The business case for social media within a government department

Brought to my attention by the Victorian eGovernment Resource Centre, the below video from Shel Holzman provides an excellent summary of the value of social media as an set of egovernment tools within government intranets.

It addresses common misunderstandings and myths that have limited take-up, case studies of successful social media use and talks through appropriate applications for different tools.

Shel's video should be compulsory viewing for senior public sector executives who have an interest in improving the capture and dissemination of knowledge within their workplace, reduce the knowledge drain as babyboomers exit the workforce or improving their project management capacity and success rate.

By the way, Shel's regular podcast, The Hobson & Holtz Report, was to have a live phone in on 21 August discussing the topic of my blog post, the relationship between a strong commitment to internal communications and an effective intranet.

This has been postponed until 20 September, in case you want to catch it. The timing is tricky for Australians and New Zealanders, but it will be available on their site after the event.

Read full post...

View summary...

Case study - helping employees help each other via Intranet social networking

Prescient Digital Media has published a case study on the adoption and success of Intranet social networking and other Web 2.0 technologies at Sabre, the company that runs most of the world’s airline flight reservation systems.

Sabre custom-built a solution that supports employees in discovering and sharing information between staff, leading to six-figure direct cost savings and improving the information flows throughout the organisation.

In fact the solution was so effective (with over 90% of staff now participating) that Sabre packaged their custom solution and are now selling it to other organisations.

Read full post...

View summary...

Survey on Intranet use/adoption of Web 2.0 technologies

James Robertson of Step Two Designs has posted about a survey being conducted by Prescient Digital Media exploring intranet use and adoption plans for Web 2.0 technologies.

To participate and receive a copy of the aggregate results (plus a chance to win a US$400 prize) complete the short (10 minute) survey.

Read full post...

View summary...

Government must follow the rules when engaging communities online

As a law-maker, governments are often more attuned to making the laws and being in the position of controlling and defining the terms of engagement with communities.

Agencies and departments often consult external stakeholders, but on their own terms - choosing the place, the medium and the scope of discussions.

There's good reasons for this, an organism - or organisation - that is in control of its environment feels safer and can manage the depth and cost of engagements.

However, when engaging with existing communities online, government agencies need to be aware that they do not control the ground rules, and must respect and follow the rules of the community to be respected and accepted in return.

This means being able and willing to have authentic conversations, steering clear of defensive behaviour, using clear and simple language, listening actively and not shying away from difficult conversations.

Fortunately there are no shortage of guides for working with communities online as companies often have as much difficulty in engaging as do government agencies.

One such guide was posted recently at the Aussie Bloggers Blog, It's just like a party, providing 13 tips for effective engagement in online forums.

It provides a useful framework for public engagement in the medium.

Read full post...

View summary...

Online collaboration article from Step Two

Cairo Walker of Step Two Designs has written an excellent article on collaboration, looking at the use of digital tools and approaches to facilitating adoption within organisations.

Entitled Collaboration: leading by example, the article includes a case study on the World Wildlife Fund detailing how a not-for-profit organisation can productively implement collaboration tools that meet the needs of staff.

Read full post...

View summary...

Online engagement - learning from the private sector

A few months ago a PR agency representing the National Australia Bank (NAB) made a series of comments on AFL blogs advertising NAB services.

This incident has been discussed in publications such as Marketing Magazine, NAB spamming: maybe it's time to take dance lessons and Crickey, NAB spams blogs to spruik its SMS banking, which confirmed that the approach was endorsed by the NAB. From the Crikey article,

NAB media relations spokesperson Felicity Glennie-Holmes confirmed that the message was indeed from the bank. The idea to spam the comments sections of private blogs was a recommendation of PR agency Cox+Inall, part of the BWM group, and had been undertaken by Cox+Inall with the bank’s full knowledge and approval.

Cox+Inall had searched for blogs that included AFL coverage and were “well-enough read to attract readers who might be interested in our offer,” said Ms Glennie-Holmes. No-one at NAB or at Cox+Inall had considered approaching blog owners first for permission before posting their promotional messages, she said.

“Blogs are a public forum”, said Ms Glennie-Holmes. NAB and Cox+Inall felt this meant commercial interests could feel free to contribute unsolicited and irrelevant commercial material as comments, placing the onus on blog moderators to reject or delete unwanted comments.

Crikey's article went on to point out that the NAB had a strong anti-spamming message on its website, which did not seem to apply to how the bank chose to engage with others.


The incident has created a great deal of concern across the blogging community and a number of people I have spoken have lowered their view of the NAB.

An example of the backlash is this Youtube video looking at how NAB would feel if people came onto NAB property to advertise their own services. It's cheap and grainy - but the point is clear, respect the rights of others in their own spaces.

Bloggers have also contacted NAB directly to complain about this incident and a recorded interview was published online, as reported by Better Communications Results, StewArtMedia and NAB’s comment spam.


What can be learnt from this
I believe there are a couple of things communications professionals can learn from the NAB's experience.

Understand the channel and medium before engaging
The view of the NAB was that blogs were public forums, available for commercial comment.
In this case I feel that the NAB did not initially build a strong understanding of the online channel and consider how the medium of blogs actually function.

While blogs are available publicly, they are usually owned by a single individual and operated in a highly personal way. Just as people would take offense if an advertiser came into their home and started talking to their family and friends about a commercial offering, blog owners are proprietory about their blogs and need to be approached and engaged in an appropriate way.

This applies equally for an situation where an organisation engages with someone else's online property - be it a blog, forum or chatroom.

It is important for the organisation to take the time to understand the appropriate ground rules for the venue, consult appropriately and engage with the full agreement of the site operator.

Respect others
Respecting others is part of the social 'glue' that holds civilisation together. By stepping into someone's space and shouting a message an organisation, or individual, can be demonstrating a lack of respect.

While the internet is a public service, and blogs and forums publicly accessible, they still have rules of engagement - just like a public event.

An organisation seeking to engage within the online medium needs to spend the time observing to understand the social rules and codes of conduct before diving in.

This demonstrates respect for others and demonstrably changes the reception the organisation will receive.


Online engagement must add value
In this case the NAB posted commercial messages unlinked to the discussions taking place in the blog.

There did not appear to be any planning or thought around building credibility with the audience or adding value with the comments.

For organisations engaging online it is not sufficient to rely on the branding and established reputation in other mediums. Organisations need to think about what they bring to the forum or blog and what value they add to the conversation.

An organisation that provides adds value to the online conversation (speaking with), rather than advertising (speaking to) will build credibility and gain opportunities to communicate its message in more engaging ways - thereby being more successful.

Use an honest voice
In the NAB incident, a PR agency posted the comments - and they were posted anonymously, not as an official representation of the NAB.

When engaging online if you want to be taken seriously as an organisation you must represent yourself as who you are. Use an honest and real voice, advertising agencies can only take you so far, organisations will achieve far greater credibility and cut through if it is an actual representative of the organisation making the posts, using their true voice (not pre-processed PR statements).

This is very hard for organisations to understand, given the formal nature of engagement in other mediums - the best example is to think of the online channel as talkback radio and engage accordingly.


In conclusion
Thre's a lot of material available in print and online discussing the right and wrong approaches to online engagement. Most of it follows the same general theme as my points above, understand the medium, be respectful of others, add value to the conversation and use an honest voice.

Take advantage of this when developing your online engagement strategy and you'll avoid many of the mistakes organisations first face when making a decision to use the online channel actively.

Read full post...

View summary...

The strategic benefits and risks of permeable boundaries for government websites

In the 'old days' before the internet, the boundaries of government reports, brochures, fact sheets, policy statements and other discrete documents were hard and unyielding.

While a document might feature several attributed quotes and some purchased stock art, all of the content was owned by the organisation that created it. This was a logical approach given the mediums available.

The first government websites followed the same approach. Each was a discrete island containing its own text, images, maps and code. The only enhancement was to link to other websites (sometimes wrapped in a warning that people were leaving one silo to enter another).

Today the internet has matured further as a medium and we have seen a thaw in this approach, albeit an uneven one.

Many government websites (but not all) have discarded their warnings on leaving the site. Some sites now effectively cross-link between knowledge centres, regardless of which departmental or private sector site they live within.

I've even seen some sites embed external functionality, such as Google Maps or Youtube videos, and a few allow other sites to reuse or embed government information or functionality through RSS or other means.

I am very glad to see this shift from rigid to permeable boundaries occurring. It provides a number of strategic benefits for government.


Strategic benefits of permeability

• Greater reach
  Just as governments site their customer-facing offices in high traffic areas to improve reach, in the online channel government must have presence in appropriate sites.
  With permeable boundaries government can be where people choose to congregate, in social networks such as MySpace or Facebook, or media sites such as NineMSN.
  
  
• Reduced duplication (information/effort)
  With permeable boundaries there is less effort required in re-inventing the wheel. Government agencies can embed publicly available tools in their sites and link to pre-existing information repositories.
  This allows the government to focus on filling the gaps where there are currently no tools or information rather than wasting money on replicating what already exists.
  
  
• Improved awareness and trust
  Research demonstrates that people trust who their friends trust - word-of-mouth is a key influencer of decisions and behaviour.
  Permeable boundaries allow government organisations to become part of the network of friends. By engaging openly across existing communities over time this integrates government with these communities, making them a trusted member rather than an aloof outsider.
  

How to build permeable boundaries

These are quick thoughts on easy ways to start turning rigid into permeable boundaries.

• Provide your media releases via RSS/Atom and promote them with your key partners.
  
  
• Display audio-visual material using popular mediums, for example using Youtube for video, Slideshare for powerpoint slides, Scribd for documents.
  
  
• Use existing third-party tools to deliver key features rather than building new tools, for example using Google Maps for map-based functions, Google for website search, Weather.com for weather information, Blogger or Wordpress for in-site blogs and Footytips for an internal football tipping competition.
  
  
• Use Govdex to develop an extranet to share information with trusted strategic partners.
  
  
• Engage officially with existing online communities where there is clear benefit for doing so, for instance with online forums related to your area of business, with appropriate social networks and industry groups.
  
  
• Build an appropriate and managed presence in a virtual world, such as Second Life.

And manage all these online initiatives, just as your agency would manage a new shopfront or service. Online engagement isn't tick-a-box, it requires ongoing commitment to succeed.

Read full post...

View summary...

Why can one man in a cave out-communicate the government of the world's superpower?

There was an interesting admission from the US Army Secretary last week in Inside Defense as reported in the Wired Danger Room Blog,

Senior Army leaders have fallen behind the breakneck development of cheap
digital communications including cell phones, digital cameras and Web 2.0
Internet sites such as blogs and Facebook, Army Secretary Pete Geren said at a
trade conference on July 10. That helps explain how "just one man in a cave
that's hooked up to the Internet has been able to out-communicate the greatest
communications society in the history of the world -- the United States," Geren
said.

"It's a challenge not only at home, it's a challenge in recruiting, it's a challenge internationally, because effective communication brings people over to our side and ineffective communication allows the enemy to pull people to their side," Geren continued. He said the Army brass needs to catch up -- fast. But how exactly?

One solution: "Find a blog to be a part of," Geren said.

Young people embrace social media "as a fluent second language," he added. Army leaders have to do the same.

The article went on to describe some of the initiatives underway at the US Army to help it prepare for the new world - including adding blogging to their graduate school curriculum and allowing a tiny office of Web-savvy mavericks at West Point to create Army-specific Web 2.0 tools (blogs, forums, social networks) for soldiers.

At the same time the US Air Force is using blogs, wikis and personal profile pages to better support its missions, per a Network World article, U.S. Air Force lets Web 2.0 flourish behind walls.

I expect that the Australian armed forces are watching and learning from our US counterparts. The online channel can deliver major benefits to the training and operations of a defense force.

Read full post...

View summary...

Do government departments have the right to refuse to engage citizens via the online channel?

Let’s assume you work for a government body that is deeply involved in highly contentious issues - issues that are very interesting (and frustrating) to communities both online and offline. Let’s also assume that your organization has very little chance of changing the fundamental policies and procedures that frame these issues in the public’s eyes.

...is it worth the effort to launch a blog or similar long term initiative if your comment fields will get filled with criticism, claims that your social media work is simply parroting or reinforcing your traditional media work, or growing references to critical reports, video clips and commentary that undermines the very point you were trying to make...

The extract above from a article in CanuckFlack titled Is a bad blog better than no blog at all? reflects a decision my agency is grappling with at the moment.

Many other government communicators across the globe are facing a similar choice - is it better to join online conversations, or avoid opening a Pandora's box of backlash?


Is this the right question for public servants to be asking?

My view is that we need to revisit the role of government agencies - which I characterise in its most basis form as to carry out the will of the elected government on behalf of citizens and the community.

If a government agency is tasked with implementing contentious legislation or programs then it is the role of that agency to build community understanding and engagement in order to best fulfil the requirements of the government.

This involves understanding and addressing community concerns, communicating and collaborating widely with stakeholders and the community and helping those affected to meet the legislative requirements by providing the tools and support they need.

Citizens need to understand what is expected of them and why, and have avenues to have their views heard and addressed by the agency within the limits of the legislation in place.

This role is not limited to the channels most comfortable to the agency - it needs to reach citizens in the channels most comfortable to them, within the resourcing restrictions placed on the agency.

If we trust the research we find,

• many Australian citizens use the online channel on a daily basis, some engaging with it to a greater extent than any other mass medium, including television - according to Nielsen Online’s 10th Australian Internet and Technology Report (PDF media release).

• Australian citizens would prefer to engage with government online rather than via any other channel, including phone - as found in AGIMO's report Australians' Use of and Satisfaction with e-Government Services – 2007.
  

So if online is one of the most used medium for Australian citizens, and the avenue of choice for engaging with Australian government, the channel needs appropriate weighting in resourcing and use by agencies.

There are issues remaining to be addressed - the speed of agency change, the scarcity of appropriate expertise and the cost required to implement this engagement.

But these are operational issues, we should have moved beyond the strategic question of whether the online channel is appropriate for government to use.

So my question becomes, not should we open Pandora's box, but rather:

Do we, as government departments, have the right to refuse to engage citizens via the online channel?

Read full post...

View summary...

How management beliefs inhibit egovernment

I've met people who consider their online communities and online friends as significant and real influences on their lives.

I've met others who regard online communities as some kind of crutch for a few lonely people with limited social skills.

This is often characterised as a generational gap, shaped by how people see themselves in context of digital technologies;

• those born before widespread internet use are more likely to be 'digital immigrants'
• those who grew up in a connected world are more likely to be 'digital natives'

This division is significant for organisational management. It shapes the underlying beliefs, assumptions, culture and therefore strategy, policy and behaviours around internet use.

For example, a group of senior executives I worked with a number of years ago were avidly interested in technology and thought of themselves as in tune with the modern world.

However when presented with the concept of an online forum for their customers, they were extremely unwilling to take the risk of having negative feedback posted about their company.

They saw this as a major risk - many customers were already complaining about their company via other online forums, which were totally outside their control.

Their initial decision was to either prohibit any comments on their forum that could be construed as negative, or to not have a forum at all.

It took several months to help the group understand that if they did constrain the participants in this way the forum would not be credible.

It took about as long to convince them that if they decided to not have a forum then others would fill the gap and the organisation would have no effective online channel to present their side of the story.

The organisation eventually gave the go-ahead to experiment with a forum - which my organisation managed and moderated. Other than screening for language and tone, no censorship of customer sentiment took place.

There were negative comments made. These were responded to with objective and factual information about the organisation's approach and how the matters raised were or would be addressed.

This approach helped turn several of the most vocal objectors into supporters of the company. It also allowed the organisation to uncover several easy, but important improvements that helped many other customers (who probably would never have bothered complaining, but would have changed suppliers).

The organisation now operates a number of extremely popular and successful forums and blogs and conducts much of its business online.

It has changed its mental model of the online world, and this has helped them better understand and meet their customers' needs.

Many organisations have not made this leap as yet, and some are in the process of doing it.

Where does your department sit?

Read full post...

View summary...

Promoting innovation - how can government tap Australia's creativity?

This post has been inspired by a post in the blog Here Comes Everybody, titled Gin, Television and Social Surplus. I strongly suggest that you also read this and think about the ramifications.

With the globe's total knowledge doubling every two years, being innovative is not longer simply an economic advantage for nations - it's a vital factor in their survival into the future.

Therefore fostering innovation should be (and fortunately is) high on the agenda for Australian governments.

However tapping creativity is not easy to do. Most organisations and institutions tend to have a love/hate relationship with innovation, seeking to foster it, but also seeking to direct and control it - resisting any potential paradigm-shifting changes that might spoil their plans.

There's an AIM breakfast briefing coming up in Canberra on 26 August featuring Mr Terry Moran AO, Secretary, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, to discuss fostering innovation in the public sector.

I want to instead explore one way that Australia's governments can tap into the creativity and innovative capacity of all our citizens for the public good.

To achieve this I have to first diverge slightly, to look at what the innovation potential of Australia might be.

Wikipedia
Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia in the world.

The English version of Wikipedia, as at July 2008, featured more than 2.4 million articles consisting of a total of over 1 billion words. The full Wikipedia is substantially larger - with figures from April 2008 indicating it had over 10 million articles in 253 languages.

These figures, reported in Wikipedia itself, represent over 100 million hours of human thought and creative effort - all contributed freely.

Australian internet usage
As of March 2008, the average Australian watched 13.3 hours of television and used the internet for 13.7 hours per week, according to Nielsen Online’s 10th Australian Internet and Technology Report (PDF media release) - By the way, this is the first time internet usage has exceeded television usage in Neilsen's research.

Based on a population of 21.5 million Australians, the time spent using the internet equals 15,136,600,000 hours per year - or over 15 billion hours (using American billions).

If Australians decided to spend all of this online time recreating Wikipedia, it would take them the equivalent of three days to create the entire 10 million pages - assuming they started with just the basis Wiki software.

Another way of looking at this is that Australians could in a year create over 150 Wikipedias, simply using the time they are now spending communicating, collaborating, creating and interacting online.

As a contrast - the time Australians spend watching television generates no creative value whatsoever. Television watching is a passive activity that does not involve the creation of any content - it will never result in a Wikipedia or any other creative value.

Fortunately television watching is in decline, while internet usage is climbing quickly.


Tapping Australia's creativity
One way for government to tap the innovation potential of Australians would be to provide the tools and motivation for citizens to interact creatively with government online.

This includes approaches such as

• Collective policy development such as the New Zealand wiki Police Act, as I have previously discussed
  
  
• Providing social service forums, where people can share information and collaborate on the development of online and physical products to help others
  
  
• Making public data available online in raw forms that citizens can 'mash-up' into useful information and services and share
  
  
• eDemocracy initiatives - such as virtual town halls for individuals to interact with their representatives, voting and think-tank forums, where hundreds of thousands of citizens - not just a select 1,000 - can interact, engage and formulate ideas and strategies to enhance Australia's future.

Australia's governments have the ability right now to provide the framework and the opportunity for Australians to meaningfully engage in these, and other, ways.

Other governments are already providing some or all of these services, and are reaping the benefits.

Do Australian governments have the will and culture to step into these areas?

Are they willing to take a risk, allow citizens to share control, open themselves to criticism (which is already out there anyway)?

Assuming Australian governments are willing to take this risk, if, as a result of these initiatives, we capture just one hour per week of Australians' current internet usage, that would be equivalent to Australia creating 11 Wikipedias each year.

That's an enormous amount of creativity unleashed in the public interest.


What do you think?

Read full post...

View summary...

What should egovernment focus on?

There's a great article up on BuzzMachine titled Google as the new press room.

It makes the point that newspapers are in the content business, not the printing and distribution or website business.

As such they should focus on what they do well (create excellent content) and outsource the non-core activities.

The specific example is to have Google, or someone like AP, provide the technology platform and allow newspapers to focus on providing content.

This philosophy applies for government as well.

In the public sector we seem to invest a great deal of money into creating new websites in order to deliver content to different stakeholder groups - I'm guilty of this approach as well.

However what does government really do well, and what do we do badly?

Firstly I'd go out on a limb and say that we do websites really badly. Most Australian government websites function differently, using different content management platforms, different technology platforms and different workflows.

The quality, structure and depth of content varies widely, as does design and the use of different enabling technologies such as Flash, AJAX and Livecycle, blogs, wikis, forums and RSS.

Realistically, across government, we could have a single web content management platform, with appropriate enabling technologies usable by any agency - including a consistent search tool and reporting system (imagine being able to see how all government websites were performing side by side!)

A central design team could provide web quality assurance - enabling agencies control over their distinctive look, but preserving a common high level of usability and accessibility.

A centralised editorial team could provide oversight for information quality and depth, allowing departments to focus on being content matter experts.

A central transactions and forms/workflows team could oversee the development of agency forms - ensuring they use consistent terminology, provide contextual support and make it as easy as possible for citizens to interact with the government.

This would allow government departments to focus on what they do best - provide specific customer services, be content matter and policy experts.

Sounds like a pipe dream?

I'm seeing the fringes of this starting now. The central DHS Letters and Forms Secretariat, AGOSP with it's single sign-on, Smartforms and geolocational services, AGIMO's existing GovDex wiki and Funnel Back search solutions.

These are all pieces in the overall puzzle.

The challenge moving forward is to overcome departmental silos, satisfy the interest groups and provide a robust centralised framework with sufficient funding and support to bring it all together.

It's a vision with enormous benefits for citizens and for governments. It just requires people in government to share the big vision and drive it forward.

Read full post...

View summary...

How authentic are government communicators?

Are government communicators - and their agencies - perceived as authentic?

If you believe the Authentic Enterprise report from the Arthur W. Page society, this is one of the most critical questions for government in the digital age.

The report looks at three converging trends for corporate and government communications in the 21st society,

1. The digital network economy
   "...providing interlinked, low cost (even free) and easy-to-use ways to communicate, to publish and to broadcast, to work and to organize people with common interests. This is driving a shift in the way people interact with each other and with companies and institutions. It changes how dialogue occurs, how perceptions are shaped and how relationships are forged."
   
   
2. The reality of a global economy
   "Free trade agreements, the Internet and the emergence of highly skilled populations in developing regions have created a “flat world.” This is reshaping the footprint – and even the idea – of the corporation. It’s shifting from a hierarchical, monolithic, multinational model to one that is horizontal, networked and globally integrated."
   
   
3. The appearance and empowerment of myriad new stakeholders:
   "...there is now a diverse array of communities, interests, nongovernmental organizations and individuals. Many of these new players represent important interests, while others are not legitimate stakeholders, but rather simply adversarial or malicious.
   Regardless of motive, all are far more able to collaborate among themselves around shared interests and to reach large audiences.
   

The consequence of these changes, as outlined in the report, is that organisations no longer hold the power in the information/communication relationship with their customers - and it's visible to everyone when 'the emperor has no clothes'.

As it states in the report,

"The quality of the company’s products and services (or lack thereof) is apparent to all customers and potential customers. Its treatment of employees and retirees is visible across the corporation and to potential employees and public interest groups. Its citizenship, environmental behavior, corporate governance standards, executive compensation practices and public policy recommendations are transparent to all."

The upshot is that public and private organisations that wish to continue to thrive need to rethink their approach in a holistic way, not simply shifting their externally communications messages, but making authentic and lasting changes in how they conduct business, deliver customer service, treat staff and address environmental and governance issues.


What does this specifically mean for government communicators?

I've already begun exploring this topic in previous posts - we're already seeing greater online scrutiny and more information available on government agencies in channels that agencies have limited influence or control over.

Over time it will become increasingly important for departments or senior public officials to walk their talk every time, as any differences between message and reality will become more obvious and widely known, potentially creating embarrassment and more for governments or the individuals involved.

Where message and action are not consistent PR issues will arise faster, from unexpected angles and potentially do lasting damage to the credibility of government agencies and the government of the day.

That's not an epitaph any government communicator should like to have.


So what can government agencies do?

There's an opportunity right now for government agencies to join the online conversations, establish credibility (being government isn't automatic credibility anymore) and become an opinion leader, rather than an opinion victim.

While government communicators cannot control these discussions, we can at least ensure we're in the loop, able to explain misunderstandings before they spiral out of control and correct agency mistakes before they become damaging.

This does mean making hard decisions - comment approvals cannot take weeks, the audience's language must be used rather than jargon and bureaucratise, honesty and authenticity are paramount, to the extent of admitting (and rectifying) mistakes and, as the biggest kid on the block, government agencies have to play very gently or be perceived as bullies.

The alternative is for government communicators to fall back on the old approach - make no comment, only engage via 'official' channels and hope the storms that arise will blow over.

There are examples already of how poorly this has worked for organisations elsewhere in the world.


How to take action

• Search for mentions of your agency on the internet and discover some of the centres of discussion and debate. Gauge their tone and approach and whether they would welcome official representation, familiarise yourself with the appropriate way to write for the audience.
• Prepare internal policies on online engagement - how should your organisation react to or address negative blog or forum posts?
• Prepare an engagement strategy that provides the flexibility to communicate the facts, with as little spin as possible, then get it approved and get involved in the discussion.
  

Read full post...

View summary...

How would you start out sourcing social networking tools?

I've been looking around at some of the interesting social networking tools that are coming onto the market, such as Webjam, for some that could be rapidly implemented within our firewall.

I apply some fairly rigorous criteria. Any system must:

1. Meet W3C, Federal, Department and Agency web standards
2. Support at least AA accessibility (and preferably AAA)
   
3. Meet our ICT requirements for interoperability, stability, bandwidth use and technology platform
4. Integrate with our identification system
5. Be server lite
6. Track usage by user
   

For blog platforms, they must also:

1. Support both individual and team blogs
2. Allow us to centrally control who can set up a blog
3. Be template based
4. Support WYSYWG editing
5. Integrate with an image management tool
6. Support comment moderation (on or off)
7. Incorporate email as well as RSS/ATOM notifications

For wiki/collaborative group platforms, they must also:

1. Allow us to centrally control who can set up a wiki
   
2. Be template based
3. Support WYSYWG editing
4. Integrate an image management tool
5. Incorporate email as well as RSS/ATOM notifications

For forums, they must also:

1. Support multiple admin and moderation levels (discussion/forum/global)
2. Allow us to centrally control who can set up a forum or discussion group
   
3. Be template based
4. Support WYSYWG editing
5. Incorporate email as well as RSS/ATOM notifications
6. Support both threaded and unthreaded discussions

There's some other criteria as well, but I don't have them immediately in front of me.

Fortunately I've found Jeremiah Owyang's post on a List of “White Label” or “Private Label” (Applications you can Rebrand) Social Networking Platforms

The good news - it lists around 80 'white-label' social networking products available in the market.

The bad news - it's now 12 months old. More than half of the products on the list are likely to have disappeared or changed names, and there's likely to be double that number of new players (again like Webjam).

So I'm now thinking about my best course in finding a product that is stable, reliable, and will be in the market for at least a few years - at a low price point with great functionality.

Any pointers?

Read full post...

View summary...

Useful introductory resources for social media

I'm on a bit of a social media kick this weekend due to all the fantastic resources I've found on the topic in the last several days.

I wanted to flag a couple of these in particular that I found useful, and may be useful for others.

My first great find was a CIO magazine article from May this year, Enterprise 2.0 - What is it good for? (A 12-step guide to getting the most out of Web 2.0 tools and making it safe-for-purpose).

This article provides a good step-by-step approach to getting your toes wet in the social media space, starting with creating a Web 2.0 strategy, getting buy-in from all Senior Management (as it's not simply a technology decision), establishing ownership, developing appropriate policies, monitoring and response times.


The seond resource was the Cook & Hopkins Social Media Report - 3rd edition.

As a free online resource this is an enormously valuable tool for establishing a basic understanding of some of the social media options out there. If you're new to the area, or need to provide information to someone who is, this resource can provide a good starting point.

Read full post...

View summary...