Posts
Priorities from the recent Government 2.0 Public Sphere are now available for public comment via the Australia 2 BETA website before being handed over to the Government 2.0 Taskforce for consideration.
For a recap of the Public Sphere visit Senator Kate Lundy's website.
To comment and vote on the top Government 2.0 priorities visit the Public Sphere section of Australia 2 BETA.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Rate Australia's Gov 2.0 priorities from PublicSphere | Tweet |
Thursday, July 30, 2009
How engaged is your department online? And how does it affect your success? | Tweet |
Charlene Li, one of the writers of Groundswell and ex-Forrester analyst, has launched a new initiative which compares the financial success of organisations with their level of online engagement and allows organisations to compare how engaged they are online.
Named Engagementdb, the site provides graphs and case studies on how various organisations have engaged the online world and allow organisations to rank themselves based on a simple 5 minute survey.
There is also a fantastic report which provides compelling evidence of the link between online engagement and commercial success. Named The world's most valuable brands (PDF) and while tilted towards the commercial world, it provides valuable insights into the value online engagement generates in terms of brand visibility, engagement, customer satisfaction and advocacy.
The report provides insights into the different approaches being taken online, looking at the depth of engagement - from wallflower who are just dipping their toes in (such as McDonalds and BP), through to Mavens who have fully integrated online engagement into their strategy (Starbucks and Dell).
The report also provides evidence that if you increase your online engagement you increase your offline success, it's a thought-provoking read.
Is Microsoft 'Ask a Pollie' site really Gov 2.0? | Tweet |
Microsoft Australia has launched a trial site 'Ask a Pollie' which allows citizens to watch and potentially participate in topic-based discussions around set topics between politicians and expert panels.
While the intent may be to promote dialogue between politicians and their constituents, as Ron Lubensky points out in his Deliberations blog, the site is more of a Dorothy Dixer 2.0.
While there is a 'forum', the design and approach of the site doesn't really support a Web 2.0 approach, with the following tag line in the site's summary,
Watch our panel of politicians and experts debate a series of topics over eight weeks – with a new topic each week, ranging from the economy, to online safety for our kids.Watching is the antithesis of Web 2.0 - which is about user-generated content and interaction.
I think this type of site reflects the efforts of institutions and large companies to loosen some of their control over the debate and step across the line into a user-centred world.
While I applaud the attempted step forward, I think there's still a long way to go.
What would be a Web 2.0 (or Gov 2.0) approach?
Firstly the topics would be set through user-based participation (not by politicians or corporations), with citizens suggesting, commenting and voting on topics to prioritise them for discussion (potentially with central control over the topic area - such as opengov.ideascale.com).
Next the discussion on the topics would be led by citizens - through their submissions and comments - with politicians and 'experts' providing a supporting role, offering facts and policies and participating in discussions.
The politicians or experts do not get centre-stage, getting to 'discuss' the topic while citizens are only able to 'watch' and comment. In fact the bulk of information would be supplied by citizens, with politicians responsible for 'watching' or 'listening' to the views of the community and then reflecting this back into policy discussions.
Examples of this approach now abound, with the US having conducted several discussions in this manner and other countries, such as France, also pursuing such an approach (via www.ensemblesimplifions.fr).
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
UK government releases template strategy guide for Twitter use by Departments | Tweet |
The UK government has released a 20-page Twitter templated strategy guide to assist departments in using the channel to engage and support citizens.
Adapted from the strategy used by the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) by Neil Williams, head of corporate digital channels at BIS, the guide provides a comprehensive view on how to begin using Twitter and how to use it in a professional manner.
You can view Neil's post about the strategy in a guest post on the UK Cabinet Office site, Template Twitter strategy for Government Departments.
The template itself is available from Scribd to view online and can also be downloaded as a PDF (or in plain text from the Scribd site).
Reflecting that over 19 UK government agencies are now using Twitter (compared to three in Australia and over 40 in the US), the strategy has already received widespread international attention.
How should transparency in government be enforced? | Tweet |
While open government advocates are calling for governments around the world to be more transparent and accountable, one of the issues that has to be worked through is how to ensure that the data made publicly available is complete and accurate.
Generally transparency costs dollars - even online. Therefore there needs to be suitable commitment to 'watching the watchmen' to support data transparency.
Since the US government has already mandated more open and transparent government - a process in mid-stream in Australia - they are now considering the appropriate governance for accuracy and other issues in making transparency 'stick' in a culture where secrecy has been a defining trait for many years.
A few weeks ago NextGov interviewed Earl Devaney, head of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board in the US. This panel is responsible for placing details of the $787 billion economic stimulus spending online via a revamped Recovery.gov site and preventing waste, fraud and abuse of the money.
As the article's headline states, Transparency will be embarrassing.
This potential for embarrassment can lead into the potential for incomplete or fraudulent reporting, which is why Devaney's Board will be using 40 inspectors to monitor US agencies and ensure that they provide accurate and timely data for public view.
The rest of the interview is an interesting discussion around how the Board will be enforcing transparency and the tools it will have at its disposal to manage any data accuracy issues.
I think Australia has a tremendous opportunity to monitor how successful the US is in this transparency initiative, then learn from and legislate appropriately to mitigate any holes that appear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
