Posts
The Centre for Policy Development, a non-partisan Australian think tank, has released the Upgrading Democracy Edition of Insight, their enewsletter.
With a foreword by Minister Lindsay Tanner and articles from Senator Kate Lundy and Gov 2.0 Taskforce member Martin Stewart-Weeks - amongst a set of other fantastic essays, I recommend reading this Insight to gain a clearer picture of the Australian Government's vision for Gov 2.0 and how it can be put into practice.
It is jam-packed with Gov 2.0 information that's both useful for experienced practitioners and for newcomers, as well as for senior agency leadership.
It is free to read and has been released under a Creative Commons license to make it easy to share.
Showing posts with label online. Show all posts
Showing posts with label online. Show all posts
Friday, November 27, 2009
Great read on Gov 2.0 in Australia - Upgrading Democracy (foreword by Minister Tanner) | Tweet |
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Dealing with video accessibility - automating captions and transcripts | Tweet |
I found out last week that Google had recently integrated YouTube with Google's speech-text technology, allowing videos displayed on YouTube to have their captions and transcripts automatically generated.
In addition, these captions and transcripts can then be translated, via Google's text translation system, and displayed on the video in any supported language.
The transcript can also be downloaded (and corrected if necessary) to be reused in other environments.
Whilst Google admits that neither the speech-to-text autocaptioning or the translation tool are perfect, these are measurable steps forward in using computing power to address accessibility in videos.
It also is a powerful tool for any organisation with video footage - even for internal use. They can simply upload video to YouTube in a private channel, have it auto-transcribed - correct this as required and then translate the material as necessary, then remove the video from YouTube and use the translated material internally.
More information on this tool is available at YouTube's blog in the post, Automatic captions in YouTube and I've embedded their demo video below.
Monday, November 23, 2009
APSC releases Protocols for online media participation | Tweet |
The APSC has replaced its Interim protocols for online media participation (released December 2008) with Circular 2009/6: Protocols for online media participation.
The new Circular is briefer than its predecessor, going further than I had expected, making it clear in no uncertain tones that (my bold in the quote below),
Web 2.0 provides public servants with unprecedented opportunities to open up government decision making and implementation to contributions from the community. In a professional and respectful manner, APS employees should engage in robust policy conversations.This guidance is followed by a set of ground rules - which are consistent with the practice of many other organisations. You can read them in the Circular.
Equally, as citizens, APS employees should also embrace the opportunity to add to the mix of opinions contributing to sound, sustainable policies and service delivery approaches. Employees should also consider carefully whether they should identify themselves as either an APS employee or an employee of their agency.
In case your agency need to consider the Circular within the APS code, the APSC says that,
The guidance has been incorporated into chapters 3 and 15 of APS Values and Code of Conduct in practice: A guide for APS employees and Agency Heads. This publication assists APS employees to understand the practical application of the APS Values and Code of Conduct in both common and unusual circumstances. It also provides advice for agency heads in establishing policies and procedures that promote the APS Values and ensure compliance with the Code. A revised edition of the publication is now available on the Commission’s website at www.apsc.gov.au/ethics/publications.html.
With the "can I/Can't I" of online participation now much clearer, the next step for agencies is to ensure they put the best possible social media participation guidance in place to address any grey areas.
If your agency wants to consider some examples of best practice social media policies, there are over a hundred examples at Social Media Governance.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Positive and practical examples of online government engagement initiatives | Tweet |
I was chatting with friends on Twitter the other day regarding how useful it would be for Australian government to see positive and practical examples of online government engagement initiatives.
With fortunately timing, Crispin of Bang the Table recently posted about a new report from the US based Public Agenda's Centre for Advancement in Public Engagement which provides a number of examples of effective public sector online engagement initiatives from around the world.
The report also has some practical principles for constructing an online engagement strategy.
View the post, and the report, at Promising Practices in Online Engagement.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Learning from the online missteps of the private sector | Tweet |
Web Strategist Jeremiah Owyang recently wrote about some of the latest social media 'reversals' experienced by companies, and has previously published a chronology of,
companies that were blind-sided by the internet, they didn’t understand the impacts of the power shift to the participants, or how fast information would spread, or were just plain ignorant.There's no public sector organisations listed - however it's not much of a stretch to believe that many government departments are vulnerable to public damage in similar ways.
Note that in most cases the damage is caused by a lack of effective engagement, not from engaging - which some could conclude leads to a situation where not engaging online is significantly more risky than engaging.
A comment on Jeremiah's blog by Kersten Kloss sums it up for me (just replace 'company' with 'department':
Companies can no longer afford to avoid the social web as a communications medium. They need to become involved in it, to engage in the online world and mingle with their clients and peers. If you truly believe you are the best at what you do then you have nothing to fear by opening up to the social web. Allow yourself to be more transparent. Lead the rest by sharing yourself and offering assistance to others, even if that free assistance gives away some of your proprietary secrets.I often wonder how often non-engagement risk is considered in government programs alongside engagement risks.
If you can’t then you need to look deep inside your organization and fix a far more challenging issue, your stagnancy as an organization.
Or how often a clever, inventive and funny response is considered as a way to soften and mitigate an already existing situation. For example, EA's reply to the 'Jesus shot' bug reported and widely discussed online in a Tiger Wood's golf game - in the video below.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Melbourne OpenAustralia HackFest coming up on 26 September - sign-up now | Tweet |
OpenAustralia is holding its second HackFest in Melbourne on Saturday 26 September and is inviting programmers, designers and interested people to attend.
Details of the event are over at Anyvite.
If you're interested in going along, RSVP by 23 September as they are limited to 30 spots.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Learning to speak and listen to the language of the internet | Tweet |
Speaking with the locals can be one of the most rewarding - and most frustrating - experiences when traveling to foreign-language countries.
If you make an attempt at their language - no matter how feeble - they will generally respect your efforts and go out of their way to be helpful.
However if you simply try to speak with them in your own language or, worst of all, shout at them in your tongue, you may be snubbed or disrespected.
How are these examples relevant to government?
When government departments go online they often continues speaking in their native tongue - using 'govvie speak' - which often uses different words and definitions than everyday speech.
This usually isn't a deliberate attempt to obfuscate. Often departments are trying to communication well, spelling complex meanings out clearly and precisely.
Generally career public servants, public sector lawyers and specialist communicators work hard to find exactly the right words to communicate what their department wishes to say.
So where can this go wrong?
After highly skilled professionals slave over website content, which is then approved by senior public officials, there is often no step to get approval from the highest authority of all.
The 'average' punter - the person reading (and hopefully understanding) the message.
Most communicators understand that if their message isn't coded in a way their audience understands they will be ignored or viewed as less credible.
When delivering fixed length communication pieces, such as advertisements or publications, extensive audience testing is often used to ensure that the message is clear and effective.
To use govvie speak, this testing is a risk mitigation strategy to assert that the contents of a communications piece are widely understood and resonate with the target demographic, thereby achieving an effective policy or program outcome for the government, the department, and for the public purse.
Or, in plain language, testing makes ads work.
How often do we in government test every line of a website's content to make sure it is understandable to its audience in itself and within the context of the entire website?
Even when we do test, how often do we impose layers of approvals after testing?
These can turn a piece of plain language into a swamp containing patches of govvie speak quicksand, which the average punter can easily get swallowed up in.
Of course testing won't take us all the way. Generally there isn't time or resources to test every line of a website in context.
We have to rely on employing professional writers who understand our audience and speak their language. And then we need to trust them and leave their words alone.
As government engages further with the internet, moving from 'look at me' websites to listening and conversing with the public, we need to 'mitigate the risk of audience dislocation, ineffective consultations and ministerial complaints'.
In other words, to make our online discussions work and stop people getting upset when they do not understanding or trust our words it becomes even more vital that our language goes native.
In conclusion, government departments need to blog like the bloggers do and chat like the chatter do. When we listen and communicate respectfully we will earn the respect and credibility of the online world - our citizens.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Is the social media revolution merely a fad? | Tweet |
Watch the video below, then I'd like your opinion.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Integrating an online community engagement strategy | Tweet |
When I wrote my first online community engagement strategy for Telstra's Wireplay service in 1997, one of the factors I considered was how to 'complete the loop' - integrate inbound and outbound online channels to reach, engage and promote interaction across the widest possible audience.
In those days we used mass media, product sponsorship and events as the drivers to build audience reach and awareness and online forums, IRC chat, newsgroups and email to interact online and generate repeat traffic.
It was an effective combination - although limited by 2009 standards.
Today there are more online channels alternatives when building an integrated marketing or engagement strategy, however the principle remains the same,
- Use media (inc online) channels to drive initial traffic to the site
- Make the on site barriers to engagement and interaction as low as possible, provide rewards for activity and a variety of ways to engage/interact to suit different comfort and skills levels
- Promote return traffic through alerts and email news
- Build audience by providing reasons for visitors to refer your site to others
- Increase your reach by providing options to integrate your content into other sites
Sometimes their strategy was to spend their month on building and launching an online engagement site, then hope people like it enough to spread the word themselves - the build it and they will come approach.
Sometimes organisations treat the delivery of a website as the end of the project - rather than the start.
And sometimes the value of word-of-mouth promotion and an outreach strategy is not recognised - some organisations still believe that the mass media is the most powerful traffic driver.
Fortunately for those of you struggling to enlighten organisations who believe any of the above, IAS B2B has published an integrated channel strategy diagram which provides an excellent illustration of how to effectively design an online community engagement approach.
I've included an image below, and you can download the integrated online strategy diagram PDF here (103kb).
At first glance the diagram can appear a little daunting - which is possibly why Marc Keating has made an accompanying video to explain it in depth.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Finalists of Apps for America 2 announced | Tweet |
The Sunlight Foundation has announced the three finalists for the Apps for America 2 competition.
These finalists represent the best online social innovation sites developed by Americans to make the US government more transparent.
I'm hoping that we'll soon see a similar competition held here in Australia.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Is the Australian government equipped to provide collective public goods online? | Tweet |
Google, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Google Maps, Wordpress.
What do all these online services have in common?
They are all part of the world's virtual infrastructure, providing collective public goods that many people, including many Australians, use on a daily basis - whether for the storage, organisation, distribution or discovery of information.
They are also all privately owned and operated (for profit or not). There are few if any similar virtual collective public goods provided by governments.
Finally, from a national security and self-sufficiency standpoint, none of them is Australian owned or operated. If a foreign jurisdiction decided to close down or block any of these services, Australia would suffer at least a temporary economic loss.
On Friday, at the Public Sphere Q&A session with Gov 2.0 Task Force members, the Taskforce's Chairman Dr Nicholas Gruen stated that,
I think it was the government’s job to build Google, Facebook, Twitter. I’m quite serious about that.
While, for some, this statement might appear unusual - or even absurd - Dr Gruen is stating that one of the core purposes of government is to develop and provide infrastructure for its citizens, public goods that benefit nations and states but are often too expensive, unprofitable or may be a national security risk if left in the hands of private or foreign entities.
Traditionally public infrastructure has focused on physical systems - rail and road networks, hospitals, libraries and schools, sewage, water and electricity networks, telegraph and phone systems, buses and trains. Or on communications and informational systems such as newspapers, television and radio stations.
However it is time to consider whether that definition should be extended to include virtual public infrastructure. This includes the public goods used to store, discover and distribute information and communication online, just as physical public infrastructure has distributed water, words and people.
This thinking is in its infancy. Few governments globally are providing any of the virtual public infrastructure citizens will need through the 21st century - other than having their national broadcasters go online, as have all other broadcasters.
Of course there are digital initiatives such as the National Broadband Network in Australia and similar schemes being discussed in the UK, US and other countries. However these are examples of physical infrastructure required to support digital communications. Consider this similar to building the roads and railways of the past.
The next step is for governments to consider whether and what they need to provide as the virtual infrastructure that sits on top of these networks - the digital equivalent of buses and trains that will be required on our digital transport network.
So should governments have developed these online services (as Dr Gruen suggested)?
Should they be developing other virtual public goods? The online tools and services that commercial entities will never develop?
Or should they leave it up to the market?
To answer these questions I think we need to go a little deeper and consider whether governments are the most appropriate bodies to develop virtual collective public goods.
In most countries governments limit their online participation to information and service provision - consumer to government to consumer and business to government to business.
While there's no shortage of ability, there is little public sector fostering of direct citizen to citizen or business to business connections or even more complex arrangements such as citizens to government to business and vice versa.
This is often because of the tight restrictions many governments apply regarding what material can be stored and expressed via government-operated websites.
The risk of breaching individual privacy, allowing political commentary (as the public sector is apolitical) and breaching copyright is far more restrictive than were regulations on the use of the (previously government-owned) telephony system, or on public discussions in government-owned public spaces (parks, parliaments, sidewalks and government offices).
These restrictions makes it legally risky for a government department to directly support many online citizen-to-citizen engagements, and even places a significant burden on the governance oversight of citizen-to-government-to-citizen discussions.
So, besides reforming government regulations, or having citizens agree to blanket waivers when entering certain government-run spaces, how can government best provide public goods online?
One alternative is outsourcing. Funding private and not-for-profit organisations to deliver these services on behalf of government.
This has precedents in Australia, for example the jobs network and aid agencies receive government support in the form of grants and contracts to provide certain services on behalf of government.
There are also examples of government supporting (partially funding) private competition to public services - including private schools, child care and bus companies.
Perhaps governments will need to adopt one of these two models online, at least in the short-term while complex legislative and cultural changes take place.
Or is there another way government should meet citizens' needs for virtual public goods?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
US Army testing redeveloping manuals via wikis | Tweet |
The US Army is running a 90 day trial allowing service men and women to directly comment and edit seven of their 550 manuals online via a wiki-based approach to test crowdsourcing in the military.
Reported in the Army Times, Army to test wiki-style changes to 7 manuals, the article states that,
The people who write doctrine say that with things changing so fast in the field, it has been hard to keep the Army’s 550 manuals up to date and relevant.I wonder how many Australian government publications could benefit from crowd sourcing the wisdom of their audiences?
By letting the entire Army update the manuals, they say, more and better information can go out to a wider population of soldiers.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Introducing a common web reporting platform across federal government | Tweet |
Over the last few years I've often thought about the value of having a complete picture of web traffic to the Australian government.
This would require a common way to track and report on the usage of each discrete government website and the ability to track and measure the traffic between them over time (using anonymous user data).
I see enormous value in this approach. Firstly it would help government departments holistically understand how citizens see the inter-relationships between different government services and information across agency boundaries.
Secondly it would support smaller agencies to cost-effectively develop appropriate reports and access the data they need to improve their online presence and provide ROI for online initiatives. Rather than web reporting sophistication being a factor of agency size it would become a consistent core whole-of-government capability, regardless of agency size, budget, technical skills and inhouse web expertise.
Thirdly this approach would help executives and web professionals moving between government departments as they could expect a consistent level of reporting for the online space no matter where they worked. This would cut down learning curves and help improve the consistency of online channel management across government.
Finally, having standardised and consistent web reporting would lead to consistent and more accurate reporting to parliament of the overall size of the government's online audience, and the share held by each department, supporting decision making for the use of the online channel.
So could this be done?
I think it could.
We have precedents for whole-of-government licenses in the use of technologies such as Funnelback for search (which crawls all government sites for Australia.gov.au and is available for departments to use for their web search) and Adobe Smartforms for business forms (via business.gov.au).
The technology for whole-of-government online reporting is readily available without requiring major changes to how any department operates. The reporting could be deployed simply by requiring the addition of a small piece of code to every web page on every site, as is used by systems like Google Analytics and WebTrends On-Demand. Departments could even continue to also use their existing in-house tools if they so chose or exclude websites where special circumstances applied.
Through aggregating the reporting function, more funds and expertise could be focused on producing more meaningful and useful reports. Standard report templates could be developed for departments to use - or not - as they preferred.
Finally, this approach would provide cost and procurement efficiencies for government. Only one procurement process would be necessary to select the product, rather than individual processes being conducted by various agencies. The scale of the federal government means that government could purchase and maintain the tool at a much lower cost per department than it would cost a department to purchase an appropriate tool.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
PM launches first direct web chat | Tweet |
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday held his first live web chat on climate change with a group of 20 commenters from his climate change blog post.
While the chat apparently suffered from some technical hiccups and, reading the transcript, the PM's typing skills were limited (he stated that "my typing skills are a toal embarassment to my kids", it still received some well considered responses and achieved several major step forward for Government 2.0 in Australia.
Firstly, this was the first time, to my knowledge, that an Australia Prime Minister has participated in an online chat session with citizens as part of a mandated consultation process. This opens the door to using online chat as a mechanism in similar processes across Australian government.
Secondly the Prime Minister participated personally rather than via a proxy. No-one was typing on behalf of the PM, he was directly involved in the experience. In my view this sends the message that the government is serious about online engagement. If the PM is going to make the time and effort to directly engage constituents in online consultations, what excuse can senior public servants and Ministers have for refusing to similarly participate or permit their departments to engage?
Thirdly, the chat wasn't executed perfect, but it still managed to deliver beneficial outcomes and is publicly visible for scrutiny. I take this as an indication that, within reason, it is becoming more acceptable for government to take risks when using the online channel. We can experiment with new approaches, pilot concepts in order to establish their effectiveness and usefulness (rather than waiting for 'someone else' to trial them first) and incomplete successes can be considered learning experiences that assist in educating government in improving its approach in the future.
I'm very encouraged that the Prime Minister was willing to lead by example by holding and participating in an online consultation. I hope this is only the first of many trials in using newer technologies to connect better with the public - hear their concerns, thoughts and ideas, and allow the government to become better at our main duty of serving the citizens of Australia.
Monday, August 10, 2009
British troops encouraged to use social media | Tweet |
As reported in Mashable, British Troops Told to Tweet and Blog,
Britain’s Ministry of Defence has told troops they’re free to use social media tools and should apply “common sense” when deciding what to share online.To support this effort the Ministry of Defense has released new Online engagement guidelines as to what is expected of troops.
What’s more, the MOD has said it will sponsor soldiers who want to use blogs and Twitter to share stories of military life with the outside world.
As the UK Defense News site states in the article, Forces encouraged to blog, tweet and engage online,
Social media - such as blogs, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube - are an increasingly important way for Forces and MOD personnel to do business, engage with the public and keep in touch with family and friends.Based on the online engagement guidelines,
Armed Forces and MOD staff can talk about their work online without prior authorisation from their chain of command, as long as they stay within the advice.
This stance reflects efforts underway in the US to support online engagement by US Defense forces, which have recently undergone pressure with the US Marines shutting down Marine's social media access while a security review takes place.
Increasingly in the US online engagement is being seen as another front for military activities to counter 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," (US Army Secretary Pete Geren).
Friday, August 07, 2009
Have you voted for your priorities for Government 2.0? | Tweet |
The recent Public Sphere: Government 2.0: Policy & Practice, run by Senator Kate Lundy's office captured a number of views on government 2.0 in Australia.
These views are now in the process of being prioritised based on public feedback.
The prioritised views will be submitted to the Government 2.0 Taskforce to use in their work preparing a paper on how to progress Government 2.0 in Australia.
If you've not yet visited the Australia 2 website to define and comment on your top Government 2.0 priorities you've only a few weeks left to register your views.
Visit the Public Sphere priorities at Australia 2.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Do you monitor social media conversations about your department? | Tweet |
As a marketer I find the internet a dream channel for monitoring customer sentiment and concerns.
Social media and search engines can be easily and cheaply tracked to provide fast feedback on various initiatives. This helps organisations shape their campaigns and responses to external events.
I'd recommend that this is equally of enormous value to government, where perception and citizen sentiment can strongly influence political views and processes.
If your department isn't keeping an eye on what people are saying about you and your key topic areas (and Minister) online, then you may be missing an enormous opportunity to get early warnings on potential growing issues, to adjust campaigns and programs to take advantage of trends or to tap into popular sentiment to shape new ideas.
One example of effective use of social media monitoring is from the US Army, who closely monitor blogs and social networking sites to track the public response to various events.
The article, Air Force checked blogs, Twitter to gauge New Yorkers' anger about flyover, from NextGov, discusses how the US Army used online monitoring to track and respond to the public anger resulting from their fly-over of New York in April.
Within an hour of the flyover the Army knew it had the makings of a public relations disaster on its hands and was able to begin putting in place a response.
The Army has also used the learnings from this experience to educate further activities and use online media to ensure that citizens are receiving the facts about events.
This type of approach has many applications across government, from emergency management through to reviewing the response and level of accurate coverage of ministerial announcements.
So if you're not yet using the online channel to track citizen sentiment you may be doing your department and Minister a disservice.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Case study - Twitter's use in emergency management | Tweet |
The US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is now regularly using Twitter and other online channels to supplement offline media when providing emergency announcements and information.
This has meant more than simply setting up a Twitter account and sending messages, the agency has invested in training videographers and educating staff on how to use new media effectively to inform the public.
This has been covered in a case study released by FEMA in its website, FEMAinfocus: FEMA Twitter Media Availability with Administrator Paulison.
In this FEMA describes Twitter as,
The social media tool Twitter www.twitter.com (which FEMA uses under the account femainfocus) is a free web-based interface that allows for cell phone messaging to be distributed to large audiences. Thus, the tool works well for FEMA to promote individual preparedness and information avenues.
NextGov has also covered FEMA's use of social media in the article, FEMA takes open approach to social media.
Combined it provides a clear picture of how Twitter and other social media tools can be valuable in emergency situations.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
How engaged is your department online? And how does it affect your success? | Tweet |
Charlene Li, one of the writers of Groundswell and ex-Forrester analyst, has launched a new initiative which compares the financial success of organisations with their level of online engagement and allows organisations to compare how engaged they are online.
Named Engagementdb, the site provides graphs and case studies on how various organisations have engaged the online world and allow organisations to rank themselves based on a simple 5 minute survey.
There is also a fantastic report which provides compelling evidence of the link between online engagement and commercial success. Named The world's most valuable brands (PDF) and while tilted towards the commercial world, it provides valuable insights into the value online engagement generates in terms of brand visibility, engagement, customer satisfaction and advocacy.
The report provides insights into the different approaches being taken online, looking at the depth of engagement - from wallflower who are just dipping their toes in (such as McDonalds and BP), through to Mavens who have fully integrated online engagement into their strategy (Starbucks and Dell).
The report also provides evidence that if you increase your online engagement you increase your offline success, it's a thought-provoking read.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
How should transparency in government be enforced? | Tweet |
While open government advocates are calling for governments around the world to be more transparent and accountable, one of the issues that has to be worked through is how to ensure that the data made publicly available is complete and accurate.
Generally transparency costs dollars - even online. Therefore there needs to be suitable commitment to 'watching the watchmen' to support data transparency.
Since the US government has already mandated more open and transparent government - a process in mid-stream in Australia - they are now considering the appropriate governance for accuracy and other issues in making transparency 'stick' in a culture where secrecy has been a defining trait for many years.
A few weeks ago NextGov interviewed Earl Devaney, head of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board in the US. This panel is responsible for placing details of the $787 billion economic stimulus spending online via a revamped Recovery.gov site and preventing waste, fraud and abuse of the money.
As the article's headline states, Transparency will be embarrassing.
This potential for embarrassment can lead into the potential for incomplete or fraudulent reporting, which is why Devaney's Board will be using 40 inspectors to monitor US agencies and ensure that they provide accurate and timely data for public view.
The rest of the interview is an interesting discussion around how the Board will be enforcing transparency and the tools it will have at its disposal to manage any data accuracy issues.
I think Australia has a tremendous opportunity to monitor how successful the US is in this transparency initiative, then learn from and legislate appropriately to mitigate any holes that appear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
