GOVERNMENT 2.

0
September 2008

Digital Brainstorms:
Case Studies in Mass Collaboration
by David Hume

In an era of mass collaboration, where Web 2.0

technology has made an undeniable economic
and social mark, is there any way for organizations
to use collaborative technology as a catalyst for
innovation and change? Digital Brainstorms offer a compelling
model for how this may be possible in both the private and the public sector.
This case study examines several examples of Digital Brainstorms in order to
describe their process, and highlight key lessons learned from practice. The idea of
government-led Digital Brainstorms is a compelling idea. Engaging regular people
and experts using this new technology seems a straightforward way to both
promote democratic engagement and draw in expertise and new ideas to public
policy. However, government culture often runs contrary to the basic premises of a
Digital Brainstorm. This report highlights the suitability of this new technology for
government and public policy, and explores how organizations can make Digital
Brainstorming a vibrant part of 21st century democracy.

© 2008 nGenera Corporation

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction
1 What’s a Digital Brainstorm?
2 xamples of Digital Brainstorming
E
2 hy use a Digital Brainstorm?
W

3 Planning a Digital Brainstorm

6 Facilitating a Digital Brainstorm
7 Analyzing a Digital Brainstorm

8 Post Brainstorm—From Talk To Action

9 Lessons Learned
10 Government Jams?
11 The Future of Digital Brainstorms
13 Endnotes
 Digital Brainstorms | 1

Introduction

In September 2006, IBM undertook an experiment in priorities—could be made with more broader and deeper
collaborative and democratic decision-making that would employee and citizen input, leading to better ideas and
set a bold new course for the company. Employees from faster adoption.
more than 160 countries – along with their clients, business
partners, and even family members – were invited to join
in a massive, wide-open brainstorming session it called the
InnovationJam. Over the course of two 72-hour sessions,
What’s a Digital
IBM engaged over 100,000 participants in a series of Brainstorm?
moderated online discussions. Their combined insights
surfaced breakthrough innovations that IBMers expect A Digital Brainstorm describes an online facilitated
will transform industries, improve human health, and help discussion, typically involving many thousands of partici-
protect the environment over the course of the coming pants engaging on an important topic of interest. The most
decades. CEO Sam Palmisano believes so strongly in the well known and tested model of Digital Brainstorming is the
idea that he committed up to $100 million to develop the Jam, invented by IBM, which involves intensive seventy-two
ideas with the most social and economic potential. hour online interactions. To date, Digital Brainstorms using
the Jam model have been used by large corporations such
IBM’s InnovationJam is just one instance of what nGenera as IBM, Nokia, as well as the automotive industry, and inter-
calls a Digital Brainstorm: a process by which technology, national organizations like UN Habitat.
people and knowledge combine to create a strategic
opportunity for more inclusive, collaborative decision The Digital Brainstorm process is made up of several basic
making. Digital Brainstorming—now possible on a scale components:
that was previously impossible—offers the alluring possi-
bility that political agendas could be set in closer consul- • Securing support from the top —senior leadership
tation with larger proportion a nation’s citizens, leading needs to be onside to ensure the outputs of the
to greater legitimacy; that intractable problems may be discussion lead to meaningful change;
solved when the collective ingenuity of a more diverse set • Framing issues —providing a launch pad for discussion
of participants is brought to bear; or that really important by identifying the key problems, questions or ideas
organizational decisions—like setting values or strategic about a given topic;

© 2008 nGenera Corporation

2 | nGenera Insight: Government 2.0

• Involving —marketing the event to the target audience, academia and civil society to come to grips with
such as employees or people in poverty, and engaging the rapid urbanization of the world’s population.
expertise to help lead and inform the discussion as it To establish the agenda for the World Urban Forum
progresses; (WUF), the WUF secretariat worked with IBM and civil
• Technology —to enable a massive online discussion society collaborators to engage 39 000 people from
over 72 hours, collating and directing the results using around the world and from all walks of life. The Habitat
a combination of analytics, data processing technology Jam, as it was called, brought slum dwellers from India,
and hands-on facilitation; leading academics, government officials, politicians and
people from around the globe together to establish a
• Action —mapping actionable ideas onto existing global agenda for addressing issues like improving the
management or political priorities, and steering decision lives of people living in slums, improving access to clean
makers to follow through in leading change. water, environmental sustainability, and improving
governance in cities.2
In Digital Brainstorms, technology, people and knowledge
combine to create a strategic opportunity for more inclusive, Why use a Digital Brainstorm?
collaborative decision making.
Before Charles Kelly agreed to become the Commis-
The investment required to stage a Digital Brainstorm is sioner of the World Urban Forum, he wanted agreement on
not insignificant. Framing, outreach and marketing, facili- at least one major point: the conference must be designed
tation and technology infrastructure are resource intensive to produce actionable ideas, not just be a venue for ‘talking
line items. Interviewees for this report cited between heads.’
$650 000 and $2 000 000 as the price tag for executing an
IBM-enabled Jam. Open source brainstorming platforms, Big international conferences have a reputation for being
smarter software and more automation, however, could fairly unfocused. In some ways, this is part of their nature.
combine to significantly lower these costs soon. When political leaders, experts, practitioners and others
gather by the thousands, the agenda will become packed.
Almost everyone wants to showcase their work to the world.
Examples of Digital Brainstorming But showcasing does little to advance a change agenda
This case draws on four examples of Digital Brainstorms. for the people affected by urbanization. Indeed, they are
They include: mainly left out of the conversation.

• IBM —the originator of the Jam model that began as “We wanted to shake things up,” says Kelly. “But getting
an internal mechanism for involving IBM’s 320,000 actionable ideas needed something different from the
employees in a real-time conversation about the usual.”3
strategic direction of the company. Its ValuesJam and
InnovationJam have helped the company break ground Pia Erkinheimo, Senior Product Manager, HRD & Talent
in understanding and affirming its mission, and in Management, at Nokia had a similar challenge. In 2007,
spotting ideas for new product and service innovations. Nokia was reexamining its purpose and looking toward the
• Nokia —the mobile phone manufacturer, engaged 13 future. It had been running face-to-face sessions based on
000 of its employees in its ‘Nokia Way Jam’. The Jam the World Cafe methodologyi, and had been connecting
worked to involve employees in establishing the values with about 10 per cent of its workforce. They were looking
and ideas that form the company’s mission. for a way to engage more of their employees in a conver-
sation about Nokia’s values and how to live them, address
• Original Equipment Suppliers Association (OESA) —
their three year strategy, and look for new ideas. “Really, we
OESA works with automotive suppliers and makers of
were seeking the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ to help put Nokia’s
component parts to ‘address issues of common concern’.
strategy in place” says Erkinheimo. “We wanted to move
OESA represents interests that amount to 65 per cent
from a high touch process to something more high tech.”4
of North American auto supplier sales. OESA teamed
with IBM to involve 2000 of its members in a conver-
The story was similar in IBM and OESA. IBM’s ValuesJam
sation about the industry’s future. The Automotive
occurred as it worked to crystalize the company’s transition
Jam included discussion leaders like the Governor of
from a hardware manufacturer to a business services organi-
Michigan as well as senior executives from GM, Toyota,
zation. And as it emerged from this transition, IBM’s Innova-
Cooper Automotive and others. Their essential message
tionJam looked out more broadly to seek new opportunities
at the end: the status quo in the industry is no longer
for the company. For its part, OESA’s members saw a need
acceptable, and coopetition and collaboration, rather
for collaboration within their industry to be able to realisti-
than competition, are the future norms.1
cally respond to a rapidly changing business environment.
• UN Habitat—In 2006 UN Habitat, in partnership with
the Government of Canada, held a global conference i
The World Café is an online community that facilitates forum-based
bringing together leaders from government, business, discussions, and creates linkages between like topics.

© 2008 nGenera Corporation

 Digital Brainstorms | 3

In short, the driving rationale for using something like The answer, in these cases, was to let people set that
a Digital Brainstorm is to set an agenda for change. The purpose themselves.
attractiveness of the Jam model is in its capacity to create
legitimacy for that change. Senior leaders who, in the past,
might have prescribed an agenda, now have the oppor-
tunity to work alongside employees, citizens and other
Planning a Digital
stakeholders to define the agenda together. The ability Brainstorm
to effect that agenda means employees and citizens have
more opportunity to take ownership of it and willingly But how do you involve thousands of employees or
become change agents themselves. citizens in a discussion? How do you get them to even
pay attention to the fact that they have an opportunity to
When compared to conventional engagement techniques, contribute?
Digital Brainstorming has the following advantages:
With notable exceptions, open online forums are
1. Scale. More people can participate as broadband notorious for being either overwhelmingly lowbrow or
infrastructure and maturing technologies (including overwhelmingly empty. Digital Brainstorms aim to be
real-time opinion mining, visualization and simulation different by combining elements of research, management,
tools, semantic-based cooperation platforms, and virtual marketing and technology to drive conversation towards
reality-based scenario planning) remove any further the ideas that are potentially the most valuable.
linguistic, analytical or data processing limitations
on the ability to engage very large populations in The Digital Brainstorms we looked at are based on three
conversations about issues ranging from local to design principles:
international importance.
2. Wisdom of crowds —Broader participation could lead 1. To begin with, a Digital Brainstorm takes as a given that
to better ideas and perhaps a greater diversity of ideas all voices have an equal role to play in the discussion. The
as well. best ideas are meant to rise despite hierarchy, whether
it is social or corporate.
3. Legitimacy and ownership —Greater inclusion in the
decision-making process leads to a greater sense of 2. Second is an ethos of accountability. Jammers are
ownership. encouraged to register under their own name. Having
to maintain a real world reputation can go a long way
4. Organizational memory—The Digital Brainstorming towards encouraging people to produce high quality
process leaves a permanent, searchable record of suggestions, expletive free, online.
what might otherwise have been water cooler conver-
sations and thus provides a foundation for subsequent 3. A third principle is structured engagement—the
discussions. combination of moderated discussion with a limited
time to contribute (Jams are typically 72 hour events)
5. Collective learning and improvement—Digital Brain- provide the context and the incentive to drive out new
storms dispense with the old model of atomized input ideas.
and central processing—think “suggestion box” —in
favor of a more collaborative model with tools that When planning to launch your own brainstorm, pay heed
enable the creation, learning, shaping, sharing and to the following considerations:
tracking of group knowledge as the process unfolds.
Brainstorms are conversations that open up a space for
deliberation, analysis and perhaps even compromise Securing support from senior leadership
among multiple stakeholders. The involvement of senior leadership in the design and
planning process is critical. Jam participants need context
6. Accountability—Though existing brainstorming to respond to questions effectively, and to trust that the
platforms don’t yet offer this, future iterations could process will lead to change. Senior leadership meets this
include advanced tools that enable participants to track need by serving two critical functions: first, they should
most decision-making processes and see how their contri- ensure that the Jam begins with the right questions, and
butions have been (or are being) taken into account. with enough background information to ensure people
from different backgrounds share an understanding of the
IBM Chairperson and CEO Sam Palmisano puts the problems they are trying to solve; second, they need to
challenge of setting a change agenda succinctly. Talking ensure follow through on the resulting ideas.
about the depth, smarts and excellence of his own
employees, he says: “So how do you channel this diverse The Nokia Way Jam involved the senior management team
and constantly changing array of talent and experience into from start to finish. They helped clarify and express the topics
a common purpose? How do you get people to passion- of discussion. They were hands on in the facilitation of the
ately pursue that purpose?”5 discussion. And the entire board was briefed on the results
of the Jam and was responsible for taking action.

© 2008 nGenera Corporation

4 | nGenera Insight: Government 2.0
In the Habitat Jam, leadership from the political level of
the Canadian government was largely responsible for its
creation. Maryantonett Flumian, then the Deputy Minister
of Service Canada whose department sponsored the Jam
and the World Urban Forum, says:
“The Minister, Joe Fontana, was adamant about
finding a way to link the world into the event we were
planning. He was absolutely convinced of the moral
and policy case for doing things differently. He saw
the opportunity presented by the Jam as the right
thing, despite the risks.”6
The public sector nature of the Habitat Jam made for a
slightly different arrangement. UN Habitat and the NGO
community, supported by the World Urban Forum Secre-
tariat, were the main lead in helping to frame the issues
for discussion. Themes were established in response to
the collective concerns of civil society and national govern-
ments. This was not a simple undertaking. David Peterson,
the IBM Project lead on the project called it “One of the
most challenging parts of the entire process.”7 The WUF
Secretariat and UN Habitat were responsible for translating
the results of the Jam. It’s reasonable to assume that diffuse
and contested leadership will be a characteristic of many
public sector brainstorms.
Framing issues
Complex issues with complex answers that require a
complex array of people to take action are good candi-
dates for Digital Brainstorms.
These kinds of issues typically fall into two categories: the
first are issues of principle or norms that can only be effec-
tively defined by the group expected live by the answers;
the second are ‘wicked’ issues where knowledge about
how to deal with the issue is spread out through multiple
individuals, organizations and sectors.
A good example of a Digital Brainstorm applied to an
issue of principle are Nokia’s and IBM ‘s Jams on values.
Values can certainly be defined by the leadership of an
organization. But they mean little if they are not taken up by
everyone. A Digital Brainstorm’s power lies in its capacity
to bring together people from the entire organization to
share perspectives and experiences to define those values
together. This kind of Digital Brainstorm can also serve as
a catalyst for shared responsibility for seeing those values
put into practice.
Habitat Jam took on the wicked issue of urbanization
and all its manifest complexities: clean water, transpor-
tation, poverty and more. The Jam brought together the
perspectives of people on all sides of the issue: adminis-
trators, not-for-profit organizations, political leadership,
researchers and individuals affected by the problems up
for discussion. All this knowledge could then be focused on
developing a multi-faceted action plan for a multi-faceted
problem.
But how to have these discussions? If the answers are
undefined, or the knowledge is too disperse, how do you
get started?
The term ‘framing’ comes from the communications
and public relations world. It describes the act of making
ideas—especially complex ideas—understandable using
stories, facts and images.
In politics, framing defines candidates, issues and
platforms in a way that helps voters make decisions at
election time. In public policy, framing helps steer decision
makers through options for action. Framing is a key tool of
deliberation because it sets the terms of the discussion or
debate.
A good frame links the elements of an issue in a way that
registers with its key audience. As a result, narrative turns
out to be a critical device in framing. Storytelling is one of
humanity’s oldest modes of communication. A good story
is compelling, evocative and memorable—it sticks with
us. The best stories even help readers see the world in a
different way, and act accordingly. Similarly, good framing
uses narrative to draw in readers and help define the way
they look at a complex array of facts and questions.
A frame, then, isn’t the answer to a question. It’s a way to
understand the right range of possibilities so that you can
make up your mind about what to do next.
So how do you create one for a Digital Brainstorm?
A typical framing process starts by getting clear on the
range of options that are available. This means canvassing
views from a range of concerned people—experts, practi-
tioners, leaders in the field, frontline staff and others. IBM,
OESA and Nokia used surveys of key groups to surface
top-of-mind considerations and early consensus around
the most important topics for discussion. As mentioned,
the World Urban Forum canvassed the views of not-for-
profit organizations, experts and national governments
to produce its framing information. Regular conversations
with such stakeholders help define not only the issues but
how they link together as a whole.
Next, these views need to be consolidated into a form
that can inform and provoke discussion. A variety of media
can be used for a Digital Brainstorm—discussion papers,
documentary films, interactive websites—provided they
present a fair explanation of issues and potential points
of agreement and disagreement. Analysis and storytelling
skills come into play at this stage, and must be drawn upon
to present participants with a compelling introduction to
the information they need.
© 2008 nGenera Corporation
 Digital Brainstorms | 5

Getting this information packaged up in the right way
requires a great deal of work. Drafts need to be tested
to ensure that the issues and arguments are positioned
fairly and accurately. Extensive revisions are almost always
required to get things right. But getting a fix on the
key elements up for discussion is an essential part of a
productive Digital Brainstorm.
Involving
Picking the participants for a Digital Brainstorm is a critical
step in the process. Who is involved in the conversation is
sometimes as important as what the conversation is about.
There are two strategies apparent from the Brainstorms
we looked at. One we can call the ‘change agent’ strategy,
and the second we can call the ‘voice’ strategy.
Habitat Jam also faced some unique challenges because
of the nature of its discussion. Habitat Jam was designed
to provide a voice to those who were living in the condi-
tions up for discussion at the World Urban Forum. Many of
them—especially rural villagers and slum dwellers—have
little to no access to the Internet. The Digital Divide was
a very real barrier to inclusiveness, and threatened the
legitimacy of the project. To solve the problem, more than
400 civil society organizations were enlisted to connect
with the communities that deserved to be heard. Internet
kiosks were set up in slums and villages, where people
could come to have their suggestions transcribed onto
the Jam website. Public meetings were held to discuss
the issues. CyberCafes became hubs for community input
into the process. One deaf man in Kenya even brought his
own translator to ensure that his ideas could connect with
global leaders.9

The change agent strategy says that those who are able Language also posed a challenge. Multi-lingual
to make change ought to be involved in the conversation. forums were also implemented to encourage discussion,
These need not only be senior-decision makers, like a though cross-language translation proved too difficult
group of CEOs or government ministers. Change agents to manage.
can also be others who can bring the ideas generated in a
Digital Brainstorm into their sphere of influence, whether it Other organizations have made use of clever and
is small or large. OESA’s Jam was a good example of this engaging gimmicks to attract participation in Jams. Nokia
strategy. It linked businesses and government to focus on sent invitations to employees that looked like airplane
the future of an industry sector. OESA then counted on tickets. “We wanted to get their attention, and encourage
these newly created networks to drive change after the Jam them to think not only about what they would like to bring
was completed.8 with them as they looked at the future of Nokia, but also
what they might wish leave behind,” says Erkinheimo.10 On
The voice strategy says ideas for change can come not the day of the Digital Brainstorm, the team organizing the
only from those in a position of privilege or authority, but Jam even had brass bands playing to attract attention and
from those who experience the effect of decisions in which get people involved.
they sometimes have little say. Habitat Jam was especially
dedicated to this idea. It worked to engage margin- And while attracting participants is critical, identifying
alized people from around the world on the principle and recruiting discussion leaders is just as important.
that their voices had not been heard directly by interna- Jams are not free-for-alls. They are highly facilitated
tional leadership. This voice strategy can be extended to conversations that depend on large teams of individuals
thinking about other nontraditional or ‘grass-roots’ sources to keep the conversation focused and productive. (Further
for ideas, such as frontline workers, customers and the information on a Jam’s approach to facilitation can be
general public. found below.)

Of course, the two strategies are complementary. The Senior leaders and subject matter experts of various
more diverse the makeup of minds involved in the brain- kinds often fill this role. In OESA’s case, the Governor of
storm, the greater potential for new connections and new Michigan and senior executives from Toyota, GM and
ideas no one has seen before. other major automotive organizations helped to facilitate
dialogue. IBM and Nokia had their corporate leadership
Once support is secured and the topics for discussion involved as facilitators. Habitat Jam used a mix of nearly
scoped out, marketing begins to build awareness of the 400 leading academics, prominent members of civil society
event. In most of the cases examined, networks were tapped and government officials to facilitate its discussion. In all
to bring people into the discussion. In OESA’s case, CEO’s cases, these facilitators required some training. Most were
of member organizations were tapped to identify people in not accustomed to leading discussions online, or simply
their organization who would organize employees to partic- weren’t particularly comfortable with the process. With
ipate. The WUF Secretariat tapped civil society networks some extra work however, most were able to make it over
to attract participants to the Habitat Jam, and did so with the hump to success.
remarkable success. In the space of four months they were
able to attract 39 000 people from around the globe to the
conversation.

© 2008 nGenera Corporation

6 | nGenera Insight: Government 2.0

Technology Looking forward, the Commission’s report predicts that

Finally, technology comes into play to provide the advances in Digital Brainstorming technologies will have
medium for the conversation. Jam websites typically the following impacts:
consist of a section with framing material that provides
background on topics for discussion, message forums for • Improved empowerment of individuals, groups and
conversation, and, behind the scenes, sophisticated text societies through the use of next generation governance
analysis software that allows organizers to spot trends in the tools for mass co-operation and opinion forming;
conversation to help keep it focused throughout its 72 hour • More efficient collection of feedback from public sector
duration. An array of servers is also set up to manage the organizations to continuously improve the governance;
high volumes of online interaction. High levels of security
• Improved prediction of policy measures impacts, with
and reliability are available for the system. The first non-IBM
increased contribution and involvement of individuals
Jam was the Habitat Jam. To manage its global audience
and societies, supported by new technologies;
and scale, it used the same system of servers that is used to
handle the Olympics. Obviously, this is an expensive propo- • Intelligent and optimized use of vast public sector
sition. Not every Digital Brainstorm needs such gold-plated knowledge resources for policy modeling;
protection. • Improved link between the public and policy makers
through real time opinion visualization and data mining;
It is worth noting, however, that Digital Brainstorming and
technologies are rapidly maturing and we are likely to see
many more cost-effective platforms that offer much more • Increased trust of the citizens through transparency and
powerful functionality. A recent study by the European feedback of their contributions to policy making.
Commission predicts the following scenario:
Although the European Commission report recognizes
“By 2020 there could be no barriers anymore for that Digital Brainstorming has the potential to trigger and
citizens and businesses to participate in decision- shape significant changes in the way future societies will
making at all levels. Current linguistic and cultural function, it readily admits that “we currently do not have
barriers will have been largely overcome through appropriate governance models, process flows, or analytical
use of semantic-based cooperation platforms. tools with which to properly understand, interpret, visualize
Opinion mining, visualization and modeling into and harness the forces that can be unleashed.”
virtual reality-based outcomes and scenarios will
help to both shape, guide and form public opinion.
The processes and tools will have to demon-
strate transparency and trust and be devoid of
Facilitating a Digital
manipulation. The outcomes of such consultative Brainstorm
processes should be faster and more efficient in
terms of revising policy and making decisions.”11 So, several elements combine to make up a Digital
Brainstorm: engagement of senior leadership to define
issues and ensure follow through; intense marketing, most
Some of the domains in which we are likely to see often through networks; careful selection of subject matter
breakthroughs include real-time opinion visualization and experts and leaders to assist in facilitating the discussion;
simulation solutions based on modeling and mixed reality and the technology infrastructure—including significant
technologies, translation software, collaborative content server capacity and the text analysis software for spotting
filtering and aggregation techniques, as well as “cloud” trends.
computing applications that pool web-wide computing
resources for large scale data analysis and storage. The But what’s it like once the Jam starts? What actually
goal is to be able to perform large-scale societal simula- happens?
tions integrating all possible variables, parameters, inter-
ferences, and scenarios necessary to forecast potential Most interviewees for this case study tended to use
outcomes and impacts of proposed policy measures—as the same word for the experience of being part of a
they are being debated in real-time! Jam—‘intense.’

Any robust brainstorming toolbox must also include
security, identity and access controls to ensure privacy
and, where appropriate, the delineation of constituency
domains according to the specific needs of government
applications.
They describe being glued to their computer screens
for 72 hours, catching snatches of sleep, and watching
shifts of facilitators—experts and senior leaders—move
in and out as they logged in to take their turn responding
to comments, encouraging participation, and shaping the
debate. Locked inside the Jam ‘war room,’ organizers are
busy watching for trends in the conversation, promoting hot

© 2008 nGenera Corporation

 Digital Brainstorms | 7

below Figure 1: The Jam ‘Info-Swirl’, Source: nGenera Insight

Topic Topic Topic

F F F F
Refinement for focus
Tools used:
War
• Text analysis
Room War
• Facilitation via war
room and in topic area Room

F F F F

Topic Topic Topic Topic

War War Room, the central hub

F Facilitator, responsible Participant Information Flow
Room for co-ordinating the jam for directing discussion

topics on the home page of the Jam, and directing traffic
to what they see as the most promising discussion threads.
IBM staff are in place crunching the discussion data coming
in, forwarding it on to facilitators, and making sure that the
servers and website are running smoothly.
The big ‘info-swirl’ that is a Jam looks something like the
one represented in Figure 1.
corporate Jams. Some would be surprised that 39 000
people from all over the world could come together without
at least one bad apple aiming to spoil the bunch. Charles
Kelly, the Commissioner of the World Urban Forum, and a
driving force behind the Jam explains it this way: “Look, it’s
pretty simple—trust breeds trust. If you trust people and
show that you believe in and value their ability to contribute
to something meaningful, they’ll reward your intention.”13

A typical concern raised about Jams is the possibility of
vandalism or offensive online behavior. There is no doubt
that discussions on Jams can get heated. According to a
report in the Harvard Business Review, one IBM executive
wanted to shut down the ValuesJam after it unleashed some
pent up frustration and anger at how the company had
been managed over the years. To his credit, CEO Palsimano
kept the discussion open. After a day of letting off steam,
the conversation turned constructive and highly valuable
for the executive leadership of the company.12
In other Jams, there were no reported cases of vandalism
or even ‘unethical’ behavior, as Pia Erkinheimo of Nokia put
it. Disagreements, yes. Passionate exchanges, yes. But in
the tens of thousands of pages of dialogue that resulted
from the Jams, there was not one reported instance of truly
antisocial behavior.
Perhaps most strikingly, this was as true of the open-to-
the-general-public Habitat Jam as it was the controlled
This is not to say that if there were some problem, there
would be no recourse. Various moderation features are
available within a Jam, ranging from an intervention from a
facilitator to blocking individual participants from entering
the Digital Brainstorm all together.
Analyzing a Digital Brainstorm
Analysis of a Digital Brainstorm starts with a careful look
at the keywords used in each of the preset discussion areas.
Commonly used words offer up themes of interest to the
group. So, for example, in the OESA Jam, keywords like
‘green,’ ‘energy,’ ‘fuel’ and ‘weight’ related to an environment
theme; while keywords like ‘chain,’ ‘collaboration,’ ‘Toyota’
and ‘culture’ were associated with key concepts for the
industry’s future success.14
Every Jam post is then analyzed to extract more focused
ideas. In the case of the OESA Jam, 32 themes were
identified, which were then summarized into 8 ‘mega-

© 2008 nGenera Corporation

8 | nGenera Insight: Government 2.0

below Figure 2: Jam Analysis, Source: nGenera Insight

Pre-Jam Prep Jam Facilitation Post Jam Analysis

Pre-Jam Change Concepts/

Discussion Framing Jam Conversation Discussion Themes Top Key Words Proposed Ideas Actionable Ideas

1-2 Months or More 72 Hours 1 Month or more

themes’. From these mega-themes, eight ‘change concepts’ to keep the right conversations going, and show change
emerged, which reflected the basic conclusions of the Jam. based on the feedback they receive.15

The generic flow of the analysis is represented in One executive turned to the other and said, “I think he’s
Figure 2 (over). trying to talk us out of this...”

Final analysis can take weeks or months. Sifting through
thousands of posts looking for themes, ideas for action
and final recommendations is a highly resource intensive
process requiring the attention of senior decision makers
as well as analysts.
Of course, Cleaver was trying to do no such thing. But his
story underlines the point that his CEO Sam Palmisano made
to the Harvard Business Review: “Now, if you’ve unleashed
all that frustration and energy, and invited people to feel
hope about something they care about, then you’d better
be prepared to do something about it.”16

Post Brainstorm – In the case of the ValuesJam, CEO Palmisano immediately

launched several programs that responded directly to the
from talk to action concerns employees raised. He also took on longer term
projects, and made his executives accountable for strat-
The days after a Jam are critical. Energy levels and expec- egizing and delivering a response. Similar strategies were
tations are typically high. Participants will want to know also executed at Nokia, who also held a Jam on its values.
what happens next. The response from those able to
make decisions—senior executives or political leadership, In addition, IBM also reports to its employees on a
for example—is critical so as not to break the trust of the quarterly basis regarding progress made on the key findings
participants. or recommendations coming out of Jams. Regular updates
about change help employees see that their efforts have
Senior executives are often surprised at the level of made a difference, or at least help them gauge where they
responsibility they take on in hosting a Jam. Liam Cleaver, stand in terms of priorities.
IBM’s Jam Program Director, tells a story about briefing two
senior executives about the kind of commitment they were In addition, Nokia reports that its Jam remains an
taking on. He outlined to them the risks of breaking trust ongoing resource for ideas within the organization. Senior
with their employees if they could not follow through on the management find that the record of the Jam is a touchstone
results of their Jam. He talked about how the Jam is really for ongoing change projects. Mining the Jam serves as a
a catalyst for a much longer term process of founding a starting point for new ideas within the company.
culture of collaboration and innovation within their organi-
zation. He explained that progress towards creating this For OESA, the challenge of creating change after their
culture would require an ongoing commitment from them Jam was different. Perhaps the most significant outcome

© 2008 nGenera Corporation


was a new network—many of those involved with the Jam
had never encountered one another, even though they
shared so many interests. Moreover, the fact that key change
makers like the Governor of Michigan were intimately
involved in the process meant that the network could be
high impact.17 Linking everyone with a shared vision also
meant it had direction. And an advisory committee of CEOs
was created to oversee engagement of the industry to push
for progress, with individual members being responsible for
specific change concepts.18
OESA was not in as strong a position to implement change
as the corporate organizations doing internal Jams. OESA
could not order its members to align themselves around
the change concepts. Rather, they had to work through
influence.
Their main strategy was to push industry leadership
figures out into the spotlight to continue the conversation
started by the Jams. They used CEO townhalls to talk about
emerging issues, and used their board to launch change
projects, building relationships between suppliers. One
tangible outcome was the creation of a consortium of
auto-suppliers to do early research and development on
pre-competitive materials. Such ‘coopetition’ was one of
the change concepts put forward by the Jam.
The Habitat Jam was in a similar position. There was • Engagement of leaders in the process —The tighter the
no specific authority that could implement the seventy
‘actionable ideas’ that resulted from the Jam, though UN
Habitat could champion them. Again, much value was to be
found in the network that was created. Those involved with
the Jam reported spin off projects that kept the conver-
sation going among groups that had been involved. Good
examples include an organization in Kabera, Burkina Faso, • Marketing by network—People move people to
who worked to link blind people with the technology, or
women’s organizations, who gained global connections to
assist in their fight for equality.
Moreover, the Jam injected high levels of energy and
focus into the World Urban Forum. As a marketing tool it
was highly successful. The event drew over 10 000 people. It
also drove demand for networking sessions where delegates
could meet to work out how to move the actionable ideas
suggested by the Jam forward.
Where the Jam ran into challenges was in that its host and
sponsor, the Government of Canada, underwent a change
of political leadership. While interest and commitment
at a political and bureaucratic level was high before the
Jam, priorities shifted after the 2006 election. So an ideal
• Assigning responsibility for driving change —When
candidate for driving the ideas from the Jam forward disen-
gaged. The next World Urban Forum is in China in October
of 2008. It remains to be seen what influence the results of
the Habitat Jam will have at that meeting. While the official
program does not mention the Jam, activists and civil
society members may force it onto the table.
© 2008 nGenera Corporation
Digital Brainstorms | 9
Lessons Learned
As IBM’s Jam Program Director Liam Cleaver has said,
Jams are remarkable catalysts. Creating an open, nonhier-
archical space for ideas focused on change taps incredible
energy. But it also creates a major commitment to action
when thousands of involved minds come together to set
an agenda. The uncertainties of taking on this commitment
can be seen by some organizations as risky. Others see the
risk as worth it—creating excitement, engagement and a
shared purpose through a Jam can add strength and focus
to an organization, and legitimacy and momentum to the
work of public policy.
Simply holding such an event is an achievement. The
combination of leadership, research, marketing and
technology to drive discussion requires tremendous
amounts of work. But for the value of a Digital Brainstorm
to be realized, the event needs to be seen as a start of a
process of conversation and action that must be stewarded
over the long term.
In conversation with interviewees for this case, the
following elements appear to make up the stewardship role
that emerges from massively collaborative engagement
events like a Digital Brainstorm:
connection between leaders and the outputs of a Digital
Brainstorm, the more likely they are to be implemented.
From planning to execution to analysis and synthesis—
without that engagement, the outputs will not become
a strategic focus for the group or organization, and little
change will occur.
become part of something like a Digital Brainstorm. The
Habitat Jam’s success in drawing in so many participants
was critically linked to how it worked with and resourced
civil society organizations close to the people they were
trying to reach. Finding those who can draw in the right
kind of participants, and asking them to assist in creating
the conversation is an important strategy for marketing
Digital Brainstorms. Working this way has spillover
effects when it comes time for making change after the
event, since many groups will already be champions of
the Brainstorm, and presumably, its results. Reservoirs of
good can make a massive difference for implementing
a shared agenda, especially among more loosely
connected organizations like multiple governments,
businesses, civil society organizations and individuals.
leadership steps up to take on the change agenda
driven out by a Jam, responsibility must be assigned for
making progress. In corporate environments, executives
are tasked with a particular agenda item. In a networked
environment like OESA’s, influential stakeholders are
asked to take the lead.
10 | nGenera Insight: Government 2.0

• Reporting on progress and marking achievement—

Being clear about near and long term goals and On the other hand, the Habitat Jam shows that this
achievements provides transparency regarding what is not necessarily the case. By bringing new and margin-
is happening and when. Such transparency maintains alized voices into the conversation about urban policy, a
trust, thanks to the accountability these reports create different kind of expertise was found at the grass roots.
between the drivers of change and the Jam participants The ‘experts’—e.g. academics, government officials and
that contributed to setting the agenda. civil society organizations—could test ideas for the ‘how’
in conversation with those who might be affected by the
• Remaining open and inclusive —Digital Brainstorms
project. The tighter feedback loop between those tasked
create a new way of working within an organization.
with designing solutions and those who were meant to be
Liam Cleaver says that Jams create new ‘norms’ and
recipients of the solution helped refine ideas more quickly.
expectations among participants for continued input
into future decisions. “It’s almost like a drug,” he says.
But perhaps the biggest strategic question governments
“You get hooked on the process”. For his part, Charles
should be asking if they are considering using a Jam, is
Kelly talked about the appetite within civil society for
how to secure what we might call a ‘stable governance
these kinds of processes. “It like rocket fuel,” he says.
environment’ for the input that results. Government, like
Finding ways to maintain this openness through further
corporations such as IBM or Nokia, cannot afford to ask for
events is a key part of stewarding change driven by
input and then do nothing. Ideas from a government Jam
mass collaboration.
must translate, as much as possible into action. A stable
• Leveraging concrete intangibles —Action out of a governance environment will connect ideas with action
Digital Brainstorm is not just a function of what filters inside government institutions. How can this be done?
to the top of the priority list from participants. It is also
a product of the newly created, sometimes surprising First, the topic for a Jam must be carefully selected. Bad
relationships that are struck up thanks to an interesting topics are ones where there is a clear electoral mandate for
side conversation or a real meeting of minds. Moreover, action, or choices have already been made. Fait accompli
the global scale of something like the Habitat Jam can issues are not good candidates for Jams. Topic areas that
even become symbolic of new modes of international are workable are likely to be ones government cannot
cooperation, cultural understanding and peace building. address solely on its own. Complex, messy problems like
The experience of such a conversation has value in and coping with climate change, for example, will require the
of itself. effort and ingenuity of all levels of society. Global warming
cannot simply be legislated out of existence.

Government Jams? Issues caught in a political or bureaucratic logjam could

The idea of government led Digital Brainstorms is a
compelling idea. Engaging regular people and experts
using Jams seems a straightforward way to both promote
democratic engagement and draw in expertise and new
ideas to public policy. However, government culture often
runs contrary to the basic premises of a Digital Brainstorm.
Government tends to emphasize hierarchy, debate behind
closed doors, and a culture that is often skeptical of new
ideas. As we’ve seen, Digital Brainstorms depend on just
the opposite approach.
When asked whether governments could overcome the
cultural inhibitors, interviewees expressed both optimism
and pessimism. Some recommended Jams as a tool for
taking on big issues on a national basis. Others felt that they
ought first to become tools for engaging public servants and
stakeholders in an idea generation process. A well scoped
group of participants can help keep the discussion focused
on actionable ideas that can be implemented. Citizens may
be well positioned to talk about the ‘what’ and the ‘why’
parts of the conversation, they say. But it’s likely they will be
less able to participate in the ‘how.’
be ripe for a Digital Brainstorm. Drawing in and synthe-
sizing the perspective of many different actors can create
a strong and positive mandate for change. Discussing the
future of the education system might be a good candidate,
for example.
A second step is likely to secure the support of senior
government leadership. In an ideal world, one could secure
the support of the centre. If a President, Prime Minister,
Premier, Governor or Mayor agrees to host a Jam and make
its results their own on a particular topic area, then action
is likely. This may be a high bar to set, however, especially
with a relatively new innovation like Digital Brainstorming.
At the very least, however, one or more responsible senior
political or public service official must be involved if change
is going to occur.
A third step is securing the involvement of high-profile
leaders in other affected sectors who are in a position to
make or champion change themselves. If the debate is
about climate change, for example, securing the support of
industry representatives and environmental groups would
be key. A solutions focused discussion where Al Gore facili-
tates debate shoulder to shoulder with oil executives could
be very compelling. Change makers can come together
through a process like a Jam.

© 2008 nGenera Corporation

 Digital Brainstorms | 11

Finally, resources need to be secured not only for
producing the Jam event, but for the necessary follow up
and follow through on the resulting ideas. This does not
necessarily mean launching multi-million dollar projects
(though it could). What it does mean is taking seriously the
ideas that come out of the Digital Brainstorm—costing and
feasibility should be considered, business cases should be
assembled, and Cabinet members should be briefed on
the most viable options. Basically, the ideas that come out
of a Digital Brainstorm should enter the regular decision-
making processes of government. Those that survive the
process should be implemented.
So the price tag is high, but the benefits look impressive.
Jams have a track record of unleashing tremendous amounts
of energy and focus inside corporate organizations and with
the public. A government that could genuinely tap and act
on that energy for the public good would undoubtedly be a
leader in a new era of collaborative governance.
other, tech-free models of community engagement could
also prove more effective and sustainable for organizations
depending on their needs.
Jams offer a cadillac solution for mass collaboration. They
can make it possible for corporations and government to
step into this arena with confidence and realize impressive
results at a very large scale. Nevertheless, their costs in
time, money and executive attention may put Jams out of
reach for many organizations, save the ones who are most
convinced about the power of the collaborative process, and
those who are willing to make the commitment to following
through on what comes back after the Jam is complete.

The Future of Digital

Brainstorms
The future of Digital Brainstorming is wide open.

IBM’s Jams have proven that conversations at scale are

possible. Others will seek to bring their own approaches,
mixing different technologies, to bring voices together for
collaboration and decision-making. Moreover, as noted by
the European Commission, new approaches to modeling
and mixed reality technologies, translation software, collab-
orative content filtering and aggregation techniques will
dramatically alter what’s possible over the next decade. And
in the more immediate future, jams and brainstorm appli-
cations will be supplemented by emerging engagement
models such as those discussed in Table 1.

For observers who have watched the incredible growth

of collaborative Web 2.0 technology, there may be reason
to believe that a ‘do-it-yourself’ approach to online
engagement may be a likely path for many organiza-
tions. In some ways, these observers may be right. Wikis,
blogging and other tools are good examples of drawing
in the knowledge of employees over the long term. And,
as noted in the accompanying sidebar, many more robust
brainstorming technologies are in the pipeline.

Advocates of Jams say that they are different because of

their ability to structure conversation among large numbers
of people into an intense focus on the ‘how’. Involving
change agents in a three day facilitated dialogue aimed
at driving out ‘breakthrough’ ideas is different than a
community focused wiki, they say. Others aren’t so certain.
They say that while Jams offer a tested approach, a combi-
nation of off the shelf software could replace them. And

© 2008 nGenera Corporation

12 | nGenera Insight: Government 2.0

below Table 1: Other Platforms for Digital Brainstorming, Source: nGenera Insight

Wiki The Government of New Zealand has successfully used wikis to generate policy ideas as input for
Brainstorming its Digital Strategy, its Guide to Online Participation, and its Police Act Legislative Review. The wikis
have allowed stakeholders and citizens to directly comment on and rewrite sections of key policy
documents. As a platform for brainstorming, wikis are strong for their ability to put users in direct
control over the documentation that matters—whether it is a policy paper or a piece of legislation.
In addition, the prevalence of open source wiki software also makes them a low-cost option.

Alternate Reality World Without Oil (www.worldwithoutoil.org) was an initative commissioned by ITVS (www.itvs.
Games org), a US based public media company, and funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
It was an experiment in collaborative problem solving that asked its participants to imagine what
they would do if the world encountered a massive oil shortage. But the project did more than ask
them to imagine the scenario. It asked them to live it out through a novel format--a game.

Creating a world where gasoline hits $4.00 per gallon (eerily, a mark hit in the US just over one
year later in 2008) and rises to over $7.00 per gallon over the course of 32 days, World Without Oil
asked participants to ‘act as if’ the scenario was real. They were challenged to make changes in
their life to respond, and to share their stories of what they had done through the game’s website.
“Play it before you live it,” was the game’s tag line.

Blog posts, videos, podcasts and other online media helped push the story along, and get news
out to participants. In response, some 1300 players posted to their own blogs, recorded videos
and called into voice mail to tell others about what was changing in their area, and how they were
adjusting in their own lives. Players even earned the opportunity forge the game’s reality when
their stories about how to adjust were highly rated by other participants.

By simulating public policy problems, government could use a similar ‘alternate reality’ model
to tap grass roots ideas for new policy options and future oriented service ideas (for example, if
governments see many people planting their own vegetable garden in response to an energy
shortage, governments may wish to consider how to facilitate more urban farming). Moreover, it
would be a good method for testing citizen’s expectations of government in these situations, and
enlisting citizens in making change themselves around issues that are too complex for government
to cope with alone.

MIT’s In 2007, MIT’s Centre for Collective Intelligence launched the ‘Collaboratorium’, an online space
Collaboratorium designed to create structured discussion around complex issues, with a special focus on climate change.

The Collaboratorium combines online argumentation systems, that help structure posts to help
make complex arguments more easily findable and understood; computer simulations, that can
help play out scenarios or options defined by discussion; decision-making tools that allow partici-
pants of various kinds to vote on options (or even ask proxies to vote on their behalf); and prediction
markets, where people are asked to wager on the outcome they believe to be most likely.

The Collaboratorium is in its testing phases, having been trialed with engineering students in
the University of Naples, and with a planned test looking at the Collaboratorium’s performance
alongside other online tools such as wikis and blogs.
Dialogue Circles
Dialogue Circles is a proprietary technology of Ascentum Inc., designed to stimulate online
deliberative dialogue. Using this platform, participants typically begin with a workbook, where
they learn about and express preferences for particular policy options. They are then invited to
share stories about their experience of an issue and ideas for change. Finally, participants come
together in groups to work through the resulting options and make recommendations.

Dialogue Circles have been used by the New Zealand Bioethics Council to explore pre-birth
genetic testing of babies, by the House of Commons Committee on the Status of Disabled People,
the Canadian Senate Committee on Health, as well as by two Provincial Members of Legislative
Assembly to discuss electoral reform with their constituents.

© 2008 nGenera Corporation

 Digital Brainstorms | 13

ENDNOTES
1 De Koker, Neil. “De Koker’s Corner: Improving OEM-Supplier Relationships” Available at:
http://oesa.org/publications/articledetail.php?articleId=11172
2 World Urban Forum. “Habitat Jam: Summary Report.” Available at:
http://www.globaldialoguecenter.com/docs/habitat_jam_report_en.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2008.
3 Interview with Charles Kelly, Chairman, Cascadia Institute by David Hume, nGenera Insight, June 24, 2008.
4 Interview with Pia Erkinheimo, Senior Product Manager, HRD & Talent Management, Nokia, by David Hume, nGenera
Insight, July 7, 2008.
5 Hemp, Paul and Stewart, Thomas A. “Leading Change When Business is Good: An Interview with Samuel J.
Palmisano.” Harvard Business Review (December 2004). Available at:
http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/common/item_detail.jhtml?id=R0412C&referral=2340.
Accessed August 5, 2008.
6 Interview with Maryantonett Flumian, Executive in Residence, University of Ottawa, by David Hume, nGenera Insight,
July 2, 2008.
7 Interview with David Peterson, Project Lead, Jam Technologies, IBM, by David Hume, nGenera Insight, July 10, 2008.
8 Lunani, Mahesh and Orchard, Jim. Podcast: “Automotive Supplier Jam: post Jam perspective. Available at:
http://www-03.ibm.com/industries/automotive/doc/content/event/podcasts/2473369108.html?g_type=pspot.
Accessed August 15, 2008.
9 Goldberg, Dahlia and Myer, Katie. “Evaluation Report: Grass-roots Women Participation in the Habitat Jam”. Huiarou
Commission, December 15, 2005. Available at: http://womenandwuf.ca/habitat.html. Accessed July 2, 2008.
10 Interview with Pia Erkinheimo, Senior Product Manager, HRD & Talent Management, Nokia, by David Hume, nGenera
Insight, July 7, 2008.
11 David Broster & Aniyan Varghese, “ICT for Governance and Policy Modelling.” A briefing paper for the preparation of
the European Commission’s FP7 work programme 2009-10, April 2008.
12 Hemp, Paul and Stewart, Thomas A. “Leading Change When Business is Good: An Interview with Samuel J.
Palmisano.” Harvard Business Review (December 2004). Available at:
http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/common/item_detail.jhtml?id=R0412C&referral=2340.
Accessed August 5, 2008.
13 Interview with Charles Kelly, Chairman, Cascadia Institute by David Hume, nGenera Insight, June 24, 2008.
14 Rishi, Sanjay and De Koker, Neil. Podcast: “Driving Innovation through the Automotive Supplier Jam” 2007. Available
at: http://www-03.ibm.com/industries/automotive/doc/content/event/podcasts/2337855108.html?g_type=pspot.
Accessed, August 15, 2008.
15 Interview with Liam Cleaver, Jam Program Director, IBM, by David Hume, nGenera Insight, August 15, 2008
16 Hemp, Paul and Stewart, Thomas A. “Leading Change When Business is Good: An Interview with Samuel J.
Palmisano.” Harvard Business Review (December 2004). Available at:
http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/common/item_detail.jhtml?id=R0412C&referral=2340.
Accessed August 5, 2008.
17 IBM and OESA. “Break Away From the Status Quo: A Message from Automotive Industry Professionals.” March,
2007. Available at: http://www-03.ibm.com/industries/automotive/doc/content/resource/thought/2873950108.html.
Accessed July 5, 2008.
18 De Koker, Neil. “De Koker’s Corner: OESA Jammed: So What?” Available at:
http://oesa.org/publications/articledetail.php?articleId=8487. Accessed August 15, 2008.

© 2008 nGenera Corporation

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David Hume has recently

returned from New Zealand,
where he helped lead the
development of the national
government’s handbook for
online citizen engagement,
the Guide to Online Par-
ticipation. An experienced
leader of public and stake-
holder engagement pro-
cesses, he spent five years
working with the Crossing
Boundaries National Coun-
cil and the KTA Centre for
Collaborative Governance
on multi-stakeholder and
citizen-based policy de-
velopment projects, and
has assisted international
organizations like the UN
and the OECD on issues
related to technology and
governance. Now based
in Ottawa, Canada, David
is Principal of CoCreative
Services, a collaboration
design consultancy, and is
an Associate of MASS LBP
(www.masslbp.com), a new
kind of company that works
with visionary corporations
and government to deepen
and improve consultation
and public engagement.

© 2008 nGenera Corporation

 THE GOVERNANCE WEB

ES

CI
VI
YE

L
O

SO
PL

CI
EM

ET
GOVERNANCE

Y
WEB

Policy
Service
Innovation

R
O
CT
C
IT

SE
IZ

E
E

AT
N

IV
S

PR

If governments are to ensure their relevance and authority,

they must move beyond e-government to forge governance
webs capable of meeting rising expectations for openness,
accountability, effectiveness and efficiency in the public
sector. The transition to government 2.0 and governance
webs begins with opening up formerly closed processes,
embracing transparency and renovating tired rules that
inhibit innovation. But that is merely the beginning. nGenera
Insight concludes that a new breed of public sector organi-
zation is emerging in response to these challenges: One that
opens its doors to the world; co-innovates with everyone,
especially citizens; shares resources that were previously
closely guarded; harnesses the power of mass collaboration;
and behaves not as an isolated department or jurisdiction,
but as something new–a truly integrated organization.

© 2008 nGenera Corporation

This report is an analysis of a Lighthouse Case Study, presented as part of nGenera
Insight’s Government 2.0: Wikinomics, Government and Democracy Program. The
program, sponsored by leading government agencies and private companies such
as yours, identifies and analyzes emerging opportunities to harness new models of
collaboration to transform the public sector.

Research Leadership

Don Tapscott: Chairman, nGenera Innovation Network

Anthony Williams: Vice President, Government 2.0

Dan Herman: Program Manager, Government 2.0

© 2008 nGenera. Reproduction by any means or disclosure to parties who are not
employees of Government 2.0 member organizations or wholly-owned subsidiaries is
prohibited.

Your Government 2.0 research program membership includes unlimited access to the
nGenera Insight Wiki (http://wiki.ngenera.com) where project plans and publications
are posted for member review and feedback.

Please visit www.ngenera.com for information or contact government@ngenera.com.