to ZDnet's Government web log, take a look. I recently enjoyed "Mired in Methodology," a posting on the triumph of process in government.

Mired in Methodology is dead on. Making bad processes work better won't make good outcomes more likely. It's the same gripe I have when it comes to IT project management.

Unfortunately in state government, "process" is a one-way street. It punishes civil servants that make mistakes, and as a consequence, few mistakes are made. Survival becomes the name of the game. Innovators and problem solvers learn to keep their heads down and their hopes low when even innovation has to be signed off. Or they move on.

So I was gratified to read the Center for Digital Government's "The Sawyer Principles" (free, registration required), which attempts to re-imagine a government that works better for you and me.

In the process it makes an important connection between the nature of information technology and state government.

In government circles there is a sore temptation to think too little of information technology. Government tends to view it as a tool to wring more efficiency out of the act of governing. Yet if you've ever heard the phrase "doing more with less," you know such efficiency comes at a cost, not the least to the public servants who bear the brunt and who must somehow make it all work.

Information technology is not a magic efficiency wand.

Does it enable us to do something 10x faster, or does communications and information technology enable us to do something differently? If I can discover and communicate with a hundred people -- five of whom can help me solve a tough problem -- in less time than it takes to peak over the cubicle walls, does that make a difference in what I do?

The Sawyer Principles strongly implies that the answer is yes. I agree and here's why.

In a couple of different ways, discovery is one of core principles of the media enterprise.

First, technology users have the megaphone. Tens of thousands of previously isolated voices brought to bear on a debate will change the nature of the conversation. Everyone has a voice. This conversation can only be ignored for so long. Participation for organizations that care about what people think is not an option.

Secondly, search has replaced "the single point of contact" for finding information. Rupert Murdoch made the point earlier this year to newspaper editors, who would like to remain relevant to information hungry audiences, but find themselves with far less authority over what news and information people consume. They can no longer count of being the focal point for news gatherers and will need to share the "public service franchise."

Murdoch likewise plans to stay ahead of the developing trend away from Web portals and the decline of the home page as a point of entry. Who needs a single point of entry when search can find it faster? An organization's past status is no guarantee of future relevance.

The world may be flat, but don't tell that to state government. Hierarchical organizations like state bureaucracies last