TOPP Labs needs a new name

And I can even sweeten the deal a bit: whoever suggests the winning name gets a free Open Planning Project or Streetfilms t-shirt, whichever you like.

Aw, I love the Super Awesome Group (SAG). I also have a proclivity for cheeky: Office of Digital Citizenry. Something with Civic-ry – a la wizardry? (Obviously lost the race for the t-shirt).

How about The Office of Municipal Innovation (OMI).

Slogan: “Once you go OMI, you never go back.”

@Shin-pei: OK, SAG is officially in the running; thanks for the validation.

@Mark: Not bad! Maybe Municipal Innovation Group or Civic Innovation Group.

What comes to mind is “Tools for New Cities”, but the connotations for tool aren’t so hot.

Here’s some more:

TOPP for New Cities or TOPP Civic Development

or maybe the simple route is better

Civic TOPP

Of course, since you are torn by TOPP itself, those are probably ruled out.

I sort of like “Civic Innovation” in combination with something, but do you always want to be innovating or should your group also be seen as delivering working solutions even if they reuse rather than hot and new?

I’m still half-asleep, so take all of this with a grain of salt.

First let me say that…eh hem…the word “labs” will never be outdated or cliche. It is the best possible word to express experimentation.

That said here’s my suggestion:

Civic Code Werkz
Civic Alpha Werkz
Civic Code and Magic

Personally I think the Department of Civic Hacking is perfect.

I recommend NOT using throwaway works like “group” in your name.

@Walter: good point about innovating vs. delivering something known and working. Civic Solutions Group?

I’ve you’ve got to do a ‘group’ thing – I think “collective is much stronger.

Civic Code Collective (CSQUARED)

I’m telling you, go into any bar in NYC and drop that you’re from the Office of Municipal Innovation.

You won’t be going home lonely. Just saying… ;-)

One more:

Public Code Works

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: We should be called GovWorks, duh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GovWorks.com

@Phil I was thinking of maybe going with Pets.com. Obviously I need to see that movie.

Civicity (Civic meets City)
OpenGov’eDataCivicCom, Inc. LLC. (…dot org)

Okay, so maybe these aren’t helpful. ;)

Oh, and Friday is 2/19. Did you mean today? (Thurs., 2/18)

@Tim you are correct about the deadline, thanks. Fixed. Keep thinking re: names ;)

Civic Solutions Initiative. Perhaps, “CSI New York”?

@TIm I’m only naming it CSI if we can go with Miami, and actually mean it.

Following the C3 concept, Center for Civic Collaboration or Center for Civic Coherence

Center for Civic Technologies
Civic Engagement Incubator
Public Collaboration Labs
Civic Technology Development

or variations thereof. You almost need four words to squeeze it in, but then it doesn’t roll off the tongue as well. I agree with Peter above that Labs is never outdated, even if he’s got a personal investment in the word ;-) Good for implying extremely cutting edge and even revolutionary, but not as good for implying solid delivery and organized objectives (however doesn’t imply the opposite).

Is TOPP Civic out of the question because it doesn’t stand alone apart from TOPP? I like the simplicity.

Also, an education-themed idea: Code For America (CFA).

“Code for America” is cool, but speaking as someone that does work for clients in New Zealand, Australia, and the US I think it might unnecessarily limit your market.

I think “Code for America” would be an excellent name for a project of the US government, but perhaps not for a group that might being doing work for any city that is interested.

I like the inverse of “Civic TOPP” that Elizabeth suggests even better than it. So my vote so far is “TOPP Civic”. Succinct and I think it works even when you don’t know what TOPP is. Plus “TC” was a great character on the BEST SHOW EVER!

@Elizabeth: Code for America is a like-minded organization that we are working closely with. They are in fact modeled after Teach for America – http://codeforamerica.org/

How about “Theological Underdogs of a Metaphysical Society” you could used TUMS for short.

seriously though… Anything with “group” or “solutions” sounds kind of “business-y” and stale to me…

Maybe try doing something a tad more metaphoric? Ya know, make people have think about it a little – rather than being so literal and spelling out all of your abilities right there in the name.. The idea of cultivation sounds promising… planting seeds, fertilizing the city…

or something dealing with progress could be good… forward movement… logical progression… adaptation…

OK, sorry for the pontification and lack of ACTUAL suggestions…

New Urban Toolbox (or is ‘tool’ a no-go for the US market?)
Civic Catalyst
Civic Works (kinda optimistically New Deal-ish)
Civic Code Crucible

I’m not sure that a “Lab”-type name will age too badly. But maybe you don’t want the skunkworks vibe Lab implies.

TOPP labs ∆ Department of Civic Engagement (DEC. pronounced “deck” as in wicked cool!)
TOPP labs ∆ Office of Civic Innovation (OSI. Yeah, there’s one of those around but it still sounds fracking rad!)
TOPP labs ∆ Chief Engagement Office or Civic Engagement Office (CEO, who doesn’t love those initials)

@Andrew Thanks. I appreciate your perspective on cutting edge vs. solid — very important aspect for us.

@Elizabeth: I’m pretty set on something that doesn’t include “TOPP”. Nice one on re-coining CfA! I’d say that validates their decision for sure.

@John Now you’re talking. My other thought was South Brooklyn Kings (SBK)

@fkh right, that’s exactly it. While “Labs” does still fit with our role incubating new projects, we want something that sounds a tad more official and stable.

@Noel: gotta love the acronym-based approach. If you can come up with something that spells out AWESOME, you get a t-shirt, independent of whatever name we end up with.

For those of you who I didn’t go to middle school with, Theological Underdogs of a Metaphysical Society (TUMS) was the name of our seventh grade band. We produced one “studio” (aka my basement) album and one live album, each of which consisted of the same three songs. @John is now busy making real music over at Brownstone Megaphone.

Civic Agency
Urban Software Laboratory
The Civic Organization
Agency of Civic Engagement
Hub
Urban Foundations

City (stands for, City Isn’t TOPP, Yo!)

@Fkh wins the prize for the first recursive acronym!

Following up on the idea of “urban software laboratory” — one of the suggestions that Michael gave me the other day was this:

Maybe just Civic _____ where the goal is to choose a second word that avoids an analogy to something out of our industry that will become dated, like Labs, or Foundry, or Studio. Does software have a place associated with it in its past that we could draw on for a name. Something like a lab or a workshop but not…

Which begs the question: what is the natural habitat of Software?

ACE – is fracking slayer doods!

AWESOME? too easy. i’ll even throw in a “the” so you can say “the awesome.”

the

Agency
With
Experimental or Experiential
Software
Of
Managed
Engagement

/me shakes his head

The key thing to naming for me is it should answer “What is it?” for the user. To me “what it is” is the TOPP team that works on civic solutions. So either:

TOPP Civic
or
TOPP Civic Solutions
or
Civic Solutions

Almost anything else listed (I admit it, I’ve only scanned) is actually a distraction from answering that key question from the user. It may be fun, but does it actually tell the user what they need to know?

Municipal Media Lab
Society For Hacking Society
Hacked Cities
Rethinking Cities
Civic Enablers
Solved Cities
New Citizenry
Civic Labs
Center for Civic Innovation
Civic Innovation
Re-centered Cities
Center for Social Innovation
Center for Civic Engagement
Empowered Civics
Citizens Empowered
Internet
CyberCitizens
Cyber Civics
Center For Cyber Civics
Connected Cities
Center for Connected Cities
The Civic Accelerator
Social Accelerators
Cyber City Labs
Reimagined Ciites
Electronic Engagement
Intercity Labs
New Cities Network
New City Network
New City Labs
Mediated Civics
City Media Mentors
Civic Media Makers
CyberSpace Planning
CyberSpace Cooperative
Cyber City Coop
New Civics Network
Social Engineering Services
Internetworked Cities
Connected Conscience

Tech Forward
Tech Public
Tech Publica
Civic Corps
Tech Civic
Open Progress

…
Just brainstorming. I like “corps” – I keep thinking you’re a modern-day army corps of engineers…Better infrastructure, but built by the brain. And, so funny that CFA already exists.

These are all really helpful ideas, so thanks everyone for the suggestions. I have some thoughts about how the name fits into the larger organization:

Many of these names could be surrounded with The _____ Group or something like that, but I’d highly recommend we don’t do that again (eg The Open Planning Project versus just Open Plans). Words like “group” or “project” are largely meaningless and immediately invite acronyms which then make the other parts of the name near meaningless too. I think this is also the problem with giving ourselves a long and extremely explicit name, it will inevitably become an acronym that is not explicit whatsoever. We should either be giving ourselves a name that makes us stand on our own (eg OpenGeo) or we don’t give ourselves a name at all and just float within the larger body of Open Plans. Otherwise, what’s the point of going through this effort to name and brand us as a unique entity?

If we want to be explicit about being a division of Open Plans, then maybe we can be _____ at/of Open Plans but only when necessary, eg “The Civic Agency of Open Plans” or “CivicForge at Open Plans”

My personal preference is that we stand on our own and only clarify our presence within the larger organization when necessary. I think this will help clarify our messaging and focus as a Civic Software entity. OpenGeo and Livable Streets have done this extremely well within their own audiences. If we always express our division as part of a larger entity, then we always have to explain the nuances of the larger entity and I think that often leads us to lose focus on the messaging of our specific niche.

It’s a pity that ‘open’ is somewhat a showstopper, because I think it embraces a lot of ideology behind your organization and perhaps the community-at-large.

‘Open Civic Technologies’ kind of has a ring to it, but if you didn’t want to keep the tech then how about ‘Open Civic Collaboration’?

@Philip’s CivicForge evokes sourceforge and other foundations of the open source community. It’s a good one!

You could also follow the Code for America convention but narrow it like ‘Code for Cities’ or ‘Code for Counties’. That might also imply a relationship between your organizations that goes beyond being peers, though.

Wow, thanks everybody, this is great.

@Phil’s suggestion is perhaps the most radical, and maybe also the least exciting for non TOPP-ers on this thread. But it is possible that simply fading back into the TOPP umbrella and letting each of our projects stand on its own might be the right approach, and might best embody the “TOPP as an incubator” idea.

@Andrew – I don’t think “open” is necessarily a showstopper, I guess I’m just trying to be careful w/ it, since we use it in so many of our initiatives. However, that might actually be a reason to just double down and go w/ it. I do agree that “open” is a critical part of our message and our work, so I wouldn’t want to take that all the way off the table re: names.

Maybe something like Open Civic Enterprises captures the spirit of TOPP(labs) as an incubator for new social enterprise initiatives?

@Brad, you are an animal.

At the end of the day, though, it’s going to be hard to pass up being known as “The AWESOME”. Nice work, @Noel.

Actually, by describing my preference to “stand on our own” I meant that Labs as a division would stand on it’s own (like OpenGeo and Livable Streets). The point I was trying to make was that name would not be tied to the larger organization, eg “TOPP Labs”

As a way to maintain a clear message, I would prefer something like Civic Agency rather than “The Civic Agency of Open Plans”

@Marty – thanks for keeping it real.

Keep it simple: Civic Software, Inc. Civicware.org. Civic is a great word.

Maybe Citizenware.org. You build citizenware.

Or consider doing something with this nice, under-used term:

Polis.

The ancient Greeks used Polis interchangeably to describe both the city/state and its citizens. Polis harkens back to the roots of democracy and self-governance, to my ear it has a slightly techy ring to it, and I haven’t really heard any big entity using it in the urban development or civic web space.

Polisware
Polisworks

You might also consider doing something with the word Agora, also another roots-of-democracy kind of term. The Athenian Agora was, literally, the social, political and material market place. It’s the original place for open assembly, discussion and exchange of goods, services and ideas. It’s literally the place where democracy started. Lower on my list, but…

Agora Software.
Agora Development
Agoraware
Agora Solutions

Also seriously consider that you guys have already come up with an outstanding brand name for yourselves: “Civic Hacker” is a great concept. TOPP already owns it in Google. Why not double down and build on that? Be the Civic Hackers Group. Or Civic Hacker, Inc for a little more of a businessy twist. The kinds of government agencies that are going to be willing to hire you in the first place aren’t likely to be scared away by that name. Talented do-gooder software developers will want to be part of that group. The public and press will be intrigued by that name. You get to define what it means to be a “Civic Hacker.”

Then, of course, you could also go with something like, “Developers Working on Whatever Mark Happens to Want to do This Month.org.” That might be the most accurate name to this point.

Keep it simple: Civic Software, Inc. Civicware.org. Civic is a great word.

Maybe Citizenware.org. You build citizenware.

Or consider doing something with this nice, under-used term:

Polis.

The ancient Greeks used Polis interchangeably to describe both the city/state and its citizens. Polis harkens back to the roots of democracy and self-governance, to my ear it has a slightly techy ring to it, and I haven’t really heard any big entity using it in the urban development or civic web space.

Polisware
Polisworks

You might also consider doing something with the word Agora, also another roots-of-democracy kind of term. The Athenian Agora was, literally, the social, political and material market place. It’s the original place for open assembly, discussion and exchange of goods, services and ideas. It’s literally the place where democracy started. Lower on my list, but…

Agora Software.
Agora Development
Agoraware
Agora Solutions

Also seriously consider that you guys have already come up with an outstanding brand name for yourselves: “Civic Hacker” is a great concept. TOPP already owns it in Google. Why not double down and build on that? Be the Civic Hackers Group. Or Civic Hacker, Inc for a little more of a businessy twist. The kinds of government agencies that are going to be willing to hire you in the first place aren’t likely to be scared away by that name. Talented do-gooder software developers will want to be part of that group. The public and press will be intrigued by that name. You get to define what it means to be a “Civic Hacker.”

Then, of course, you could also go with something like, “Developers Working on Whatever Mark Happens to Want to do This Month.org.” That might be the most accurate name to this point.

No, there’s more — it was just so deep that I’m still processing it… Seriously though, I think you make a good point about simplicity and also about the “Civic Hacker” brand. Polis and Agora are spot on in terms of meaning, probably a bit of a stretch for us in this case.

Tick, tock.

Just recently struggled with the naming problem for City Forward, which, granted, is a project rather than an organization — but I think some of the challenges are similar.

Have you considered uses of “metropolitan” or “metro”? Downside: sometimes too-closely associated with transit. Upside: can imply regional coverage greater than the city proper.

I’ve seen the word “collaboratory” tossed around — mostly in academic working groups. Bit buzzwordy, but it does condense a few ideas.

I like the “[project name] at [possibly rebranded organization name]” formula, but my concern is that “planning” and “plans”, while very meaningful to the folks here, is not immediately associated with urban planning to broader audiences. There are lots of kinds of planning and god forbid you associate yourself with the world of certified project management. (I kid, I kid, because I fear.)

What about bubbling up projects via descriptive, specific names and then qualifying that with an “at” non-specific, aspirational, more brand-like name for what was TOPP Labs? Best of both worlds. It’d be relatively easy to understand what the project is and who it comes from — but frees the-organization-formerly-known-as-TOPP-Labs from needing to define itself too narrowly. Room for future growth.

No matter what, this is a fun exercise. And a useful way of asking ourselves collectively just what the hell we think we’re doing.

@fkh While Civic Code Crucible is clearly the strongest, most heavy metal of all the suggestions, I think Civic Works is my favorite so far, but…

@Andrew Nicklin’s point about the value of Open is important, so what about Open Works?

@John I think we are definitely leaning towards some sort of [meaningfully-named project/product] -> [aspirational group/org name] kind of model. I think the biggest question is how many layers are appropriate — given the current arrangement, it would be [project] -> [new-topp-labs-as-incubator-group] -> TOPP. IMO, that’s probably too many layers. Even if that describes our internal structure, that’s probably not how we’d want to present it publicly.

I like the idea of having a quasi-public identity for [new-topp-labs]: less public than the present arrangement (i.e., no entire dedicated website), rather more of a translucent layer on top of individual initiatives.

So for example, I could see the Civic Hacker blog moving to http://civichacker.org, with light branding somewhere that says: The Civic Hacker. A project of [Alpha Code Werkz / New TOPP Labs] at The Open Planning Project. Then, the link to new-topp-labs goes back to an overview page at http://openplans.org/new-topp-labs. This is still the three-layer model, I guess, but one that frames [new-topp-labs] less as an organization in its own right, and more of an internal program.

Just thinking out loud here; I don’t have this totally figured yet. What feels most comfortable at the moment is a neither-black-nor-white approach to whether [new-topp-labs] is an outward facing initiative or just an internal group.

as a govie/govvy/gov-ee, i hate to say this, but you need to be careful with “hacking.” it’s like branding yourself as an insurgent, it WILL cut both ways and it will hurt at times. if you do go that route, make sure you have full body armor and a solid helmet.

@Noel – I agree with that. I don’t see us having “hacking” or “hacker” in the official name. Do you think maintaining the Civic Hacker blog would have the same effect? I kinda think not, and I like it for its dev cred.

Was thinking that we need to open up the language a little here. What you guys do is to make the city easier to use. Sorta turbocharge access to it.

WARNING: Unedited brain dump coming..

– Civic Layer Lab
– Urban Upcoding Project
– Hyper Planning LTD
– Urban Coding
– The Functional City Project
– Code to Action
– Coding the City
– Coding for a New City
– Civisimplify
– CivicCode
– ThinkCity
– MakeCity
– Urban Data Insitute
– SimpleCivic
– AHHHH! I can’t think of any more
– Civic Idea Center
– PlaceCoders
– CivicInfo
– Urban Information
– Urban Layer Makers
– EasyCiv
– The Layered City Project
– The Community Layer Lab
– Unicorn Rainbow Code Nursery.
– I’m out.

Jeff

if you’re looking for some bad ass street street cred, i would have a blog titled “the journal of civic hacking” or “civic hacking quarterly”