Posts
Following from my post yesterday regarding the US senate debate over the use of social media by congressmen, several congressmen have launched a campaign to remove restrictions on internet use by the US congress.
The campaign is entitled Let Our Congress Tweet and, as you'd expect, makes extensive use of social media to put across its views.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
US campaign to allow congressmen to use social media launches | Tweet |
How do you judge if a government intranet is a success? | Tweet |
I regularly struggle with how to best evaluate the success of my agency's intranet.
In generaly there are six different sets of metrics I use, grouped into 'hard' and 'soft' as follows:
Hard (numerical)
- Statistics - traffic (visits/pageviews),
- Content (age/timeliness/findability),
Soft (subjective)
- Design - usability/accessibility/attraction (task completion, screen reading),
- Development - standards (code validation)
- User satisfaction (what do staff, contributors and managers tell us formally?),
- Word-of-mouth (what do staff, contributors and managers say informally?)
Overall I'm happy with our intranet's performance.
However I don't have a consolidated measure that combines these measures into a single number I can track over time as an Intranet Success Index.
How do you go about rating your intranet's success?
Using social networks to support youth education | Tweet |
Digizen have conducted a project and produced a report looking at how young people use, and could use social networking services to support their learning experience.
It's a fascinating read with some very practical examples of how to utilise these networks to engage young people and enrich and extend the learning experience.
The report is available both online and as a downloadable document from Digizen at Young People and Social Networking Services.
Is it time for a government mobile broadband guarantee? | Tweet |
The Australian government has an opportunity to expand its support for national fixed line broadband to include mobile broadband, spearheaded by the release of the Apple iPhone this week.
The phone is a revolutionary device and reports out of the US indicate that people using the phone are using internet data services 50x as frequently as on other phone handsets.
However with the release of telecommunications plans by Optus, Vodaphone and Telstra, there has been considerable backlash within online communities.
The general theme is that the data allocations are too small, and the cost of data much too high.
The view is stated sucinctly by Stephen Collins of Acidlabs in his post, The iPhone as social umbilical cord (and how Australian telcos don’t get it).
Mobile internet has to-date been largely a non-event in Australia. With the rollout of 3G networks, telecommunications providers have focused on providing content via walled gardens from selected media services. Data usage has been low as the cost of data has been high - often 10x the cost of fixed broadband.
The release of the iPhone and similar multi-channel handheld devices changes the game.
Services such as Twitter, Plurk, Friendfeed, instant messaging clients and other 'stream of consciousness' communications technologies are easily accessible via the device.
This turns the publisher -> consumer walled garden of current mobile internet services into a conversation - a multi-user <-> multi-user always-on social and business experience.
Unfortunately the launch plans for the product from all three telecommunications players do not support this type of product use, pricing data out of the reach of an always-on experience.
The Australia government has its Australian Broadband Guarantee program poised to roll-out for 2008-2009 in August. This program is admirable - it helps ensure that Australians have access to fixed wire broadband in ever growing numbers.
However much of the world is now beginning to substitute fixed broadband for more mobile solutions, via mobile phone or dedicated wireless networks.
In many developing countries expensive fixed networks are not being rolled out - instead they are rolling out wireless, which is cheaper and easier to deliver to remove areas.
For Australia to stay in the game, let alone remain an innovator, there is the need to take a longer-term view and support the mobile broadband industry.
How to do this
The first step is to understand the seachange occuring overseas and review what can be done in Australia to reduce the cost of mobile data.
The second step is to take steps - quickly - to reduce those costs, encouraging Australians to use handheld devices for the uses they are being put to overseas.
This will establish the environment for greater innovation in mobile broadband. These innovations will have global potential, helping Australian companies to competitively play on the world stage.
It will also, though increasing usage, deliver greater profits to the telecommunications companies.
Finally it can also be used to address some of the inconsistencies and inequitites in the fixed broadband market.
What's the alternative?
The alternative is for the government to let the market take the lead, locking in expensive mobile broadband solutions and leaving Australia a 'follow-me' country that adopts overseas technologies rather than innovating locally.
This outcome would be extremely detrimental to Australia's long-term future.
The internet is the nervous system of the world, allowing individuals and organisations to come together to create and share ideas, solve problems and build new businesses regardless of their geographic location.
If Australia is not embedded firmly in this nervous system it will become increasingly uncompetitive over time.
What's your view on the steps the government should take?
Do you monitor your Wikipedia entry? | Tweet |
I keep an eye on my agency's Wikipedia entry to make sure the information it contains is timely, factual, apolitical and objective.
Where possible I try to edit it as little as possible, allowing the community of Wikipedia to determine what is relevant in the entry - we have our own website for detailed information.
So why bother with Wikipedia?
I see managing our Wikipedia presence as a plank in our agency's overall communications strategy. If someone searches for us online I want to ensure that the same factual message is being communicated from any websites we can influence.
Where possible I try to edit it as little as possible, allowing the community of Wikipedia to determine what is relevant in the entry - we have our own website for detailed information.
So why bother with Wikipedia?
I see managing our Wikipedia presence as a plank in our agency's overall communications strategy. If someone searches for us online I want to ensure that the same factual message is being communicated from any websites we can influence.
Wikipedia is particularly important as it is the most popular website we have the capacity to influence.
It's one of the top ten websites in the world and also a top ten site for Australia users.
While universities may not regard it as a primary reference source, it is in widespread use by Australian children for research purposes. In fact my children were taught at school how to research online using Wikipedia. Which site will they continue to use in ten years?
Below is a comparison from Alexa on the ranking of Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica and Australia.gov.au based on overall internet traffic. Australia.gov.au doesn't perform this badly if only looking at Australian traffic, but Wikipedia performs just as well.
While universities may not regard it as a primary reference source, it is in widespread use by Australian children for research purposes. In fact my children were taught at school how to research online using Wikipedia. Which site will they continue to use in ten years?
Below is a comparison from Alexa on the ranking of Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica and Australia.gov.au based on overall internet traffic. Australia.gov.au doesn't perform this badly if only looking at Australian traffic, but Wikipedia performs just as well.
There's an overall list for Commonwealth government here, the text in red represents government bodies without a Wikipedia entry at all.
Interestingly the list is open to anyone to edit - and it does not have an importance ranking (which defines how much attention is paid to the accuracy of the content).
I've had a quick look around at the Wikipedia entries for other departments and agencies and there's enormous variation in the quality and comprehensiveness of their entries - where they have entries.
How does your department or agency review and maintain its Wikipedia entries?
- AGIMO - Australian Government Information Management Office
- Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
- Attorney-General's
- Australian Bureau of Statistics
- Australia Tax Office
- Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
- Centrelink
- Child Support Agency
- Climate Change
- CSIRO - great entry!
- Defence
- Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
- Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
- Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
- Finance and Deregulation
- Foreign Affairs and Trade
- Health and Ageing
- Human Services
- Immigration and Citizenship
- Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
- Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
- Medicare - great entry!
- Prime Minister and Cabinet
- Resources, Energy and Tourism
- Treasury
- Veterans' Affairs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
