The Ford Edsel. Just saying it brings to mind one of the greatest product flops in history. It’s the thing business case studies are made of and has become synonymous with falling short of expectations and pure rejection from the consumer. As noted by Dan Neil in the September 17th edition of Time magazine, this month marks the 50th anniversary of the Edsel’s ill fated unveiling. The Edsel has become the cautionary tale of over promising and under delivering. Ford spent, at the time, unprecedented money and time on promoting and marketing the Edsel leading up to its release. Ford looked at all the feedback they and other car companies received from consumers and designed a car to supposedly satisfy them all. Edsel was supposed to be the answer to all the problems, concerns, and desires of the driving public. Rather than focusing on just one or two top needs of the consumer, Ford wanted to do it all. Wanting to satisfy all the needs of the public was not their biggest sin, though. It was the fact that they actively promised that it would do it all. What product could live up to that level of hype?

We will often hear that from the folks we interview. Their service provider just couldn’t deliver on all their promises. Rather than focusing on the great innovation or new feature of a new product or service, the consumers can only see those things that the company said they could deliver, and ultimately didn’t. It doesn’t matter that the specific failed feature wasn’t of great importance; ultimately promises were broken and expectations were not met. Our focus groups and surveys often identify scores of needs and desires of the market. Our challenge at that point is to help our clients identify those 2-3 features that are most important. Making promises on 2-3 features and ultimately delivering on them ensures avoidance of making the Edsel mistake.

A recent survey by FCW found that only 12% of their readers believe that government is ready for Web 2.0. Previous studies conducted by Market Connections also showed that government agencies tend to be slower to adopt new technologies than the private sector.  However, some recent press coverage suggests that the federal government may be more prepared for the transition than many people realize.

The September 10th issue of FCW has an article discussing how younger intelligence community staff are using social networking tools to improve collaboration and information sharing. One example is Intellipedia, an online collaboration project which has grown to 27,000 articles and 20,000 active pages. The Defense Intelligence agency is also working on A-Space, a My Space look-alike, that will link all intelligence agencies across a secure network.

Many other agencies are also taking advantage of Web 2.0. The Centers for Disease Control recently paid $2,000 to buy and maintain an island in Second Life – a virtual world inhabited by 9.5 million residents world-wide. Visitors to the island will be able to get information about a variety of health issues when it opens later in 2007. Even the State Department is getting in on the act, creating online Virtual Presence Posts that offer interactive, region-specific information and consular services in cities where the agency has little or no physical infrastructure.

No one expects government to adopt Web 2.0 at the pace of the private sector – the decision-making hierarchies alone slow the rate at which such technologies can be adopted and implemented. However, these examples suggest that government may be more ready to embrace Web 2.0 than many of us think.

It has now been 6 years since the events of September 11th. I certainly remember the moments as vividly now as when I witnessed them for the first time. It’s something I’ll never forget, nor ever should.

In the years following the launch of the War on Terrorism, the President and Congress brought together numerous agencies under one umbrella, the Department of Homeland Security. Securing our homeland against future attacks became mission #1 for all working for, or with, the Federal government, regardless of agency. Incorporated in every strategic plan from 2002 on were certain milestones and goals related to securing the agency infrastructure.

After the newness of DHS settled down, Market Connections surveyed over 1,000 Federal government employees in 2004 and 2005 about the homeland security missions within their agencies. We knew that security was important, but we wanted to find out more about how it affected them from a technology perspective. The participants were asked how important certain initiatives were in meeting their agencies’ homeland security mission and who could, or would, be most helpful in meeting these security goals.

These decision-makers rated IT security as most important. Physical security to agencies’ facilities was also of top importance.

Now, with 2-3 years under our belt since these questions were asked, were these really the priorities you witnessed on a daily basis? An even better question might be: Did the money follow this pattern? If we asked these questions again today what initiatives do you think would be most important?

Approximately 70% of respondents said that either integrators or manufacturers would be helpful in meeting their goals. We have witnessed some examples of how this community has stepped up, but where do we go from here? There is always hope for a silver bullet; some new technology or process that a creative entrepreneur will develop that will help solve our problems. Looking back, who do you think was most helpful to the Federal government in meeting their homeland security initiatives? I invite your comments on this and other homeland security topics. Where does the government/contractor partnership go from here?