Posts
A big issue in government, as in the private sector, is the drain of experienced older people as they decide to change lifestyles.
Dow has followed an interesting strategy of developing an alumni social network, which helps keep ex-employees - both retirees and others - linked into the organisation.
This keep their experience on tap and can also serve as a pool of potential recruits back to the organisation.
Given how important the aging of Australia's public service has become on the APS agenda, I'd be interested whether any agencies are considering strategies like this one to help them manage future trainsitions.
Dow's article: "My Dow Network" Provides Dow People with New Way to Connect
Thanks to Web Strategy by Jeremiah for this link in his post, Gen Y Enter Stage Left, Baby Boomers Exit Stage Right.
Note that with new intranet social media tools being developed by Microsoft and LinkedIn, Dow's approach may become very cost-effective in the future, linking into people's existing online social networks.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Managing the 'grey hair' drain | Tweet |
Do all your egovernment tools meet accessibility standards? | Tweet |
In Australia website usability is important, but accessibility is law.
While most government agencies are extremely diligent about meeting accessibility requirements it is also important to look at the accessibility of any online tools they use that affect their customers or clients.
For example, my agency uses a third-party email marketing system, Vision6 for electronic newsletters to customers and a US-based survey tool, SurveyMonkey for customer and stakeholder surveys.
Vision6 is an Australian company and has met all applicable accessibility requirements for a long time. We also make a point of offering plain text versions of all HTML emails we distribute through this tool to further ensure we're providing an email version that customers can readily access.
SurveyMonkey, being a US system, isn't required by law to meet Australian accessibility standards - although it meets the applicable W3C guidelines on which this was based.
Previously we used this service as no other web survey platform I had identified met the agency's requirements and was fully Australian standards compliant.
However they have just been certified as compliant with the US's Section 508 Accessibility requirements, which, according to SurveyMonkey, makes them the only online survey application that is Section 508 certified, as explained in their website, Your survey designs are now 508 compliant!
This isn't an Australian standard, however it is a very long way towards meeting it.
If you're unsure what the Australian requirements are, AGIMO's Accessibility section provides a concise and clear explanation.
If you're not sure how to test for accessibility, WebAIM has a good list of accessibility testing tools and when/how to use them.
Incidentally, the W3C is getting much closer to the second version of their accessibility guidelines (WCAG 2.0) - after 5 years of work.
Webcredibility have a review of the new version in their site at WCAG 2.0: The new W3C accessibility guidelines evaluated.
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?
The issues with CAPTCHA security | Tweet |
CAPTCHA is a security technology for websites that works by making users verify they are a human by typing in a random string of letters or numbers displayed in an image.
CAPTCHA isn't accessible - straight CAPTCHA may breach accessibility law
CAPTCHA relies on presenting a graphic image of text to a viewer, who then reads the text and enters it into a text box. As computers are now smart enough to read clear images, the images used in modern CAPTCHA systems are usually 'messy' with random strokes and distorted letters (called reCAPTCHA).
For example:
These images can also be hard for some humans to read - the old, the young, the visually-impaired and even groups who would not consider themselves as having sight issues.
This means that visual CAPTCHA systems may be inaccessible under Australian laws regarding accessibility. This is a very important consideration for Australian government agencies.
There are approaches to get around this, such as either offering a selection of images, one of which (hopefully) is readable by the audience; or through offering an audio alternative, whereby someone listens to a series of letters or numbers - usually interspersed with other sounds - and types these in.
Note that the latter approach also has similar accessibility issues for those with hearing impairments.
Personally I have on occasion had difficulty using either a visual and audio CAPTCHA approach and my vision and hearing are both above average for my age group (Gen X).
There are several ways to break a CAPTCHA system.
The first is to simply have a large group of low paid computer users systematically interpret and type in the correct response.
Organisations in nations where labour is cheap are able to offer this as a service for hacking sites or preparing the way for automated systems to then use hacked sites and accounts for spamming and other illicit purposes.
Also as technology improves it becomes easier for machines to break CAPTCHA. Already we've seen a move from clear text to messy and distorted images - tested against optical character recognition to ensure they are not readable - in order to reduce the ability for computers to read the image.
Not endorsed by the W3C
CAPTCHA is not endorsed for use by the W3C.
The W3C has indicated in a working paper entitled Inaccessibility of CAPTCHA that CAPTCHA is inaccessible and the technology is not yet endorsed within W3C guidelines.
This means that it is not endorsed within the standard guidelines underpining website development in the public sector.
This doesn't exclude agencies from using it - it has not been specifically rejected by the W3C, it sits in a gray area and each agency would have to make their own decision.
So what next?
CAPTCHA has already advanced to reCAPTCHA - involving the messy distorted text indicated above.
Most reCAPTCHA implementations have also integrated audio reCAPTCHA as an alternative - in the hope that if people cannot read the image they can understand the sounds.
Some organisations, such as banks, use physical PIN devices, others have talked about using fingerprint or retina scanners attached to PCs.
However there is no clear successor to reCAPTCHA for widespread use on websites.
What should organisations do?
As there's no readily accessible and cost-effective alternative, organisations should strongly consider reCAPTCHA as a security measure in their sites, integrating both visual and audio approaches.
However they should also strongly consider offering an approach accessible to those who cannot see or hear the CAPTCHA security, such as phone-based identification or the use of secret questions.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Why are government organisations slow at embracing social media? | Tweet |
This post was triggered by a question post over at Strange Attractor, asking Why isn't social software spreading like wildfire through business?
This is a question I have considered as well, in the last year from a government perspective.
It particularly puzzled me late last year when I made unsuccessful efforts to get a wiki in place for a very clear need within the organisation.
At the time it was clear that people in my agency wanted to collaborate more effectively, that they were committed to their jobs and highly able.
They were already making good use of the collaboration tools they had - meetings, documents, email and intranet.
At the time I believed the limiting factor was time. Everyone was overworked and stressed - people simply did not have the capacity to take on more meetings, read more documents or send more emails.
I also thought the solution was clear. To facilitate more collaboration what people needed was the tools to leverage their time for collaboration more effectively. I aimed to help them achieve this leverage using online social media tools.
ROI could be justified by travel savings, employee satisfaction and better quality outcomes.
However when attempting to introduce the wiki, I hit a brick wall and we went back to older approaches which, in my calculations, have cost the agency significantly more money and time and delivered an inferior outcome.
At the time I was quite disappointed and looked for an explanation of the cause within the agency's structure.
However after months of thought on this topic, I've arrived at the following conclusion as to why smart and able people resist the introduction of tools that would help them in their jobs.
It's command and control culture
The majority of organisations, both public and private, are structured as effective dictatorships. There is a CEO at the top, they allocate power out to trusted lieutenants, who transfer smaller amounts of power to underlings.
Each lieutenant has a particular area of power - be it Marketing, Sales, ICT, Operations, Finance or HR. They work together on the fringes where power must be shared to achieve the organisation's goals.
Now clearly this is an effective structure. It worked for hundreds, if not thousands, of years in medieval societies. Kings and Queens at top, ministers and advisers beneath them and fiefdoms owing allegiance to different groups.
However, by its nature this approach is divisive rather than integrative.
Each lieutenant competes over resources, recognition and money for their groups. There is only a small incentive to co-operate, and alliances do not always last very long.
Within each group underlings compete in a similar fashion, for power, prestige and position.
Again this isn't the most fertile soil for collaboration - except where there is direction from above or very clear and unequivocal win-win situations.
Now from my writing you may draw the conclusion that I am against this structural approach.
Actually I'm not. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a command and control approach. What is important is to consider the goals of the organisation and whether the means achieve those goals with the available resources.
As the goals and environment change over time, the approach needs to be reassessed to ensure it continues to deliver on the outcomes cost-effectively.
The impact of technology
Today organisations attempt to achieve a great deal more with fewer resources. Technology has already facilitated this.
Phones replaced telegraphs that replaced runners, computers replaced typing pools that replaced scribes.
These changes didn't happen overnight, but once a certain proportion of organisations made the change others had no choice but to also change or die.
This has happened with the internet as well. Entirely new companies have formed and become very successful in the last ten years. The 'dinosaurs' didn't die out overnight but are being forced to adopt some of the traits of newer organisations to survive.
This evolutionary process occurs faster in the private sphere due to competition over profits. Government, being funded by the public purse is not subject to the same degree of competition and has less incentive to risk change.
The network effect
Online social networks are one of the next steps in this evolution.
In some ways these networks are even more of a challenge for organisations than the introduction of personal computers, which could be integrated into a existing organisational approaches.
Command and control structures by their nature seek to control and restrict information flows in order to better direct and focus their resources (staff). They silo areas by specific functions - putting all the programmers here, communications people there and finance people somewhere else.
This approach makes command and control management easier, as teams are homogeneous.
It also leads to the formation of different cultures and approaches in different areas of the organisation. These can reduce organisational efficiency by forming isolated silos, each with their own language and customs - a Tower of Babel situation.
Traditionally command and control organisations have dealt with this issue by employing translators to allow information to pass between areas in carefully managed ways. These include people in roles such as internal account managers, business analysts and project managers.
However with social networks the goal is complete transparency. Almost all the barriers between silos come down to allow free communication and collaboration. The focus becomes the outcome, rather than the process.
Change is hard
Even in cases where organisations want to support the free flow of ideas and collaboration, achieving this is hard as the command and control culture simply isn't aligned to support it.
Pockets of collaboration can and do spring up, but widespread adoption requires widespread change.
This change requires visible and strong leadership from those who gain the most from command and control structures and have the most to lose in a network organisation - the executives at the top of the pile.
If these people do not enthusiastically adopt, facilitate and support the change it will not occur.
This is very hard for senior management as they have the largest stake in the existing structure.
They need to willingly let go of their silo power in order to harness an even greater power - that of the organisation acting in unison.
The challenge is to give up control in order to retain it
So that's my view of why organisations are slow to adopt social media.
It's not skills, experience, power or even need. It's a side effect of the dominant command and control culture.
I'd appreciate your comments and views.
Bottom bar - change in motion
By the way for a practical example of how difficult this change can be and how long it takes, look at China and the political change it has been undergoing for the last twenty years.
The nation is struggling with how to give up centralised political power without losing control - a struggle reflected in miniature in many organisations around the world.
