Posts
I've been too busy and tired this week to really commit to putting much content into eGovAU - which doesn't mean I'm not listening and thinking about what is happening in the wider egovernment world.
So instead of a regular post I thought I'd share some thoughts that have particularly stuck with me this week.
It's Time for Governance - The need to senior level whole-of-government guidance in the egovernment space.
The Second Revolution: Why the UK Government Beats the US Government on the Web - What the UK government is doing well, and the US isn't.
Beginners Guide to Government 2.0 -- Some Suggestions from a Practitioner - to maximise your egovernment efforts, hire people from the private sector who have used the internet for more than ten years and can both execute as well as strategise.
Twitter and Widgets and Blogs, Oh My - the tools US state governments are now using as part of their basic 'toolkit' for citizen communication, engagement and consultation.
Aussie councillors AWOL from Twitter - A discussion of how of the roughly 6,600 councillors in Australia, only around 12 are using Twitter, compared to the number in the UK, where government is a more mature internet user.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Thoughts from the web | Tweet |
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Making laws align with egovernment | Tweet |
I've come across some interesting situations recently where technology is far in advance of legal frameworks, placing governments in a position where agencies may be breaking - or at least bending - laws by using certain online tools.
Twitter is a case in point. The technology was invented after the Spam Act was passed and it is not actually email, however it does permit the sending of advertising messages out to thousands or even millions of people. How is this covered? Personally I'm not sure, however I'd hazard a guess that legal opinions will probably vary.
Another example is the use of services such as YouTube, Facebook and other social media tools. All come with terms of use attached which may in some cases contravene government legal requirements.
This hasn't yet become a pressing issue in Australia and the use of YouTube in particular has become quite widespread across government, with at least 20 agencies using it to host and distribute video.
In the US there's also a great deal of use of YouTube by local state and federal agencies.
In this case federal agencies have been in a legally gray area. While they are only answerable to federal law, YouTube's terms of service specify that its users are liable to the applicable state libel laws.
Also of concern is that in the US anything the government publishes is in the public domain and freely available for reuse (unlike in Australia where agencies generally attach copyright to their work). YouTube's terms also specify that the user posting the video is responsible for the video - which is not the approach the US government takes.
As in most situations, where new technology meets old laws it's the laws and how they are interpreted that changes. In this case the US federal government is negotiating with YouTube to change the conditions to legitimise its use of the channel.
This has been discussed quite broadly in Nextgov, particularly in the article Feds and YouTube close to reaching a deal to post video.
I wonder how Australian government agencies will handle the inevitable conflicts between laws and society in the online world - particularly when dealing with services often created, owned and managed out of overseas jurisdictions.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Hansard Society telling UK MPs to engage online | Tweet |
A report has been co-published by the Hansard society and Microsoft discussing how UK Members of Parliament are using the internet and providing strategies on how they can better use the internet to engage with their constituencies and with interest groups.
It's been highlighted already in the Victorian eGovernment Resource Centre, and discussed widely in UK government blogging circles.
Entitled MPs online: Connecting with Constituents, according to Kable, the report found that while 92% of MPs used email and 83% had a website, only 23% used social media and 11% blogged.
The report urged MPs to,
develop strategies for online media that include assessing the target audience, whether the site is interactive and what resources are needed. It also says they should develop a clear policy for the use of email, publicise it on their websites, and provide automatic responses to senders.
Among the other recommendations are that they
- create links from websites to social networking pages and vice versa;
- ensure people referencing material provide a link to the source;
- make better use of community created digital media, including websites;
- support third party projects that promote democratic engagement; and
- connect their online and offline communications strategies.
It also urges the parliamentary authorities to review the access to its digital archives and consider the licensing and re-use of the content.
All of these are good sense in my view and reflect the same approach that government needs to take in Australia.
The report also highlighted that the internet is still being considered a one-way broadcast medium by MPs rather than as a two-way channel,
Andy Williamson, director of the eDemocracy programme at the Hansard Society and author of the report, commented: "MPs are transmitting and not receiving. They use the internet as a tool for campaigning and for organising their supporters, rather than opening up two-way communication with constituents."Essentially this report reflects the comments made by Joe Trippi at yesterday's Politics and Technology forum.
As both US and UK commentators are saying the same things about what government and MPs need to be doing online, perhaps we'll see more local movement towards embracing the online channel across government.
A PDF copy of the report is available at the Hansard Society's website.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Politics and Technology forum liveblog | Tweet |
This is my first go at liveblogging so bear with me.
A more professional liveblog of this event is on over at Stilgherrian's blog.
Here's a picture of the panel
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Government and the social life of brands - how to benefit from interacting with customers through social media | Tweet |
Everyone knows what brands are, 'products' that have been strongly linked to a specific (brand) name, lifestyle, belief or emotional attachment in order to establish their relative value to consumers.
As defined by David Ogilvy, a brand is:
The intangible sum of a product's attributes: its name, packaging, and price, its history, its reputation, and the way it's advertised.Brands can be established around tangible and intangible goods and services, organisations or people - think Aston Martin, Coca-cola, David Beckham and Kevin Rudd.
Kevin Rudd? Yes I believe that government also has brands. Organisations such as Centrelink, ATO and Medicare, products such as e-Tax and people such as the Prime Minister all exhibit the traits of brands and can be marketed and promoted in that manner.
This makes it relevant to consider the latest report on the social life of brands from Ogilvy International, Can brands have a social life? How brands in Asia can benefit from interacting with customers through social media (PDF).
This report, discussed through their Open Room blog, looks at how social media is being used across Asia to accelerate and reshape the dialogue between citizens and between citizens and brands (including government).
In each of the twelve countries featured (China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam) the experience is slightly different in flavour, however the overall them and trend is the same.
This theme reflects the same experience in western countries such as the US, UK and Australia.
To pull out a few important themes considered in the report,
- Consumer opinion counts more than ever
- Social media is a pivotal part of the consumer's digital ecosystem
- The Y-Generation live their lives in social media and if you’re not talking to them,
- someone else will
- Social media is all about managing 'influencers', creating a dialogue with the most important influencers and having them spread the word for you
- Letting go of the brand is a reality of social media and it’s critical that the brand’s senior management fully understand the implications, and are willing to take the risk as well as commit resource
- Social media success has to be embedded in honesty and trust by playing to the brand’s core values and ideals. No falsifications
- Brands that disclose conflicts of interest, are responsive to questions, and permit negative as well as positive discussion are most likely to get accepted.
- Brands need to be willing to contribute to be accepted in social media. Even to go as far as contributing unconditionally.
Truth, honesty, openness and collaboration are all values that are highly regarded but are often difficult for organisations to embody.
I think the real dilemma many organisations, particularly in the public sector, need to first address is how to reshape their own culture and values to allow them to fruitfully engage online.
