Posts
I have long struggled with techniques for costing websites in Government. Due to how resources and budgets are allocated - with program areas funding and conducting some content work, corporate areas other and infrastructure and network costs often rolled into a central budget in IT teams (which provides excellent economies of scale, but makes costing individual web properties harder) - it can be very hard to come to a complete and accurate figure on what any government website costs to launch or maintain.
Regardless, we are all driven by budgets and must determine ways to estimate costs for planning new websites and set management, improvement and maintenance budgets for existing ones.
A step further than costs is value, a necessary part of any cost-benefit equation. In order to assess whether a website is cost-effective - or at least more cost-effective than alternative tools - it is vital to be able to demonstrate how websites add value to an agency's operations.
Unfortunately value is an even more nebulous figure than cost as it often has to measure qualitative rather than quantitative benefits.
Sure you can count the number of website visits, visitors or pageviews, or in social media terms, fans and followers, however this is much like judging a meeting's success by the number of people who show up - the more people, the more successful the meeting.
This metric works when you can place a commercial value on a visit - so this may work effectively for ecommerce sites, but not for most government sites.
Another approach is to look at the cost per visit, with a presumption that a lower cost is better. However this relies on fully understanding the cost of websites in the first place, and also assumes that a cost/value ratio has meaning. For some websites a high cost might be appropriate (such as a suicide prevention site), whereas for other sites a lower ratio might be appropriate (such as a corporate informational site).
Perhaps the key is related to that ecommerce site example, where the sales of goods is an outcome of a visit, therefore the commercial value of a visit is effectively a site outcome measure.
The next challenge is assessing the outcomes agencies desire from their websites and giving them some form of quantitative value. Completing an online form, rather than an offline form might be worth $5 to an agency, reading an FAQ and therefore not calling or emailing an agency might be worth $30, reading FOI information online rather than making an FOI request might be worth $500, whereas reading emergency news, versus having to rescue someone might be worth $5,000.
Of course this quantitative measure of values for outcomes is relative and has very large assumptions - however it does provide a model that can be tweaked and adjusted to provide a fair value of a site.
It also has a far more valuable purpose - it forces agencies to consider the primary objectives of their website and how well their most important outcomes are satisfied by site design, content and navigation.
If the main purpose of a site is to provide information on a program such that program staff aren't responding to calls from media and public all day, then the appropriate information needs to be front and centre, not hidden three levels deep in a menu. If the main purpose is to have people complete a process online, then the forms must be fillable online and back-end systems support the entire process without having gaps that force people to phone.
Are there other more effective ways of measuring cost and value of websites? I'd love to hear from you.
And for further reading, the posts from Diane Railton at drcc about UK government website costs are excellent reading, How much does your website cost?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
How much do your agency websites cost - and are they cost-effective? | Tweet |
Monday, May 16, 2011
Omega to Alpha - a new start for UK government online | Tweet |
The UK government last week launched alpha.gov.uk, an experimental site that explores different ways of presenting government information online to better support citizens.
Designed based on recommendations from the 2010 Review Report led by Martha Lane Fox, which was intended to revolutionise the UK Government’s online services, the site provides a glimpse into a citizen-centric future that takes a very different direction to Directgov.
The site is designed to seek comment and feedback from citizens and public servants. As the site's about page states,
What Alpha.gov.uk does do is trial a selection of new, simple, reusable tools aimed at meeting some of the most prevalent needs people have from government online. The aim is to gather feedback on these new approaches from real people early in the process of building a new single website for central government.
The site does away with the crowded index-based navigation approach of Directgov (which is internally the more common approach for central government sites) and instead focuses on a search-based mechanism for most enquiries, with top enquiries listed below the main search window.
Search results are formatted in more useful ways, such as calendars (which you can add to your own), such as this one for a search on "Holidays" and instant forms - such as this result for "Lost passport".
Note that many searches will not currently provide relevant results as the site is a prototype, however there's already an impressive range of 'top of mind' searches supported.
Below the fold is a set of 'latest news from government', however laid out with lots of white space and with a simple, well-structured side menu.
The note stating 'EXPERIMENTAL PROTOTYPE - This section will almost certainly not be up to date after 10th May, it is for illustrative purposes only' demonstrates how experimental the site truly is.
The site blog talks about the aims of the site and allows comment and discussion and there's a tool for providing feedback enabled through the GetSatisfaction service.
All in all this site is an excellent research tool and it will be very interesting for governments around the world to view the public comments and criticisms of the site to inform the future development of their own central government and departmental sites.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Harper Collins limits library eBook use to 26 lends before repurchase | Tweet |
There's lots of interesting debates going on about ownership at the moment.
Are the products and content you buy and enjoy owned by you? Do you have the right to switch formats, modify hardware, install software or make a personal copy?
Sony has been fighting for years to prevent customers from modding their Playstations, arguing that customers do not have the right to install unauthorised hardware or software (even accepting you void the warranty).
Movie and music distributors have long held the position that if you bought a cassette tape or video you have no right to the DVD version of the movie or song at simply the cost of the medium. You must buy the content again. Equally, in moving from DVDs to online, people in Australia do not have a legal right to download a movie or music they have already bought.
As more content is digitalised, this ownership debate is spreading, with the latest areas of contention being ebooks. It seems that at least one book publisher is arguing similarly that libraries may not enjoy unlimited lending rights to ebooks they purchase, despite being allowed to lend out a paper copy as many times as they like.
In response to fears that people will simply borrow these ebooks online, thereby cutting into book sales (which are already heavily moving online), Harper Collins has locked ebooks sold (via the OverDrive service) to libraries in the US and Canada. After 26 lends each ebook becomes unusable and the library must repurchase it to keep lending it out.
This move has prompted outrage amongst librarians across North America, and a number of libraries have already boycotted Harper Collins, refusing to buy any further books they publish, in any format, until the policy is changed.
If Harper Collins' decision is upheld, it may have major cost implications for public libraries in the future - as well as for organisations that maintain their own libraries, that buy business books for staff training purposes or even for citizens.
Imagine only being able to read a book, watch a movie or listen to music you'd purchased a publisher-designated number of times before being forced to re-buy it.
Oh - and I didn't mention that Harper Collins also wants to collect information on all readers borrowing ebooks from public libraries, so it can better understand and market to them.
That's not a particularly open or transparent world.
Here's some further articles discussing Harper Collins' decision:
Are the products and content you buy and enjoy owned by you? Do you have the right to switch formats, modify hardware, install software or make a personal copy?
Sony has been fighting for years to prevent customers from modding their Playstations, arguing that customers do not have the right to install unauthorised hardware or software (even accepting you void the warranty).
Movie and music distributors have long held the position that if you bought a cassette tape or video you have no right to the DVD version of the movie or song at simply the cost of the medium. You must buy the content again. Equally, in moving from DVDs to online, people in Australia do not have a legal right to download a movie or music they have already bought.
As more content is digitalised, this ownership debate is spreading, with the latest areas of contention being ebooks. It seems that at least one book publisher is arguing similarly that libraries may not enjoy unlimited lending rights to ebooks they purchase, despite being allowed to lend out a paper copy as many times as they like.
In response to fears that people will simply borrow these ebooks online, thereby cutting into book sales (which are already heavily moving online), Harper Collins has locked ebooks sold (via the OverDrive service) to libraries in the US and Canada. After 26 lends each ebook becomes unusable and the library must repurchase it to keep lending it out.
This move has prompted outrage amongst librarians across North America, and a number of libraries have already boycotted Harper Collins, refusing to buy any further books they publish, in any format, until the policy is changed.
If Harper Collins' decision is upheld, it may have major cost implications for public libraries in the future - as well as for organisations that maintain their own libraries, that buy business books for staff training purposes or even for citizens.
Imagine only being able to read a book, watch a movie or listen to music you'd purchased a publisher-designated number of times before being forced to re-buy it.
Oh - and I didn't mention that Harper Collins also wants to collect information on all readers borrowing ebooks from public libraries, so it can better understand and market to them.
That's not a particularly open or transparent world.
Here's some further articles discussing Harper Collins' decision:
- HarperCollins Puts 26 Loan Cap on Ebook Circulations
- Publishers Move To Limit Library E-Book Lending
- HarperCollins Seeks to Limit Digital Lending, Access Patron Data, Generally Piss Off Readers
- ALA President Criticizes HarperCollins Ebook Lending Policy
- Petition Protesting HarperCollins's Ebook Circulation Policy Takes Off
Monday, May 09, 2011
Public Service 2.0 - reflections on Terry Moran's latest speech | Tweet |
The Secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Terry Moran, gave a speech last week to the Graduate School of Government, University of Sydney. Titled Surfing the next wave of reform, his speech discussed the public service's critical role in supporting and enabling government reform and good governance, and what would be expected of the APS into the future.
Without mentioning Government 2.0, Moran's speech touched on many of its elements. He argued that the public service needed to improve how it engaged with citizens - particularly through the use of new tools enabled by technological improvements in IT and communications,
The bedrock of government engagement with citizens is through the institutions of our representative democracy. At its simplest, citizens vote every three years or so to elect Members of Parliament who choose a government to make laws and decisions.
But that alone is far from the extent of the links between citizens and government. Governments will achieve their goals better if they also use other ways to engage with citizens to complement and reinforce our fundamental democratic institutions.
The remarkable advances in information technology and communications over recent decades have changed and expanded citizens’ expectations, but have also given governments much better tools for engaging with citizens.
We need to do much better at this task.
Moran said that the public service had to improve its use of technology in policy and program delivery to service citizen needs,
Second, in implementing and delivering the decisions of Cabinet, we need to do better at designing policies and programs in ways that take full advantage of modern technology and that are designed with flexibility and creativity, to meet citizens’ needs. The NBN will permit a step forward in this area.
And he said that the APS needed to become better at listening to citizens, particularly through the use of modern technology,
Government needs to empower individuals and communities in ways that allow it and public servants to have effective exchanges with citizens.
Perhaps most telling - and most personally exciting to me - Moran said that,
Our processes should allow the community to provide input throughout the policy and service delivery process. Information technology can play a crucial role facilitating communication between citizens and governments.
I understand this as Moran saying that to meet the challenges in the APS's future, the Australian Public Service needs to use appropriate tools and techniques to collaborate with the community throughout the policy and service delivery process, not just consult them at the beginning and deliver to them at the end.
Moran finished with the statement that,
To be successful, the reform agenda will need to embrace the best, frank and honest strategic advice, and it will have been based on the fullest engagement with citizens. I am confident we can meet the challenge.
The proposal put forward by Moran is a vision of a Public Service 2.0, one trained and equipped to embed a citizen-focus into their work, to be strategic (as well as frank and fearless) in their advice to government, to design policies and services that take full advantage of the technology at our disposal, making appropriate use of Government 2.0 tools and techniques to achieve the goals of the duly-elected government.
I believe it is a vision that will serve Australia well.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Does the personalisation of the internet threaten citizen participation in democracy? | Tweet |
Yesterday evening I watched an interesting TED talk by Eli Pariser, Beware online "filter bubbles".
The talk discussed the increasing personalisation of search engines, news sites and social networks, using algorithms to selectively present or hide search results, content and comments based on a user's actions.
Pariser raised the importance of the flow of information and news in enabling democracies and questioned whether the fragmentation of the internet into individual views would likewise erode democratic society.
I share his concerns over this trend. When our major news sources only show us the news we wish to see and our social networks only highlight comments from people who share our views it becomes much harder to have inclusive discussions, debates and decisions.
I'd be interested in your thoughts. Are these concerns misplaced? If not, what can or should we be doing individually or collectively to defend our right to be presented with information and news which makes us a little uncomfortable, but well-rounded and able to participate effectively in our democracy.
The talk discussed the increasing personalisation of search engines, news sites and social networks, using algorithms to selectively present or hide search results, content and comments based on a user's actions.
Pariser raised the importance of the flow of information and news in enabling democracies and questioned whether the fragmentation of the internet into individual views would likewise erode democratic society.
I share his concerns over this trend. When our major news sources only show us the news we wish to see and our social networks only highlight comments from people who share our views it becomes much harder to have inclusive discussions, debates and decisions.
I'd be interested in your thoughts. Are these concerns misplaced? If not, what can or should we be doing individually or collectively to defend our right to be presented with information and news which makes us a little uncomfortable, but well-rounded and able to participate effectively in our democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
