Intranet Innovation Award winners for 2008 announced

The Intranet Innovation Award winners for 2008 have been announced, and their details, together with an executive summary (PDF) containing two case studies of award winners is available at Step Two's website.

The case studies feature an example of collaborative information sharing via a wiki used by staff of one organisation to track competitors and an innovative intranet people finder that improves staff networking and discovery by combining elements of both Twitter and Facebook.

I was inspired by both of the case studies, but a little disappointed to see only one government site mentioned in the awards this year - the Department of Human Services (South Australia) was commended for their CEO blog.

I hope there will be a greater public sector presence next year.

Read full post...

View summary...

Locating and learning about future public employees using social networks

I am a reasonably active LinkedIn user (view my profile here).

It's one of my professional networking tools for keeping track of 'people of interest' to me - from business contacts to potential employees and employers.

It, and similar social and professional networks, are also useful recruiting tools for managers and HR professionals seeking to find or screen job applicants.

This isn't news to US HR teams. A recent survey by Careerbuilders.com, as reported in Reuters, found that 22 percent of hiring managers screened applicants via social networks.

From the article, One in five bosses screen applicants' Web lives: poll, of the managers screening applicants, 24 percent found information that solidified their decision to hire, while 34 percent found information that made them drop the candidate from the short list.

I also tend to Google people before making short-listing or hiring decisions (or when hearing about or meeting them professionally). It helps me build context and understanding and it draws on publicly available information (provided by the person in question), so there are no privacy considerations.

In terms of the full hiring process, for HR professionals and managers the online channel doesn't replace resumes, selection criteria and interviews, but it can certainly supplement this process by adding depth.

And for anyone seeking a new job, it is worth reviewing what you've said about yourself online - to ensure that you are representing yourself professionally.

Read full post...

View summary...

Tapping into the return of the innovative individual

One of the primary changes resulting from the growth of the internet has been to place professional media tools and distribution capabilities in the hands of individuals.

Any individual with access to a computer and internet connection can create and distribute prose, poetry, commentary, software or services to millions at little cost. Add a microphone and they can conduct talkback or share original music and ass a low-cost digital camera with video capacity and they can also share photos and video.

As detailed in Paul Budde's article, The rebirth of the innovative individual, this is a return to the individual creativity stifled by 'big media' through the 20th century.

The private sector in Australia has already begun effectively tapping into this media change - but how about the public sector?

Car, computer and shampoo companies have supported customer-created television commercials. Prominent political bloggers have been invited to political rallies and 'mummy bloggers' courted by large consumer goods companies. Online musicians have hit the top of the charts and been 'discovered' and online programmers have contributed solutions to major corporate software solutions.

We've even seen other media, newspapers, radio and television channels add the capability for individuals to break stories and provide video and audio coverage used around the world.

On the public front, in other jurisdictions we've seen some government efforts to tap into this space, from the New Zealand police wiki Act (an Act of Parliament written by the public via a wiki) to the UK cash prizes for mashups (where the government is rewarding the best applications built using government information).

In Australia I have not seen any developments on this scale.

Certainly we have a few mechanisms to listen to citizens via different online consultation channels, but listening isn't the same as collaborating.

I am not aware of any major initiatives in Australia where government is saying to the public,

We don't know how to achieve the best outcomes in this area, so if anyone has a good idea put it forward and we'll both reward and use the best of them?

This can be challenging step for any organisation used to be the source of answers, rather than the facilitator of solutions.

However, as the private sector is discovering, the new approach delivers excellent outcomes.

I'm hopeful that within a few years we will also see Australian governments using collaborative approaches to write legislation, generate program ideas, produce creative and develop (online) applications and systems.

Read full post...

View summary...

Can government collaborate in online service development?

I have participated in the beta testing of software for over 20 years now - it's a great way to get an early look at new developments and to have a level of influence over the development process as a customer (in one case I was even hired as the lead designer on a subsequent product).

Lately I've been participating in a number of private betas for online applications. One of these has just gone into public beta (SlideRocket - an online presentation solution designed to compete with PowerPoint). In this case the developer has made their full issues and fix list available publicly and there is quite an active community helping them improve the application, such as through their User Voice section.

This has made me think about how government develops online services for public use - what prevents us from considering collaborative development in this way?
There are obvious upsides and downsides to a public beta approach for any organisation.

On the minus side, it exposes the service early, meaning that government doesn't have as much time to determine the message for the release and providing detractors with an early opportunity to attack.

It also puts a lower quality solution 'out there', providing opportunities for the public to draw a negative view of the service due to its less than fully developed state. This can make it harder to draw people back when it is more fully developed.

Thirdly, putting a public beta out provides malicious elements more opportunity to find security holes and cause damage.

On the upside, a public beta provides for a much more rigorous level of scrutiny by the public and experts before the service is finally release. This allows issues to be identified and addressed and improves the usability, functionality and stability of the service. It also comes at a lower price tag than running 5,000 focus groups around the country (and internationally).

It also allows several bites at the cherry for government announcements. Firstly comes an announcement on the public beta, positioned as an opportunity for the broader community to test, reflect and comment on the service. Then comes the release announcement, where the government can launch the service - more confident it will hit the mark.

On balance I believe the downsides can be mitigated through careful communications management, whereas the upsides provide enormous efficiency benefits around the consultation area.

It does require a change in project management approach - unforeseen bugs and feature issues will be raised through the public beta process and need to be managed adequately.

I'd also suggest that there would need to be less focus on date/cost and more on adequate service quality to meet customer needs.

I believe this is a broader focus change needed in IT development anyway. I am quite concerned by large projects defined around delivery dates rather than meeting the appropriate level of solution performance for customers.

I wonder which of my upcoming projects is appropriate for consideration in a public beta... I can think of several immediate options.

Read full post...

View summary...

Gershon recommends procurement integration

The first public comments from the government on the Gershon Report are beginning to emerge, with The Australian reporting on Thursday, Tanner targets agency wastage in bid to save $1bn.

The article basically focuses on duplication of effort and costs by departments who separately procure IT equipment, software, services and office rent.

My feeling is that another Gershon finding will be that there are insufficient links between departments to support more uniform procurement practices, which reflects the historical situation where most government agencies have been operated as discrete businesses, with separate and unique processes, standards and IT systems.

I am also hoping that internal systems will become a focus for efficiency improvements. While improving government's customer-facing IT systems directly improves visible delivery of services, improving internal services provides for indirect service benefits. 

This extends from;

• allowing public servants to spend more time being customer-focused through spending less time grappling with inconsistent and/or low usability internal systems, 
• through reductions in frustration and workplace stress (which impact service quality),
• through easier hiring and transferring of staff who need to adapt to fewer systems in job changes, and 
• better information flows within and between agencies to cut delays.

I am hopeful that we'll see some reform following the Gershon Report towards making government more efficient and more effective at service delivery. Supporting both cost savings and service quality improvements at the same time.

Read full post...

View summary...