Posts
As I mentioned at the end of my earlier post about the Googlisation of the US election, we're now entering a phase in the internet's development where it is shifting from being a media channel towards a service channel.
Many organisations in the private sector have already recognised this and I am seeing the beginnings of this understanding in the public sector as well.
When the internet was first popularised by web browsers it was a technical toy, with the first websites for organisations commonly developed by programmers in technology teams and a few IT-savvy marketers.
Within five years the Marketing and Communications team began to take a leading interest, with a ferocious tussle for control of the platform between technologists and communicators taking place in many organisations. This battle is still going on in many organisations, where IT refuses to let go of certain aspects of web that sit more readily in the communications area, such as
While these battles continue, the internet has moved on, with the introductions of organisations whose sole or major service channel is online, including well known organisations such as eBay, Amazon and Second Life (yes it's a service channel!) and hundreds of thousands of lessor known, but still very successful players.
For these organisations online isn't an adjacent to other channels, it is their primary or sole channel, representing the core of their business.
This has led into Web 2.0, the communal empowerment of the web, which has seen the ease of generating and interacting with content skyrocket, lowering the barriers to creativity and demonstrating comprehensively that people want to participate and if the medium is sufficiently simple they will.
This has led to the current online 'mashup', where across the global internet we can see aspects of all generations of the web, technologists clinging to power, communicators using olde worlde 'shout marketing' techniques, sales organisations pumping products through ever easier purchasing funnels and the growing swell of social networks and people power.
Naturally many organisations are confused and bewildered by the complexity and scope of potential online options, most simply do not understand, with top management mired in views shaped by their experience and education.
The tendency for all of us is to fall back on 'safe' classical models, treating the online medium as a 'technology', a media channel add-on, a basic form-filling medium or a time-waster for habitual networkers.
However as billion dollar companies can be built (or destroyed) and the outcomes of political careers changed through the agency of the internet, it is a far more serious enabler than many organisations have realised.
My view is that it is now time to rethink how our organisations regard the online channel, casting aside preconceptions and experiential models and reflecting on the internet's relationship with us, rather than our relationship with the internet.
From my perspective I view online as an engagement channel - combining service delivery, consultation and communication into a single medium, an enabling driver at the core of how organisations interact with their stakeholders, customers, staff and shareholders.
Where customers do not have internet access the online channel still facilitates and support relationships, enabling improvements in internal information sharing, efficiency and interactions between organisations, thereby improving the experience of engaging via phone or face-to-face channels.
Many organisations are not sufficiently mature to have restructured around the internet as a central enabling driver and I see the online channel commonly 'owned' and 'managed' by Communications, IT or, at the intranet level, in HR.
I believe there is now a strong case in the public sector to begin shifting ownership into the service delivery area, using the internet as both an effective, lower-cost service option and as an enabler under telephony and face-to-face channels.
IT and Communications still remain involved, as their expertise is required to develop and shape the systems and messages delivered, but the bulk of measurable business outcomes are in service delivery areas - including interaction and delivery time metrics, customer satisfaction, service consistency and business efficiency.
At my agency, who I see as one of the leaders in thinking around the online channel, if still managing the technology challenges and building an understanding of how to apply the channel to address business goals, we've just made an internal shift reflecting the online channel being a service option.
We've shifted the management of our online channel such that our Service Delivery area owns the service delivery aspect of our online presence, with the delivery on their goals facilitated by my team in the Communications area and the technology team.
We're also beginning the process of increasing the Service Delivery area's involvement and influence over our intranet, which extends its focus on facilitating customer service provision through supporting front-line staff.
I am very positive about these changes, they are enabling us to make some immediate service quality improvements - some by managing customer expectations, some by changing system behaviours.
Over the next several years I expect to see enormous business value delivered for the government as this model becomes firmly embedded, both for customer engagement to improve our customer approach, as a channel for effective service delivery as well as information provision and by enabling staff to provide ever-improving customer service.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Online is a service option, not just a media channel | Tweet |
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
US election goes Google | Tweet |
Reflecting and building on the approach taken for last year's Australian Federal Election, Google has developed a comprehensive election coverage site for the upcoming Presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain.
Looking at how the site presents public interest information, I cannot help but wonder why this type of material is being provided by commercial entities - who could choose to push an agenda - and is not yet available from a public entity.
As a way to generate voter interest, support participation, provide supporting information and put candidates in front of the people, I hope that we see this approach continue to grow over time.
Given the influence the internet now has, and the impact of effective online use by political candidates, I can see any politicians that choose not to embrace online participation being as a severe disadvantage in future elections.
Turning that question back on public sector organisations - if your department or agency isn't adequately investing in the online channel there is also the risk of becoming increasingly less able to engage, be influenced by and influence your constituents.
My view is that online needs to begin to be treated as more of a customer service channel than as a media channel and be internally planned, managed, supported and funded accordingly.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Summary of take-aways from the Driving Interoperability and Collaboration in eGovernment conference | Tweet |
A frantic day catching up yesterday, so I did not get to write this post until this morning.
On Monday I presented at Ark Group's Driving Interoperability and Collaboration in eGovernment conference in Brisbane.
There was a great line-up of speakers, and I had a long list of take-aways from the day.
Here's my key ones. Note these reflect my perception of the speakers' topics - not necessarily the words they used.
Overall takeaways
- There's a lot happening across the egovernment front at all levels of Australian government, with enormous benefits beginning to be realised for the government, for constituents and for business
- egovernment initiatives still remains highly siloed, with little information being shared between governments, departments, or even within agencies
- virtually all state and federal governments recognise the need to follow whole-of-government approaches, but are doing so only within their own governments, not across jurisdictions in a co-ordinated and managed way
- Enormous cost and time benefits could be realised with more centralised co-ordination (not control)
By speaker
Kim Denham
(CEO Australian Computer Society)
- Broadband is a critical utility for Australians.
- It's crucial to ensure that Australia has an appropriate network in order for long-term national success
Dominic Feik
(Director Business Services, Dept of Innovation, Industry and Regional Developments Vic)
- A successful business case is a good story, supported by evidence, relevant to stakeholders
- Storyline is critical - provides structure for the case
- Use case studies to build a picture of the outcomes
- Create and manage a stakeholder list - develop a clear strategy on how to influence and engage key decision makers (sometimes has to be from a distance)
- Use 'guided' rather than 'blank slate' consultation
- Number one reason for project failure is if the wrong people/skills are attached to the project team
- Other reasons for failure include:
- Poor consultation
- Poor research
- Too much focus on implementation, not enough on business case
- Searching for benefits in the wrong places
Gary Shaw
(Director Information Queensland)
- QLD government has a state-wide address verification system, usable across state government websites, intranets and applications (I want one at Federal level!!)
- QLD has done a fantastic job in developing a geospatial system - involving collaboration across many government agencies.
- There is insufficient collaboration across Australia government
Qld invested $7.5 million in a geospatial display system (building a metadata atlas and other tools),
WA invested $26 million in a similar, but separate system (more bells and whistles),
NSW is looking to invest in such a system - separately
Vic is looking to invest in such a system - separately
Federally AGIMO is investing in such a system
Surely Australian government only needs one such geospatial system - open enough to support the needs of various states and levels of government, and provided/managed centrally as a national public good.
This would support the needs of businesses and individuals to deal across council and state borders, rather than requiring them to use separate tools for separate jurisdictions.
Tim Turner
(Lecturer at UNSW@ADFA)
- Government has focused on a 'one-size fits all' approach to online, but recently moved into portals based on demographic ('youth', 'family') and 'live event' models ('moving home', 'starting school').
- While AGIMO indicates that 60% of the internet using public has visited a government site at least once in the last twelve months, there is not much detail on how/why they visited or how frequently.
- Key limiters to government engagement online appear to be (from AGIMO):
Usability, navigation and content
Knowing what can be transacted (promotion)
Wanting to deal with a 'real person' (little work in Australian government on real-time online contact via video, audio or text) - Government also needs to considered the relationship that constituents have with government.
- Identifed four key relationships/roles:
Customer - single-session interactions, commercially oriented, no identity requirement, expects the same experience whether public or private organisation providing product/service
Client - multi-session interactions, relationship orientated, 'professional' engagement, identity required, expects the same experience whether public or private organisation providing product/service
Citizen - single-session interactions, about business of government, preference for anonymity, no commercial alternatives
Subject - multi-session interactions, usually initiated by government, heavily rules/procedural based, identity required, no commercial alternatives - Government services (process/tone/approach) need to take into account the relationship the constituent has with the service - people shift from one relationship/role to another across different engagements.
- For transactional engagements (Customers/Citizens) - improve usability and appearance of trustworthiness
- For relationship engagements (Clients/Subjects) - improve usability and evidence of justice
Jonathan Gray
(Senior Researcher, NICTA)
- Some great tools now coming out of NICTA
- Seeking government agencies to partner with to pilot pre-commercialisation of IT-related solutions
Jo Bryson
(Executive Director Office of eGovernment, WA)
- Ongoing need to break down silos within and between organisations. Critical factors in doing so are;
- Awareness and understanding
- Consultation and engagement
- Promotion - Need to share information, not withhold it
- Is a significant mental shift for many long-term public servants, but a necessary one for effective governance
- ICT will only realise true business benefits with a business-centric approach NOT technology-centric
- WA has developed a great set of checklists for Ministers' offices (PDF) and Secretaries to appropriately question CIOs to ensure that business value is top-of-mind (great tool - should be used nationally!)
- There is real business value in electronic transactions over physical ones
- Physical network accounts for less than 25% of Medicare's business
- Estimated that move to electronic transactions has effectively reduced Medicare's necessary headcount by 50% (compared to headcount required if all processes remained manual)
- Implemented ability for customers to check their interactions with Medicare online (publicly available but not yet being promoted)
- Has developed a national medical backbone for providing and billing services across GPs, specialists and hospitals (ECLIPSE), which has enormous benefits for the health sector (but is largely invisible to constitutents)
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Driving egovernment services after they launch | Tweet |
Next Monday (25 August) I'll be speaking at the Ark Group's conference on Driving Interoperability and Collaboration in eGovernment in Brisbane on the topic of Driving ongoing improvements in online services provision.
If you're attending, please come and introduce yourself at some stage through the conference.
If you won't be there, I'll be making my presentation available after the event at my Slideshare site.
Thank you to everyone who contacted me with suggestions on my presentation via my blog post, email or in conversation.
Based on the feedback I've shifted the focus from eMetrics to a broader look at the importance and process of drive ongoing improvements after an egovernment site is launched.
I will make mention of a few points raised by people, such as,
- why launching a site doesn't mean lasting success
- the importance of factoring in an ongoing development/improvements budget
- the importance of establishing (realistic and measurable) goals
- appropriate use of metrics to assess site performance to goals (and why not to use Hits)
- cross-channel measurement - how web influences other channels (to meet goals)
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Benchmarking government websites, intranets and egovernment services | Tweet |
I've found it quite difficult to benchmark my agency's online services against those of other agencies in Australia.
Besides AGIMO's annual report on Australians' use of and Satisfaction with e-Government services and some of their past case studies, there's limited information available across Australian agencies regarding different departments' online experiences.
Over in New Zealand they recently benchmarked local government sites (PDF) and also benchmark government use of ICT and accessibility every few years.
In Europe they benchmark the supply of online public services (PDF) and a document from 2004 provided a very keen insight into why and how to benchmark public services.
In the US there is a quarterly review of government sites for user satisfaction.
So if anyone from another government agency is interested in benchmarking their online services, drop me a line.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Lessons to be learnt from the Grocery choice website | Tweet |
The last few days have seen a number of media reports criticising the new Federal government Grocery choice website.
Amidst the noise there are several key takeaways for public sector website managers.
Note that I'm not involved with the Grocery choice website or program. I'm commenting from the perspective of a public sector web manager who needs to meet the same level of scrutiny for the sites I manage.
What is Grocery choice?
The purpose of the grocery choice website, in its own words, is to provide practical grocery price information to help consumers find the cheapest overall supermarket chain in their area. It does this by publishing prices for typical grocery baskets across supermarket retailers in different areas of Australia, updated monthly.
The website was launched on 5 August this year, at the same time as the ACCC Grocery Inquiry report was released.
The main criticisms of Grocery choice
Putting aside politics, criticism has fallen into several areas;
- Accessibility - whether Grocery choice is usable by vision-impaired people, as reported in the Brisbane Times, Grocery price watch website under fire,
- Usefulness - whether the information is sufficiently timely to be useful for consumers, as reported in the Daily Telegragh, PM's Grocery web of deceit,
- Channel choice - whether the online channel can reach the appropriate audience, as in the ABC's report, GroceryChoice criticism: Seniors 'don't use' internet.
What should government website managers take away from this?
- Accessibility is crucial - failure to meet the government minimum standards can place your organisation at risk.
- Usefulness is a function of both information and presentation - web managers need to consider how to best present and explain information and services within the capabilities of the online channel to convey maximum meaning and understanding.
- Select channels based on desired outcomes - web managers need to be able to convey an understanding of the online channel's capabilities and advise other managers when it is the most important channel, a supporting channel or should not be used.
Unpacking the takeaways
Accessibility
Accessibility is a legal requirement for government agencies. Compromising website accessibility, whether due to tight deadlines or changes in design or requirements, can expose a government agency to legal action and should be considered as a risk in any web project.
On that basis accessibility is a very important area for government website managers to understand and manage. Government agencies are required to follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG 1.o) developed by the W3C in 1999 in meeting the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.
This is detailed in AGIMO's Web Publishing Guide within the Accessibility section.
The minimum standard for a government website is an 'A' rating, with 'AA' rating recommended (personally we're gradually shifting our agency websites to 'AAA' level). There are some great tools available to analyse sites to ensure they meet the standard, such as the VisionAustralia web accessibility toolbar and, as I've discussed previously, a list of tools from AIM.
Web managers should also note that the W3C's update to their guidelines, WCAG 2.0, is nearly here. There are already a useful reference on how to meet the WCAG 2.0 guidelines available from WIPA.
The criticism of Grocery choice is clearcut - if the site doesn't meet the 'A' minimum level then it does fail to meet Australian government standards and this needs to be addressed as a priority.
If it remains unaddressed then legal action is possible, similar to the accessibility court case around the Sydney Olympics website, well described and documented by Tom Worthington.
Usefulness
Does the website serve a useful purpose? Does it provide relevant, timely and usable information and/or services for citizens and customers.
This is something all web managers should be considering when building or developing websites.
In meeting the goals of a government agency web managers need to consider the needs of multiple groups of stakeholders and audiences. We also need to consider the capabilities of the channel itself - online is not the best channel for every engagement.
In Grocery choice's case the debate has centred on whether the information in the site - which is published monthly - is useful to citizens.
This is a debate with two sides, Choice magazine, as quoted in the Livenews article, Grocery Watch is a great tool: Choice, has expressed that they believe the website is of use, whereas other commentators has said that monthly basket data is not as useful as visiting the local supermarkets.
The information is collected as part of a set program, over which I would expect the website manager has little control.
However I think the site manager has done an excellent job of presenting this information in a useful way, and explaining the collection process such that website visitors can make their own determinations of the usefulness of the data.
The presentation and organisation of information is often the area over which website managers have the greatest influence in helping make a website more useful for citizens.
The value of information or services can be greatly enhanced - or greatly diminished - through presentation and all website managers need to have a firm grasp of how to best use the online channel to maximise this value, even when they have no control over the information itself.
Channel choice
The specific debate in ABC's article (mentioned earlier) is related to claims that seniors cannot benefit from the Grocery choice information as they make limited use of the online channel.
Online has always been a controversial channel as not everyone chooses or is able to use the internet. For example it has higher barriers to entry than other mass media - you need to purchase a computer and pay for an ongoing ISP account. Television, radio and print media have a lower upfront investment and shallower learning curve.
Despite this, internet has been adopted in Australia much faster than radio, television or print media. Industry reports are fairly clear that both television and print readership are declining. The advertising industry are also very clear that 18-35 year olds are very difficult to reach via other media, as has been discussed in ABC's The Gruen Transfer.
So therefore online is an important and growing channel - but is not a universal channel.
My experience has been that ]in management there are internet 'bulls' and internet 'bears'. The first group seeks to use the internet wherever possible, is more supportive of the channel and more inclined to fund online initiatives. The second group is still cautious of the internet, is more dismissive of whether it is used and how it is used and is inclined to use traditional channels.
Effective website managers need to steer a middle course, advocating use of the channel where appropriate, and advocating the use of other channels where not. They also need to ensure that other managers understand the capabilities of the online channel so that good channel choice decisions can be made.
The primary goals of organisations generally involve reaching, communicating and engaging with customers and stakeholders - providing what is needful and supporting the conversations necessary to make improvements over time in an effective and cost-efficient manner.
On this basis the channels selected are less important than the outcomes achieved.
I personally remain mindful of this, and believe other web managers should also.
Did you have other take-aways?
I'd appreciate comments from other web managers regarding the takeaways they've had regarding the Grocery choice media coverage.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
US releases eGovernment satisfaction results - useful benchmark for Australian sites | Tweet |
ForeSee Results has just released the findings of the latest quarterly US eGovernment satisfaction survey, looking at citizen satisfaction with over 100 US government websites.
Available as a PDF download, the E-Government Satisfaction Index (PDF 1.2Mb) uses a uniform system to compare satisfaction across US sites and was selected as the US government's standard measure in 1999.
Based on the results of this latest survey, there has been a small increase in average satisfaction to 72.9 percent, the first rise in a year.
The report does a good job of identifying the US government sites with the highest level of citizen satisfaction, which can be used by Australian government as good benchmarking examples.
It identifies the major priorities for improvement across agencies, with search topping the list (88% of agencies identified it as a top priority) followed by functionality at 59% and navigation at 41%.
The benefits of higher satisfaction have also been identified in the report, being that highly satisfied customers (scores of 80 or more) are;
- 84% more likely to use the website as a primary resource
- 83% more likely to recommend the website
- 57% more likely to return to the site
The use of a standard government website satisfaction methodology, as I have previously suggested, makes it much easier for government agencies to compare their performance, identify and learn from successes and address issues. It is also an excellent accountability tool for Ministers and agency heads.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Do people want the same things from council, state and federal government websites? | Tweet |
The UK recently held its annual seminar on How to build the perfect council website.
This discussed strategic approaches to egovernment at a local level and provided key insights into what local residents needed and expected from their councils and shires.
Carl Haggerty of Devon County Council, one of the presenters, has provided a synopsis of his observations and thoughts from the event in a post titled Thoughts on a “perfect council website”.
Reading his post, I do not see enormous differences between what it appears people want from local councils and what they want from state and Federal agencies;
Presentations from the 2007 seminar are available online and I am hopeful that the 2008 presentations will be as well soon.
- Get rid of those damn press releases (who the heck reads them).
- Stop the political messages (Our Leader).
- Nobody cares for this stuff, they are task focused and don’t have much time.
- We already take their money and if we take even more of there time we will only create more frustrated citizens and visitors.
- Delete most of your content as nobody reads or even maintains the stuff.
- 80% of web management is observing behaviour.
- Do the tasks your customers do and experience the “journey” yourself.
- Personalisation doesn’t work, most people don’t want to do it - interesting considering i was on the panel about web 2.0 techniques with “Steve Johnson” from Redbridge and “Suraj Kiki” founder of Jadu CMS, more on this later)
- Start with your top tasks and get them on your homepage to stop people having to search for them.
- Don’t force “corporate” crap at your customers, they don’t really care
Monday, June 23, 2008
A different way to look at agency customers | Tweet |
My agency spends a lot of money learning about our customers with the goal of identifying how to provide them with better services.
These research processes quite often lead to huge presentations full of statistics that attempt to explain customer intentions and motivations.
If you have a maths bent, these presentations speak very loudly - however they don't always translate well for others and can be difficult to absorb and interpret.
An approach that I find is very eloquent is to imagine that you have only 100 customers living in a village and look at their conditions, hopes and aspirations in this framework.
This has been used with great effect by Miniature Earth - which takes this concept and applies it to the entire globe.
There's also an application of it to companies, looking at large corporations or agencies from the same perspective of a 100 person village.
Brought to my attention by Steve Collin's Thoughtglue blog, you can view it at: McDaniel Partners: Are You Effectively Managing Your Most Important Asset?.
So using this concept for your customers, what do they look like, and where are they going?
Friday, June 13, 2008
Tell me the topics you'd like covered in my eMetrics presentation | Tweet |
I'll be speaking at Ark Group's conference Driving Interoperability and Collaboration in eGovernment in Brisbane in late August on the topic of eMetrics - using them to benchmark and drive the ongoing success of eGovernment initiatives.
If you're planning to attend this conference - or even if you're not - let me know via comments to this post the areas you'd like to see covered within the eMetrics topic and I'll endeavour to cover them in my presentation.
My presentation will be posted on my slideshare site and blog after the event.
For an extract from one of my previous conference presentations on the eMetrics topic, see my post eMetrics primer
For the full presentation I gave on web strategy recently at a conference, see my post Web Strategy in Sydney
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
What's the difference between the Bureau of Meteorology and a movie star? | Tweet |
Why is it that movie and sports stars, who are already earning millions for their public performances, feel the need to lend their reputations to endorse products such as lipstick, running shoes and advanced hair restoration treatments?
Of course there's the money and the extra public exposure to build their celebrity status and it helps stars leverage their reputations to support important causes, influencing the views of millions - but besides these obvious rewards, why would they behave in such a manner?
I'm sure this is a question often pondered at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), who own the most trafficked government website in Australia (based on the Hitwise data I've seen).
From visiting the BOM's site I don't know if they've successfully answered this question as yet.
The BOM site is a tour-de-force of weather information. From the homepage it's possible to literally take Australia's temperature - and check if it's raining outside too!
For the average citizen, this wealth of meteorological information is vitally important for starting those awkward conversations with strangers, "Nice weather we're having - I've just checked the BOM website and it's 30 degrees outside".
For many other Australians this information is vital to their planning and financial wellbeing. Farmers rely on this information to make decisions on planting, harvesting and water use. Sailors and fishermen need to know the latest conditions at sea. Aviators need to check the winds before they take to the skies.
All of this information is needed by citizens on a daily basis - so it's no wonder that the BOM's site manages to consistently reach more Australians each day than other government website juggernauts, such as the Australian Tax Office, Centrelink or Australia.gov.au.
But do they really leverage these visitors well?
At a second glance at the BOM homepage, there's a small area promoting the BOM's 100 year anniversary and a couple of links to allow people to learn more about meteorology.
There's also a small link at the bottom of the page (below the fold) to the Australian government locator service (AGLS) and links to the BOM's Department, to Australia.gov.au (but named 'Federal Government') and to the Prime Minister's website.
However there's no links to other government services that would be of use to the many sailors, farmers and aviators visiting the BOM's site.
This is the difference between the BOM and a movie star.
The movie star leverages their relationship with their fans to present them with appropriate products and services that may be of interest to them.
The BOM misses a major trick in joined-together government by not doing the same with services across the public sphere, and then using these connections to further increase its own star appeal and audience.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Usability Rules - OK? | Tweet |
Needless to say most of the results matched what we already knew
- our website needs more of a customer-focus and is due for a facelift,
- our intranet needs reorganisation to match how our staff need to access information and tools, and
- our customers cannot tell the difference between our website and our secure transaction service - nor should they need to.
Naturally there were some surprises - but if the people who manage the properties are already 70-80% right, why is it so important to call in the consultants?
The cynical response, and one I've floated out there from time to time, is that organisations don't trust the experience and expertise of their staff.
This is similar to the principle where for some products you sell more if you raise the price - as people believe if the price is higher so must be the quality.
Staff are a sunk cost, so there's no apparent further investment to justify the quality of an outcome.
This works well for consultants, who can build their credibility and reputation by simply charging more - though they do have to deliver in the end.
However I've never really liked it as a reason - both because I'd like to think that employers recognise the skills of their employees (or wouldn't have hired them), and because it only addresses the issue of trust, not the issue of whether the work needs to be done.
After years of thinking on this topic, involving many research projects and other consultant-led activities, I've come to the conclusion that the real reason for bringing in the external experts is simply that 'we don't know what we don't know'.
It's great to sit back in an organisation and say that a piece of research taught us nothing that we didn't already know - but is that really the case.
Even if you are 80% correct on what your customers wanted (after the fact), the other 20% may be the most vital piece of the puzzle. As we become close to our work and acculturalised to the organisation it becomes impossible to take off those rose-coloured glasses and see our online properties (or other products and services) in the same way as our customers.
Of course I have had other reasons for using independent experts over the years - to train staff, to substitute money for time we didn't have, and to ensure that politically and legally we had something signed to point at "but the consultant said that..."
But my main reason in almost every case has been that most powerful reason of all - I don't know what I don't know, and I'm unable to take off my glasses to find out.
Monday, May 12, 2008
What is eGovernment? | Tweet |
I've pondered for a long time over the meaning and common understanding of the term eGovernment.
I've seen many definitions - often hinging on the delivery of services by government to citizens or the facilitation of communications between and within government agencies.
I find these very narrow and 'government-centric' views of eGovernment. They are about the government doing to citizens, rather than enabling citizens to do with government.
In other words, they are focused on a command and control approach rather than collaborative outcomes through participatory engagement.
So I've formed my own definition of the term as below.
eGovernment involves the use of digital channels and tools to:
- facilitate and support citizen participation in the process of governance
- enable and extend meaningful dialogue to improve understanding between citizens and the government bodies that serve them
- streamline and improve governance processes in order to improve citizen engagement
- deliver appropriate cost-effective services and information to citizens
Explanation of terms
I use the term digital channels and tools to refer to any connected digital-based devices - computers, mobile wireless devices (such as mobile phones and PDAs) and so on. All of these devices can be used to enable anytime/anyplace connections between citizens and between citizens and government.
Where I use the term citizen I include all people, organisations and institutions that exist and/or operate within a particular legal jurisdiction.
While I do include the delivery of services to citizens in the definition, I see it as an outcome of the preceding processes of engagement. The engagement is critical for establishing which services are appropriate for citizens and can be cost-effectively provided via digital channels.
All comments and other views of the definition of eGovernment are most welcome.
