Don't put the 'how' ahead of the 'why' for egovernment

I've been engaged in an interesting discussion in GovLoop regarding the definition of Government 2.0 and Web 2.0.

Initiated by Jeffrey Levy, who managed the official blog of the EPA, the discussion is around the proposition that Gov't 2.0 is a set of ideals. Web 2.0 is a set of tools.

Jeffrey contends that,

Gov't 2.0 means reaching out in new ways to engage people in helping lead, create policy, etc. It's not linked to a particular technology. It will usually be accomplished using technology, but at its best, I think it'll mix up good old-fashioned things like town meetings with stuff like blogs, wikis, and webinars.

Web 2.0 is a set of tools that can help us get to gov't 2.0. But you can't just throw up a blog and claim success.

I largely agree with this view. To quote my comment in the discussion,

I'm reading Groundswell at the moment and the book very clearly makes a point that I sometimes struggle to communicate well to my government colleagues. Government 2.0 is about a way of doing business which includes increased transparency, pro-active engagement and am innovation-based culture (rather than a risk-adverse/blame avoidance culture).

Web 2.0 are some of the technologies that can be used to support the transition, but are not the transition itself.

Leaders in the political and public sector space need to model Government 2.0 attitudes and behaviours, then allow their agencies to come up with innovative ways to realise these behaviours - whatever the channel or technology being used.

Often social media evangalists get too far ahead of the market, focusing on cutting edge technologies which frankly scare political leaders and agency heads. Instead they need to focus on the goals of the organisations and the benefits of Government 2.0 attitudes and behaviours in achieving these goals - the 'why'. Once there is agreement on these the approaches (the 'how') can become part of the discussion.

Essentially we need the agreement of senior public sector managers on the 'why' of Government 2.0 before we can achieve agreement on the 'how'.

Therefore as communications and internet professionals, we need to communicate to senior management the benefits to our agencies of greater transparency, active listening, greater engagement and greater consultation with our citizens, customers and stakeholders.

Only after this has been agreed (and in Australian government I feel there isn't yet total agreement at senior public service levels) can we tackle the 'how' questions,

• How do we need to change our overall behaviours and processes?
  
• How do we need to change our approach to communications?
  
• How does the internet fit as a comms channel?
  
• Do we need to use Web 2.0 tools?
  
• Do we use open-source or publicly available software?
  
• Do we build our own tools?
  

What do you think?

Come join the discussion!

Read full post...

View summary...

Share my story website sets a high standard for Australian egovernment offerings

I was recently alerted to the Queensland government's Share My Story website, which invites individuals to share their stories of road tragedies in order to help others rethink their conduct on the road and avoid future traffic injuries and deaths.

In my opinion Share My Story is an amazingly good website and a model for other egovernment initiatives by governments across Australia.

Developed using open source technologies, the site is simple to use, employs plain english, invites and supports participation and is cleanly and accessibly designed.

Launched this month (January), and already containing 35 real-life stories, the value and appeal of Share My Story to citizens is clear to me in the words of one of the authors, Bernadette Gilligan, when writing of the death of her first grandchild in a road tragedy,

Firstly, thank goodness for this website. I have been looking for something like this for 3 and a half years.

The site empowers citizens, giving them a way to share and reflect in a respectful and caring environment.

Stories are moderated, with clear guidelines on what can be submitted. The copyright arrangements are clear and stories can be simply 'rated' by clicking the 'saying thanks' button for stories that strike a chord in a reader, adding a star to a story.

It is easy to share stories across popular social networks such as Facebook and Myspace, bookmark them with Del.icio.us, rank them in StumbleUpon or Digg, or simply forward them to friends.

There is also a mechanism to flag stories and ask for their removal in exceptional circumstances.

As the About Us page for the site states,

Sharing is a powerful phenomenon. When a community comes together for a common cause, it can achieve amazing things. We can actually reduce the road toll, and that means saving lives and reducing suffering.

This is the type of well-designed and meaningful service I think of when I think of egovernment.

I hope to see other government agencies across Australia work to empower and support our communities, citizens, customers and stakeholders in similarly appropriate ways.

Read full post...

View summary...

Winners of UK eGovernment awards 2008 announced

The UK has announced 11 winners and 10 highly commended initiatives in its annual eGovernment awards.

Selected from 68 finalists, there are many interesting initiatives that could be adapted and used by Australian governments to deliver better and more cost-effective services.

Read full post...

View summary...

Democrats release 'bastardwatch' site in time for Australia Day

In possibly the most innovative use of the internet by an Australian political party (please tell me if you've seen better), the Australian Democrats have launched the site Bastardwatch, building on their motto, 'keeping the bastards honest'.

The site supports Web 2.0 features such as the ability to Nominate a prospective bastard, add comments to articles and even a game which you can virally forward to friends.

These sit alongside more common features such as a subscription tool and the ability to email several key politicians. The site also feeds into the Democrats online donations system.

Finally the site links to 'the new Democrat TV commercial' - which isn't really a new Democrats commercial, but is video of the fake commercials created for ABC's The Gruen Transfer - a great true-blue Australian self-critical moment.

Let's see more of this type of human face and Aussie humour from across all tiers of politics and government.

As we deal with deathly serious issues in government, and provide crucial services of one type or another to all Australians, it is critical that citizens are listened to and are part of decision making processes, and that the institutions they rely on aren't only represented or seen as faceless, uncaring bureaucracies.

Read full post...

View summary...

Law not keeping up with internet

In an example of how law isn't keeping pace with internet developments, last week The Age published an article, Problems with courts ordering service by Facebook, which considered the potential clash between an ACT Supreme court ruling and the terms of the US social network.

While the court ordered that a default judgement could be served on defendants by notification on Facebook, the terms of the social network state that "the Service and the Site are available for your personal non-commercial use only."

The Age article, by Nick Abrahams, a Sydney-based lawyer rapidly building his profile as an internet-age expert, stated that,

It seems unlikely that the service of default judgments in relation to a mortgage default could be regarded as "personal non-commercial use".

So we have a curious situation where on one view, an Australian court has given a judgment which may have the effect of causing an Australian entity to breach an agreement between the Australian entity and Facebook, Inc. To complicate matters further, the agreement is governed by the laws of the US State of Delaware.

It is possible that if it was put on notice of another such application, Facebook, Inc may seek leave to intervene in the proceedings and object to substituted service orders being made, on the basis that they would breach its terms of use.

On top of the issue above, I wonder if a defendant on whom a notice was served via Facebook could then appeal or counter-sue on the basis that the notice was served illegally, based on the terms of use of the site.

This raises a number of interesting questions around official commercial and government Web 2.0 services. Some allow commercial use, some only allow non-commercial use and some restrict usage to personal and non-commercia.

The ATO has a Facebook group for the e-Tax application. Does this fit within the 'personal non-commercial use' terms of use of the social network?

What about companies using Facebook groups to aid in selling product - commercial use?

How do laws in Australia and internationally need to change to better suit the realities of the modern world? (a question I am sure many lawyers, judges and policy makers contend with)

Or should we, as we do with most currencies, simply ignore the lack of legal underpinning?

National currencies began on the gold standard - where the government (or a bank) held $1 worth of gold for every dollar bill printed. Now these dollars 'float freely' against other currencies, supported only by a government promise.

Legal terms of use restrict how certain services are used, if these are ignored (or not tested legally), and other types of use is accepted, what underpins our legal system?

I am neither a lawyer nor a fish (read the article), but foresee interesting legal times ahead.

Read full post...

View summary...