It's not about the technology - it's all about the people

Arthur C Clarke, the renown science fiction writer, formulated three laws of prediction, the third of which stated;

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

We seem to have largely reached this point in society. The majority of people do not understand how an internal combustion engine works, let alone a microchip or mobile phone.

Certainly we've done an excellent job of educating people about the principles and concepts - most people can explain that an engine burns petrol, or that a microchip is made up of electrical circuits, but could they repair or build one?

To live in modern society there's no deeper understanding required - simply turn the key or push the button and the technological 'thing' just works.

On this basis the people who create and repair technology become the modern wizards and sorcerers, who use indecipherable words, strange rituals and bad smelling components to perform their secret rites.

Why is this relevant to egovernment? Because politicians and public servants are humans too - subject to the same emotions, biases and psychological impulses.

Often in government - as in the private sector - technology is seen as a thing apart, managed by strange people who cluster in back rooms, speaking in tongues. These people, commonly referred to as IT, are regarded by others with a mixture of reverence, awe and fear.

Due to this whenever technology is used to facilitate an activity or task, often the focus, and the budget, is committed to buying or building the computers, software and systems necessary for delivery - and the other aspects, the communication, training and usability, is neglected.

I have watched this happen in organisations on a regular basis for many years. All the funds go into buying the facilitating tools, with little left over for the people.

In my view this is a fundamental misunderstanding of technology and is a large part of the reason why so many IT-focused projects fail to deliver the benefits predicted - or fail to deliver at all.

I've always believed the people are more important than the tools. Get the people parts right and even if the technology isn't 100% you will get a good outcome.

This is particularly significant in egovernment where systems are built to help engage people, inform them, communicate with them and interact with them.

To d this successfully organisations need to build the systems to work for the people, rather than build the systems and then try to change peoples' behaviour to match.

This is simply another way of saying go where the people are, which is a recommendation as applicable to marketers and communicators as it is for IT teams.

These principles apply even more strongly for online social media - which is all about facilitating interactions between people, the technological interface is merely the barrier in-between.

This could be why so many organisations have resisted social media - because they don't see the community interactions as the most important aspect of these projects - they focus on the technology they should use, to the expense of the technology which their staff would use.

So why are so many organisation so bad at this?

Because they think it's about the technology and not the people.

And in my opinion they could not be more wrong.

What do you think?

Read full post...

View summary...

Less words, more pictures = better government

One of the biggest issues I've seen in government websites is excessive use of words.

Government agencies often treat each website page as a stand-alone fact sheet. This means they err on the side on completeness, leading to wordiness.

Most of us have seen the research. People don't read wordy, jargon-filled pages - they skim.

People prefer web pages with fewer words, with the option of drilling down to more depth if they need it.

The web is good at this. It's called linking.

All of us have good reasons for our websites being wordy,

• The communications team doesn't understand how to write for the web
• The legal team made us put in those extra (really big) words
• The concept is very complex and people may not understand without details
• My SES made me do it!

It's time to face the music

Why are government websites wordy?

Because website content managers let them become wordy.

As website content managers we are the custodians of what appears on the pages of our websites.

When people want to write long and involved content, it's our responsibility to advise and support them in making the text accessible, readable and effective for the online channel.

We should advise them when other approaches would work better than words - images, animations, audio or video.

They don't need to learn how to write for the web - we do.

Read full post...

View summary...

10 reasons government agencies should not advertise online

1) Our traditional ad agency tells us so - and as radio, print and television advertising is more profitable for them, they must be right!

2) It's easier to simply build a bells and whistles website, promote it via traditional means for a month and then ignore it. Our audience will find it, really.

3) Our audience doesn't use the internet - unlike the other 90% of the population

4) The internet is unsafe because you don't know what people will say - you can trust print/radio/television journalists to only say what we want them to say

5) If we don't advertise online, people won't say bad things about us online

6) We can more accurately measure the success of our campaigns online and they don't always work - it's better not to know we're wasting money

7) Because our senior executives haven't gotten the hang of email yet, and we know that our executives (who approve our ad design and spend) think and act exactly in the same way as our customers, even though they earn more, are degree-qualified, much older and live in Canberra

8) Because if people don't like our campaign that much, they might say so and our feelings would be hurt

9) Because Australians don't really use the internet as much as the figures say they do, they just leave it turned on in the next room while they are busy watching ads on TV

10) Because radio, print and television have always worked for us in the past, and always will

Read full post...

View summary...

The challenge of social media for governments - accepting diverse views

When making major decisions government departments commonly consult broadly to capture the various views of different segments the community.

However when engaging in live or online public discussions, the same departments are often highly concerned about the risk of people expressing strong contrary views.

It's one of the contradictions I've found in government - a desire for consultation, but within a controlled and safe framework defined by the department.

But what happens when government takes a risk and doesn't restrict itself to a framework of its own design?

An interesting experiment in this area is currently occurring in the US presidential election involving the online social tools provided for supporters by Barack Obama's campaign.

Over the last six days a group of his supporters have been upset at Obama's change in stance on spying, to the extent where they created a social networking group within his campaign site to protest.

This group, using the same online social tools as were used to take Obama from 'also ran' to Presidential candidate, is now the largest within the my.barackobama.com site, with more than 8,900 members at last count and growing at up to 100% per day. It is continuing to use his website social networking tools to organise support and his email service to organise and promote the group.

As part of this group's growth, they have also established a Wiki using the free Wetpaint service (a nice little tool I've used myself) as well as across Facebook and other popular social networking sites.

This has led to media coverage across press, radio and television in the US, as reported within this article in The Nation, Surveillance Protest Group Tops Obama Website.

Obama and his staff have not taken any actions to restrict the growth of the group, although it is in their power to shut it down - at least within the campaign site.

Only a few years ago it would have been unheard of for a campaign to allow it's supporters to take this level of control over an agenda.

One view being heard is that by encouraging his supporters to use online social media to self-organise Obama has created a monster that is as likely to turn on him as support him.

With confidence from their success in the Democratic nomination, many of his supporters are now skilled web 2.0 users as well as activists - willing and able to use the plethora of free online social media tools to organise large protests against key positions faster than ever before.

Another view is that with the internet genie out of the bottle, the best approach is to allow and support these groups to organise and have their say. This view acknowledges that Obama no longer controls the dialogue, but is simply one of the players - albeit a major leading one.

Personally I'm very impressed that Obama and his campaign have taken this second view. His supporters have been allowed to freely organise the protest group using his own social network without any restrictions.

While Obama has acknowledged the view of the group, he has not taken any steps to reverse his position at this time, however I expect that he will commit more time to explaining to his supporters why he had taken this position.


I feel extremely encouraged at the willingness of someone standing for a high office to allow open debate without gags. It's an approach I'd love to see more of in Australia - parliamentarians and public sector agencies being more open to unstructured consultation and more willing to acknowledge and engage in citizen discussions, wherever and however they take place.

Read full post...

View summary...

Who owns government websites?

I have a very strong view on who owns a government agency's website - it's operated by the agency on behalf of the public.

The teams who look after the code, functionality, design and content are custodians and gatekeepers who ensure that the website;

• works (is online 24/7)
  
• meets all required standards
• uses appropriate current tools and approaches to maximise its effectiveness
  
• is attractive and interesting, and, most importantly,
• meets the needs of the agency's audiences

However I've found in practice, and not just in government, that collective ownership is a hard concept for many to grasp.

Over the years I've heard many individuals make statements such as (actual quotes);

• Public sector Senior IT manager: It's my code
• Private sector Marketing VP: The website is a communications tool, I own it

I know that humans love to own stuff - it's the basis of our consumer society.

Ownership is also important for peoples' careers - often people judge their own success by what they 'own' (or control) professionally - staff, resources and businesses.

Irregardless of which area or executive manages or funds a website, who writes the content or cuts the code, if it doesn't meet the needs of the organisation's customers - does it have any value at all?

As professionals, don't we have an obligation to consider the big picture?

Read full post...

View summary...