Chrome beats Internet Explore in browser stakes

There was surprising news from StatCounter earlier this month when Chrome topped Internet Explorer as the most popular web browser for the week of 14-20 May.

Sourced from CNET: Chrome now world's top browser, but beware the math

While this is only one of the services reporting browser use, represents only one week and is a global figure - so may not represent the situation in specific countries (such as Australia) - it is indicative of the changes underway in the web browsing habits of people around the world.

All major international reports on web browser usage have reported that Internet Explorer has been on a downward slide for several years, with Chrome or Safari picking up most of the market share shift and Firefox and Opera being limited beneficiaries.

While this reflects the growth of mobile browsing (Apple iOS uses Safari, Android devices use Chrome), it also represents a significant change in desktop and laptop computer use.

While corporate and government organisations remain major uses of Internet Explorer due to its lead in corporate management features (though Firefox and Chrome have moved to match these), households are choosing their main web browser based on speed, usability and usefulness.

Reliable Australian web browsing figures are harder to find - it would be very useful if organisations such as Google or Facebook (the top sites visited by Australians) released their figures.

However I can say that, from Microsoft's figures, Internet Explorer 6 use in Australia has fallen to 1.2% of the browsing public. This is a GOOD THING as IE6 is an 11 year old vendor-unsupported, insecure and standards non-compliant web browser, unsupported by many major websites and which adds, in my experience, 20-30% on the costs of any web development project.

I should note that Microsoft is trying to end the use of Internet Explorer 6 and has even begun taken steps to automatically upgrade people to more modern versions (beginning with Australia and Brazil).

You can learn more about Microsoft's campaign to end IE6 at their website, The IE6 Countdown.

Sorry if you are one of the remaining organisations using IE6, however my FOI request on web browsing and social media use across government has revealed that largely agencies have made or are making the move to upgrade.

From the now 65 responses I've been able to analyse, only 7 (11%) indicated they still used IE6 on desktop computers. While this is quite a bit higher than the national rate (1.2%), it is much smaller than I had anticipated. Of course if this includes large agencies the percentage of APS staff using IE6 may be significantly higher.

I've provided a breakdown below of the browsers that government agencies indicated they used.

Notes and caveats

• this represents 65 agencies, large and small, of 166 approached - so is representative but not population data
• many agencies used more than one web browser, so the figures don't add up to 65. 
• I've excluded browsers that no agency indicated they used (and I asked about all major browsers back to the time of Internet Explorer 6's release). 
• I forgot to ask about the use of Blackberry's browser on mobile phones - essentially every agency using Blackberries use this browser.

Read full post...

View summary...

Standardising content across government (or why does every agency have a different privacy policy?)

Every government website serves a different purpose and a different audience, however there are also standard content every site must have and legislation and standardised policies they must follow.

This includes content such as a privacy policy, legal disclaimer,  terms of use, accessibility statement, copyright, social media channels, contact page, information publication (FOI) pages and so on. It also includes the navigational structure and internal ordering of pages and the web addresses to access this content (such as for 'about us' pages).

So is there a case to standardise the templates and/or content of these pages and where to find them in websites across government?

I think so.

From an audience perspective, there is a strong case to do so. Citizens often use multiple government websites and it makes their experience more streamlined and efficient if they can find what they need in a consistent place (such as www.agency.gov.au/privacy), written in a consistent format and, where possible, using identical or near identical language.

It would also save money and time. Rather than having to write and seek legal approval for the full page content (such as for privacy information), only agency-specific parts would need writing or approval. Websites could be established more rapidly using the standard content pages and lawyers could focus on higher value tasks.

To put a number on the current cost of individually creating standard, if you assume it cost, in time and effort, around $500 to develop a privacy policy and that there are around 941 government websites (according to Government's online info offensive a flop), it would have cost up to $470,500 for individual privacy policies for all sites. Multiple this by the number of potentially standardisable pages and the millions begin adding up.

Standardisation could even minimise legal risks. It removes a potential point of failure from agencies who are not resourced or have the expertise to create appropriate policies and expose themselves to greater risks - such as over poorly written legal disclaimers which leave them open to being sued by citizens.

In some cases it may be possible to use the same standard text, with a few optional inclusions or agency-specific variations - such as for privacy policies, disclaimers, accessibility statements, terms of use, and similar standard pages.

In other cases it won't be possible to use the same content (such as for 'about us' pages), however the location and structure of the page can be similar - still providing public benefits.

Let's take privacy policies specifically for a moment.There's incredible diversity of privacy policies across Australian Government websites, although they are all subject to the same legislation (the Privacy Act 1988) and largely cover the same topics (with some variation in detail).

While this is good for lawyers, who get to write or review these policies, it may not be as good for citizens - who need to contend with different policies when they seek to register for updates or services.

Many government privacy policies are reviewed rarely, due to time and resource constraints, which may place agencies at risk where the use of new tools (such as Youtube, Slideshare and Scribd) to embed or manipulate content within agency sites can expose users unknowingly to the privacy conditions of third party sites (see how we handled these in myregion's privacy policy with an extendable third party section).

So, how would government go about standardisation? Although effectively a single entity, the government functions as a group of agencies who set their own policies and manage their own risks.

With the existence and role of AGIMO, and the WebGuide, there is a central forum for providing model content to reflect the minimum standard agencies must meet. There are mandatory guidelines for agencies, such as for privacy, however limited guidance on how to meet it. A standard privacy policy could be included and promoted as a base for other agencies to work from, or even provided as an inclusion for sites who wanted to have a policy which was centrally maintained and auto-updated.

Alternatively web managers across government could work together, through a service such as GovDex, to create and maintain standard pages using a wiki-based approach. This would allow for a consistently improving standard and garner grassroots buy-in, plus leverage the skills of the most experienced web masters.

There's undoubtably other ways to move towards standardised pages, even simply within an agency, which itself can be a struggle for those with many websites and decentralised web management.


Regardless of the method selected, the case should receive consideration. Does government really need hundreds of versions of what is standard content, or only a few?


Examples of government privacy policies (spot the similarities and differences):

• http://health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/privacy_security.htm
• http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
• http://www.ag.gov.au/Pages/Disclaimers/Privacystatement.aspx
• http://www.dpmc.gov.au/privacy.cfm
• http://daff.gov.au/about/privacy
• http://www.deewr.gov.au/Pages/Privacy.aspx
• http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/legal/privacy.htm?OpenDocument&nav=footer

Read full post...

View summary...

Can social media make a genuine impact on the democratic process?

While in the UK last week I was involved in a number of discussions about whether social media can make a genuine impact on the democratic process.

This reflects similar conversations I've witnessed or been involved with in Australia and in other countries.

This conversation is very important - it helps people involved in the Gov 2.0 space to define, refine and share their ideas and helps people outside the space gain a broader appreciation of the topic.

To encourage further conversation, Delib has set up a global online discussion about social media's impact on democracy.

You can participate - or watch this discussion at: http://www.dialogue-app.com/600


It will remain open for commenting until the end of May and visible after this for people to read and think about.

Read full post...

View summary...

Final chance to participate in the Online Community / Social Media Management survey for Australia and New Zealand

This is the final week to participate in the Online Community / Social Media Management survey for Australia and New Zealand, which closes on 19 May.

If you're an online community or social media manager or advisor, please complete the survey using the button at right.

To provide some quick background...

The survey aims to help local organisations and individuals better understand the skills required to work in these professions, help uncover role challenges, training and support needs and the actual work and salaries that online community management and social media management professionals can expect.

The results of the survey will be presented at Swarm later this year and then released online as a free report.

The survey is being co-sponsored by Quiip and Delib Australia and was inspired by The Community Roundtable's 2012 State of Community Management report, which drew from a largely US audience and asked a limited set of questions.



For more information visit Quiip's site at http://quiip.com.au/online-community-management-2012-survey.

To complete the survey go to www.citizenspace.com/app/delib-au/cmsurvey or click on the button above.

Note: I'm involved in the design and management and will be involved in the analysis and reporting for this survey. The goal is to provide information that organisations can use to design community management and social media management roles and to help identify the training and support individuals working in these professions require to be most effective.

Read full post...

View summary...

Accessibility - a great video from FaHCSIA to educate staff & management

Last week FaHCSIA released a great video on accessibility that they're using to educate staff and management on its importance, who it affects and the basics of what to do.

I think it is an awesome resource for all organisations (not just government) to help them understand their legal obligation and how to meet it.

We need more resources like this for government, tools that use video, pictures and sound to help educate and influence, not simply more PDF manuals like this.

I've embedded the video below and it is also available directly from its YouTube link or as a MP3 from FAHCSIA's resources section.

Read full post...

View summary...

Last day to contribute to NSW State Archive's Web 2.0 Recordkeeping Survey

The NSW State Archives has been holding a survey on social media use by NSW government organisations to inform the development of an online training course on social media recordkeeping.

Your feedback will also help the NSW State Archives to "recommend some specific recordkeeping strategies that will work with both the social media tools that are being used in NSW government and the business needs that are driving these different forms of social media use."
The survey is due to close on Friday 11 May, so if you've not yet responded this is your last chance!

To learn more or to participate in the survey visit the Future proof website at: http://futureproof.records.nsw.gov.au/state-records-survey-on-social-media-use-in-nsw-government/.

Read full post...

View summary...

eDemocracy report from Lowey - US striding ahead

If I were the leader of a nation that wasn't friends with the US I would be very concerned with the successes of their eDiplomacy program and looking to counter it with my own.

And if I was the leader of a friendly nation, I'd still be seeking to carve out my own eDiplomacy space, to retain some element of influence in the future.

The UK has realised this, Canada has realised it, though I'm not as sure Australia has woken up to it as well.

The Lowey Institute has released an excellent report on the state of US eDiplomacy by Fergus Hanson, which may help as a wake up call.

Brought to my attention by Peter Timmin, who writes the Open and Shut FOI blog, Fergus's report, the result of four months spent in the US with the State Department, found that there are now 25 separate ediplomacy nodes operating at State’s Washington DC Headquarters employing over 150 full-time equivalent staff.

Additionally (the report says) a recent internal study of US missions abroad found 935 overseas staff employing ediplomacy communications tools to some degree, or the equivalent of 175 full-time
personnel.

The report states very clearly that, in some areas ediplomacy is changing the way State does business. For example,

In Public Diplomacy, State now operates what is effectively a global media empire, reaching a larger direct audience than the paid circulation of the ten largest US dailies and employing an army of diplomat-journalists to feed its 600-plus platforms.

In other areas, like Knowledge Management, ediplomacy is finding solutions to problems that have plagued foreign ministries for centuries.

One of the key changes that Fergus noted was how the organisation functioned as a start-up, not as a staid old-fashioned bureaucracy. For example,

In interviews with office staff, conversation quickly turns from notional duties to ‘passion projects’ – the new ideas and platforms staff work on in their spare time. And there are plenty in the works. The Inspector General, whose recent report on the office made it sound like a review of a Silicon Valley start-up, noted over 40 underway.

Other employees also seem to have got a message regularly repeated at the Office of eDiplomacy; Experiment. It’s okay to fail. One enterprising official working on US library spaces abroad realised how costly and pointless it was sending physical books across the globe and cut a deal with Amazon to get discounted Kindles delivered instead.

And in Zimbabwe, the greying US Ambassador, Charles A Ray, has embraced Facebook as a way of circumventing the iron grip Robert Mugabe exercises over freedom of the press. He engages in an active and animated discussion with Zimbabweans about how they view the world.

In my view this report doesn't only highlight the new world of diplomacy, but also the new world of the public service.

The approach taken to engage foreign citizens could be transferred to domestic agencies and used to engage US citizens as well.

Is State the future of public services around the world? Time - and good leadership will tell.

However just as nations who fail to remain commercially competitive find it increasingly difficult to maintain incomes, education levels, lifestyles and services, countries that fail to be competitive in their public governance are likely to be at significant disadvantage in international relations.

eDiplomacy is already here and working. The challenge has been laid down. Can Australia's present public sector and political leaders take it up?

Read full post...

View summary...

Which social networks should you use when? Great infogram from Mashable

I thought this infogram had huge relevance to governments, as well as to corporations, so have posted it to ensure it doesn't get missed by people in the daily hurley-burley.

The infogram provides some excellent suggestions on the strengths and weaknesses of various social media services and when to use each.

Find out more at Mashable: http://mashable.com/2012/04/16/social-networks-tips-infographic/

Read full post...

View summary...

2012 FaHCSIA Information Awareness Series: Social media in action – what’s happening in Australian Government, 24th May 2012

If you've interested or involved with social media in government and have some free time on 24 May, a useful way to spend it might be attending the 2012 FaHCSIA Information Awareness Series forum - Social media in action – what’s happening in Australian Government

I will be giving an updated chat on Gov 2.0 adoption across government and other speakers will include:

• Communication and media expert, Madeleine Clifford, on the successful campaign, The Line; and
• Government digital records management leader, Katharine Stuart, on the responsibilities and challenges for Government record keeping with social media

Details for the forum are below:

When? 
10.00 – 12.30, Thursday 24th May 2012

Where? 
FaHCSIA Auditorium,
B Block Tuggeranong Office Park
Cnr Atthlon Drive and Soward Way,
Greenway.

How? 
RSVP to the 2012 Information Awareness Committee

Read full post...

View summary...

Participate in Melbourne Knowledge Week 2012

The City of Melbourne was recognised in 2012 as ‘Most Admired Knowledge City’ in an award from the World Capital Institute and Teleos, an independent management research firm.

The city is building on this with the annual Melbourne Knowledge Week, designed to engage both the knowledge community and the wider public in a range of events and opportunities that help promote Melbourne's identity as global knowledge city.

I reckon there has to be a place for Gov 2.0 in this mix and wanted to flag to all my Victorian readers that an expression of interest is now open to businesses, organisations, educational institutions, networking groups, community groups and individuals who wish to showcase knowledge-related projects, thinkers and capabilities as part of this year's event.

Melbourne Knowledge Week runs from 26 November to 1 December. More details on the event, and the expression of interest, are at http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/enterprisemelbourne/events/KnowledgeWeek/Pages/KnowledgeWeek.aspx

Read full post...

View summary...

Guest post: Request for Participation in Research Survey - Current Government use of Twitter in Australia

I've published the following guest post because I think the research Aletha is doing is important and useful for agencies.

Please let the right people in your agency know about it.

Guest post

My name is Aletha and I am a Communications Master's student currently completing a short research project as part of my personal study through Griffith University about the current use of Australian Government Twitter Accounts.

The objectives of this project are to determine how Federal, State and Local governments/agencies within Australia are currently using Twitter to communicate with the Australian public. Mainly the project will focus on:

• determining the reasons governments/agencies are engaging with this new media;
• determining what information government/agencies are using this communication mechanism to display;
• outlining the differences in use between various types of departments/agencies;
• determining to what extent governments/agencies believe it is an effective communication method; and
• discovering what tools governments/agencies are using to measure its effectiveness.

The project will consist of a short survey of approximately 20 short questions relating to the above objectives.

If you manage a Federal/State/Local government/agency Twitter account I would love to hear from you!

Before commencing the survey you must have completed the Informed Consent Template as the results of this survey will be distributed with participants in the hope that the findings may inform government departments and agencies about how others are using Twitter as a communication tool and whether it is effective.

Please contact me at aletha.nightingale@gmail.com if you have not been provided with this form and I can email this to you.

If you have completed this form then please go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/useoftwitterausgov to complete the survey.

Data collected via the survey will be de-identified. The only identifiable section of the survey will be an indication of what type of department/agency and whether this is at State or local level. The survey will not identify any specific local areas or states/territories.

If you have any further questions or comments that you wish to raise with me individually please contact me at aletha.nightingale@gmail.com

Thanks again for your time!

Read full post...

View summary...

Share in over $30,000 worth of prizes by participating in GovHack 2012

With a strong focus on government data, GovHack is inviting teams of programmers and designers to invent new and better ways of delivering government data to Australians and will be rewarding the best apps, data mash-ups, and data visualisations with a share of $30,000 in prize money.

The event, being held in Canberra and Sydney from 1st - 3rd June, will challenge teams to answer the question and develop solutions for 'how can government data be better used to benefit Australians?'

The organisers have secured over thirty thousand dollars in prize money through sponsorships, although Pia Waugh, the chief organiser is tight-lipped about the prize categories, "We want people to come with fresh ideas and concepts and to build them at GovHack using publicly released data from government agencies. To keep the playing field level, we won’t tell anyone the prize categories until the event."

In previous years GovHack winners have found ways to compare government lobbying with the results of successful tenders, and designed mobile apps to help people find the nearest public toilet.

"This is a unique opportunity to be a part of generating ideas for how government can better use and re-use the wealth of information hidden away in its databases. By being a part of this event the participants get to, in a small way, directly influence how government data managers will look at and manage their data stores" Pia said.

GovHack is being supported by organisations including Adobe, MailChimp, Palantir and some of the biggest data holders in the Australian Government are providing prize money and data, including the National Archives of Australia, the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO), and the Bureau of Meteorology.

GovHack is an official part of 2012 APS Innovation week, with the support of the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.

You can now register to participate, review the competition rules, or see an outline of the data to be made available on the GovHack site (http://www.govhack.org).

Prize categories will be announced at the event's opening on Friday 1st June.

Read full post...

View summary...

GovChat transcript now available

If you missed #GovChat last week (where I was the guest), @PSLeader now has put the transcript online at http://www.psleader.org/wp-content/uploads/CraigThomlerGovChatChangingTheWorldWithGov20.html

Read full post...

View summary...

Is it theft if you personalise & retain an official social media account when you leave an organisation?

One of the legal and ethical dilemmas organisations are beginning to struggle with is the ownership of social media accounts.

When a staff member creates and uses a social media account solely or mainly for official organisational purposes they can build a large following over months or years based entirely on their paid work activities.

However are they entitled to take that account, and the accumulated goodwill it holds, with them when they leave?


This might seem like a trivial question, however the followers and reputation built by a social media account may be no different to the brand name value that organisations such as Google and Coca-Cola count on their balance sheets.

Almost every organisation that deals with the public values its name and reputation with the public as an asset alongside the physical property of the business.

Whether you think of Starbucks, Microsoft, Ford or Joe's Mowing Service, the name and reputation of the business, as well as its contact list (like followers or Likes), has an asset value.

I believe this is also true for digital accounts, and there are cases going to court at the moment around the world where individuals who took an official social media account with them are being sued for the asset value by their employers.

One such case last year, as reported in Sean Clark's blog, involved a company called Phonedog, where a former employee, Noah Kravitz, tried to take a Twitter account with him by changing the name of the account from @Phonedog_Noah to @NoahKravitz.

The account had 17,000 followers and Phonedog took him to court for the value of $2.50 per follower per month ($42,500/mth), calling the followers a customer list, with the value attributed to the cost associated with growing and maintaining the list.

You can read more about this at What's a Twitter follower really worth.


So let's consider this in an Australian context. There are several senior public servants who use Twitter for official purposes - using their actual name in the account.

In particular Hank Jongen (@HankJongen) from the Department of Human Services and Sandi Logan (@Sandihlogan) from the Department of Immigration, whose accounts were primarily established and are operated as official communications channels for their agencies.

Besides these is another senior public servant, John Sheridan from AGIMO in the Department of Finance, whose Twitter account (@sherro58) is used for official purposes, but also for personal use - it was not primarily established or is operated mainly as an official communications channel.

My view would be that both Hank and Sandi's accounts are organisational assets, whereas John's account is his personal asset that he lends to the agency - similar to how, when I worked in government, I occasionally retweeted official agency tweets to bring them to the attention of a wider audience (my larger follower base), but my account was never an official agency channel.

Based on the model used by PhoneDog ($2.50 per follower per month), the value of Hank and Sandi's accounts are as follows:

Account	Followers	Value/month	Value/year
@HankJongen	807	$2,017	$24,210
@SandiHLogan	3,912	$9,780	$117,360

Now the values are based on the number of followers remaining static, which is unlikely, and the actual value of a follower may vary based on the customer relationship. However there is a real value for these relationships, which is a real asset for their organisations - particularly when trying to communicate or defend complex positions.

In all the cases I've illustrated above the public servants behave very ethically, and I would not expect this to change, so I don't see them as risks to their organisations of leaving and taking their followers with them.

However this will not always be the case for all social media accounts.


In fact there is a recent example I can think of where I think the ethics are much grayer and which may even require an investigation.

This is in relation to the former QLD Labor Premier, Anna Bligh.

Anna was an enthusiastic adopter of social media for engaging citizens - and I applaud her for this - however I don't know if there has been much consideration of the asset value of the account she used to Tweet as the QLD Premier, or whether she had the right to rename this as '@AnnaMBligh' and take it with her when she resigned from politics.

Let's run through the history....

Anna became premier in 2007 and continued to use the Twitter account she'd been using up to that point, renaming it '@Premier_Bligh'.

At this point you could argue that this was her personal account, which she lent to the State of Queensland for official use. I would have no issue if she took it with her when she left politics (it also only currently has 4,769 followers).

However in 2009 Anna set up a specific account as the "official Queensland Premier's twitter account". She even announced it on her pre-existing account as below:

My view is that the language and manner of the launch of this account makes it clear that it was to be the property of the Government of Queensland. An official Twitter account to be used by Anna and all Queensland Premiers following her. It was not to be the personal account of Anna Bligh (who already had one) or the property of the QLD Labor party.

However, following the recent Queensland election, where the Labor party lost government and Anna, while retaining her seat decided to resign from the QLD parliament, Anna did not hand this account over to the incoming Premier, Campbell Newman.

Instead she renamed the account to @AnnaMBligh and has continued to use it as her personal account since the election.

Meanwhile her former personal account (currently named @Premier_Bligh) has remained inactive since May 2009.

The incoming Premier has repeated the initial and, in my view, quite legitimate steps taken by Anna Bligh. His personal account @Campbell_Newman is now inactive, and he created a new Twitter account on March 26, naming it the same as former official QLD Premier account @theqldpremier.

So it all balances out - or does it?

The Twitter account that Anna Bligh designated the "official Queensland Premier's twitter account", that she now operates as a personal Twitter account, currently has 30,773 followers.

The new official Twitter account that Campbell Newman has designated for the Premier has only 4,496 followers.

That's a difference of 26,277 followers that Anna accumulated over three years while tweeting officially on behalf of the government.

Let's go back to the Phonedog case... If we consider these Twitter followers as a 'customer list' (for the purposes of official government engagement), we can attribute a lost value to the QLD Government - and thereby QLD citizens - associated with the costs of growing and maintaining the list.

Let's use that $2.50 value per month again - noting that a court would have to test whether this is the right value for each follower of any particular official Twitter account.

On this basis the difference of 26,277 followers is worth  $65,692 per month to the QLD Government.

Ergo, the cost to Queensland of Anna Bligh taking the official Premier's Twitter account home with her for personal use, and denying its use to the Government of Queensland, is currently running at a rate of $65,692 per month.

The maximum potential cost to Queensland to-date, assuming the official QLD Premier account has had the same level of followers since start of May 2009 to end of April 2012 (36 months), would be $2,364,930.

I estimate a more reasonable cost would be in the $1-$1.5 million range - based on $2.50 per follower per month.

So is this actually theft?

Should it be considered similar to a Minister taking home their office furniture for personal use after they lost office?

That's for governments and courts to decide for certain.

However it is undeniable that the 'official Queensland Premier's twitter account', its followers and their relationship with the Government have been removed from Government control and now reside in the hands of a private citizen, to do with as they will.

Other organisations, both public and private sector organisations really do need to think about this example in their own context:

• Are your official social media accounts assets?
• What asset/brand value should you place on them?
• What should you do if a staff member leaves and takes one, or more, accounts with them?
• What guidance or policies do you need in place to prevent and manage this?

Read full post...

View summary...

Canberra event: Public interest journalism and its digital future

Organised by the Public Interest Journalism Foundation, as part of the New News public events program, Public interest journalism and its digital future is a public event in Canberra on the evening of 29 May.

I'm taking part in the discussion, alongside Mr Denmore and Professor Matthew Ricketson.

It should be a very interesting evening!

Details

Those with an interest in the future of public interest journalism in the digital age are invited to attend a Meetup event in Canberra on May 29.

At: Tilly’s Pub, corner of Brigalow and Wattle Sts, Lyneham, Canberra
From: 7pm
On: Tuesday, May 29

Discuss your ideas and questions about public interest journalism in the digital age with:

• Well known blogger and media analyst, Mr Denmore, of the blog, The Failed Estate: rejuvenating journalism in a jaded age. Mr Denmore was a journalist for 26 years. He has worked in radio, television, newspapers and online media. He now works in the corporate sector. His blog is a finalist in the Best Australian Blogs 2012 competition. Follow him on Twitter: @MrDenmore
  
• Professor Matthew Ricketson, who assisted Ray Finkelstein QC with his inquiry into media regulation, and is a journalist and the inaugural Professor of Journalism at the University of Canberra. His PhD was titled “Ethical Issues in the Practice of Book-length Journalism”. Follow him on Twitter: @MRicketson
  
• Craig Thomler, Managing Director of digital democracy company Delib Australia, and a Gov 2.0 advocate who spent five years in the APS leading and supporting online initiatives. An author and former freelance journalist, he was awarded the Individual Gov 2.0 Innovator Award by the Gov 2.0 Taskforce and was awarded as one of the ‘Top ten changing the face of the Internet and Politics’ by PoliticsOnline and the World eDemocracy Forum in Paris. Follow him on Twitter: @CraigThomler

Please register via: http://www.meetup.com/Public-Interest-Journalism/

Read full post...

View summary...

Guesting on #GovChat today

This week I am the guest on #GovChat, a Canadian operated weekly Twitter chat through PSLeader, featuring high profile public service and thought leaders from around the world.


The chat starts at 10:00AM today for Aussie east coasters, 9:30AM in the middle and at 8:00AM if you're in the west.

For participants around the world:

• New Zealand - 12:00 midday Thursday 3rd May
• UK - 1:00AM Thursday 3rd May
• US/Canada east - 8:00PM Wednesday 2nd May
• US/Canada west - 5:00PM Wednesday 2nd May

It lasts an hour and, like most Twitter chats, you can drop in and out as you please.

You can participate or watch the chat via your favourite Twitter client, or using http://tweetchat.com/room/GovChat


I'll post a transcript following the event.

Read full post...

View summary...

From talking at citizens to talking with them

Rather than writing a blog post today, I've linked to an article I wrote for the Public Informant last week that was published today: From talking at citizens to talking with them

Please feel free to leave your comments below.

Read full post...

View summary...

Two year review - has the Australian Government delivered on its Government 2.0 commitments?

It has been almost exactly two years since the Australian Government responded to the Government 2.0 Taskforce report on 3rd May 2010.

The response, which committed to implement most of the recommendations in the report, was made under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and with the support of former Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner (neither of whom hold a position in the current Australian Government).

So how has it gone? Has the government, through a change in leadership, an election and the retirement of the responsible Minister, implemented most of the recommendations or not?

Below is a summary of what they agreed to implement and, in my view, what has been achieved in the last two years. Under this is my conclusion, and a more detailed analysis of each recommendation.

Recommendation	Status
Central Recommendation: A declaration of open government by the Australian Government	Implemented
Recommendation 2: Coordinate with leadership, guidance and support	Implemented within the Government's agreed commitments
Recommendation 3: Improve guidance and require agencies to engage online	Implemented within the Government's agreed commitments
Recommendation 4: Encourage public servants to engage online	Implemented within the Government's agreed commitments
Recommendation 5: Awards	Implemented
Recommendation 6: Make public sector information open, accessible and reusable	Largely implemented, although it is unclear if agencies have "been required to ensure that public sector information which is released is also made available through [data.gov.au]"
Recommendation 7: Addressing issues in the operation of copyright	Implemented, however I am unsure whether the review of orphaned copyright works has taken place
Recommendation 8: Information publication scheme	Allocated to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to implement, whose office is operating at 75% staffing and faces budget cuts through the increased efficiency dividend
Recommendation 9: Accessibility	Nothing to implement directly - however the Government has done exceptionally well in outlining and enforcing the Web Accessibility National Transition Strategy
Recommendation 10: Security and Web 2.0	Nothing to implement directly
Recommendation 11: Privacy and confidentiality	Nothing to implement
Recommendation 12: Definition of Commonwealth Record	Implemented
Recommendation 13: Encourage info-philanthropy	Nothing to implement and no activity based on either the review or the report has significantly affected the info-philanthropy area

In conclusion

In my view the Australian Government has implemented and completed the vast majority of the commitments they agreed to following the Government 2.0 Taskforce.

There are a few areas where commitments were not actually made (although some might have liked them to be), a few where meeting the agreed commitment might have been done in practice, but not in spirit and a few where changing circumstances have changed how commitments were implemented.

Now the challenge for the Australian Government, and the Australian Public Service, is to move beyond the Government 2.0 report and agreed commitments. To define the next level for Gov 2.0 in Australia, and  consider how to build it.

Central Recommendation: A declaration of open government by the Australian Government

The Australian Government committed to making a declaration, which was met by Minister Lindsay Tanner shortly before he left office and is available at Finance's website at: http://www.finance.gov.au/e-government/strategy-and-governance/gov2/declaration-of-open-government.html


STATUS: Implemented.

Recommendation 2: Coordinate with leadership, guidance and support

The Australian Government committed to establishing a lead agency to lead a cross-government steering committee for Government 2.0.


The Government selected the Department of Finance as the lead agency (the recommendation did not specify which agency), and Finance formed a steering group involving senior representatives from a range of agencies.


The Steering Group moved to quarterly meetings (four times a year) in 2011. The last update I am aware of from the Steering Group was published in June 2011.


STATUS: Implemented within the Government's agreed commitments.

Recommendation 3: Improve guidance and require agencies to engage online

This involved improving guidance, which the Australian Government agreed to deliver via the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC), resulted in three circulars regarding online engagement, with this guidance now embedded in the APS Code of Conduct in Practice as the 'Contributing online' section.


The Australian Government also agreed it was important for agencies to embed Gov 2.0 practices in their everyday business activities in order to progress cultural change, although the only real activity promised was to have the Steering Group oversee activity and operate a Gov 2.0 blog for twelve months (which has been delivered via http://agimo.govspace.gov.au)


The Government also committed to incorporating an Open Government progress report in the State of the Service for 2010-2011 (but did not commit on an ongoing basis) and agreed in principle to more transparency in public inquiries - which was to be delivered through having the Steering Group develop a policy "to encourage best practice in this area that simultaneously protects information that ought not to be disclosed."


STATUS: Implemented within the Government's agreed commitments.

Recommendation 4: Encourage public servants to engage online

The Government agreed to implement this through the revisions to APSC guidance (as per Recommendation 3) and by developing guidance on Government 2.0 engagement by agencies, delivered through AGIMO's Government 2.0 Primer.


The Government also stated, without committing to any action, that,

It is incumbent on the senior APS leadership to ensure that top-down change is enabled in agencies, and that APS employees are genuinely encouraged and empowered to engage online within their agency-specific context.

The cost of agency change required to address internal technical and policy barriers will be the responsibility of agencies to absorb as part of their business-as-usual activities."

and that,

Australian Government agencies should therefore enable a culture that gives their staff opportunity to experiment and develop new opportunities for online engagement. 

Agencies may wish to develop internal incentive mechanisms – in addition to the Government 2.0 awards proposed at recommendation 5 of the Report – to encourage employee innovation and online engagement. 

Agencies should also ensure that a broad range of stakeholder groups are considered for engagement online, for example, a health practitioner’s blog providing feedback on Medicare procedures, in addition to citizen’s blog on proposed improvements to the claims’ process.

Finally, under this recommendation the Government committed to showcasing best practice through an online forum - which has been achieved via the Gov 2.0 Register and the Innovation showcase.


STATUS: Implemented within the Government's agreed commitments.

Recommendation 5: Awards

The Australian Government, through the Department of Finance, agreed to include Government 2.0 awards for individuals and organisations within the existing Excellence in eGovernment Awards.


STATUS: Implemented.

Recommendation 6: Make public sector information open, accessible and reusable

This contained quite a complex recommendation.


The Government agreed in principle, based on the existing reform of Freedom of Information laws and the appointment of the Information Commissioner.


The Australian Government did commit to revisions of copyright policy to make the default copyright position for Commonwealth agencies Creative Commons By Attribution (CC BY).


The Government also committed to establishing the data.gov.au website, "to facilitate access to public sector information. Agencies will be required to ensure that public sector information which is released is also made available through this central portal. Information which is posted on data.gov.au should contain details of the nature, format and release of the information."


STATUS: Largely implemented, although it is unclear if agencies have "been required to ensure that public sector information which is released is also made available through [data.gov.au]".

Recommendation 7: Addressing issues in the operation of copyright

The Government agreed to implement a change in copyright (as in Recommendation 6), but not to move the administration of copyright to the new Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), leaving it with the Attorney-General's Department (AGD).


The Government also agreed to a review of orphaned copyright works, though again left this with AGD, rather than transferring responsibility to the OAIC.


STATUS: Implemented, however I am unsure whether the review of orphaned copyright works has taken place.

Recommendation 8: Information publication scheme

This recommendation was accepted by the Government, with the Information Commissioner tasked with taking all the issues outlined within it into account.


STATUS: Allocated to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to implement, whose office is operating at 75% staffing and faces budget cuts through the increased efficiency dividend.

Recommendation 9: Accessibility

The Australian Government agreed with the recommendation, however only committed to improving accessibility, without defining what 'improvement' means.


The response did not outline any other specific activities or commitment, but reaffirmed that the Government had set WCAG 2.0 compliance as its standard for accessibility and that accessibility would be considered as a criterion in the Excellence in eGovernment Awards.


STATUS: Nothing to implement directly - however the Government has done exceptionally well in outlining and enforcing the Web Accessibility National Transition Strategy.

Recommendation 10: Security and Web 2.0

This recommendation stated that the lead agency, in co-operation with the Defense Signals Directorate, develop a better practice or 'how to' guide "to assist agencies in the effective, efficient and secure use of Web 2.0 tools and how to undertake associated risk assessment."


It also stated that,

"DSD should provide guidance to agencies on the appropriate mitigation treatments that could be adopted to address concerns or exposures identified in relation to the use of social networking and related tools. This guidance should take into consideration the different environments in which agencies operate, the varying risk profiles that exist and the range of tools that may be used. DSD should update the Information Security Manual (ISM) accordingly."

And,

"the proposed OIC should provide advice to agencies in relation to the treatment of PSI to enable its broadest possible release. Consistent with good practice, and the requirements of the Protective Security Manual (PSM), agencies must avoid the over classification of data so as to limit the need to review or pre-process data to enable its release."

The Government didn't commit to any specific actions, though it did state that,

"The Australian Government believes that public sector information is a national asset and is committed to working to find the best ways for both government and citizens to utilise its value. Within this frame, it is important that agencies are supported in implementing this measure this by better practice guides and appropriate mitigation treatment options. 

The Information Commissioner will take account of recommendation 10.3 when issuing guidelines under the FOI legislation."

STATUS: Nothing to implement directly.

Recommendation 11: Privacy and confidentiality

This recommendation stated that,

11.1 To protect the personal information of individuals included in PSI, the Privacy Commissioner should develop guidance on the de-identification of PSI before it is released. 

11.2 To protect the commercial-in-confidence information of businesses included in PSI, the proposed OIC should develop guidance on the de-identification of PSI.

The Government's response was that this was already in operation,

either by protection of the personal information or by relevant exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

And that,

The Information Publication Scheme will provide the legislative framework for information held by government to be published, subject to the exemptions consistent with the FOI legislation. 

STATUS: Nothing to implement.

Recommendation 12: Definition of Commonwealth Record

The recommendation focused on providing clear guidance on what, in the Gov 2.0 world, constituted a record and how they should be archived.


The Australian Government committed to having the National Archives of Australia (NAA) provide guidance for agencies on "what constitutes a Commonwealth record for the purposes of actions undertaken in the Web 2.0 context."

The NAAhas provided guidance through several articles, including Your social media policy – what about records? and Social media: Another type of Commonwealth record.

The Government also committed Finance and the NAA to provide guidance on endorsed metadata standards, which has been delivered via the WebGuide.

STATUS: Implemented.

Recommendation 13: Encourage info-philanthropy

This recommendation was deferred, to be "considered in the context of the Australia’s Future Tax System Review and the Productivity Commission’s report into the contribution of the not for profit sector."


For more about these, see:

• Australia’s Future Tax System Review
  Government response at: www.futuretax.gov.au
• Productivity Commission’s report into the contribution of the not for profit sector

STATUS: Nothing to implement and no activity based on either the review or the report has significantly affected the info-philanthropy area.

Read full post...

View summary...

Patient Opinion launches in Australia

One of the UK's social media success stories, Patient Opinion, has now launched an Australian website at www.patientopinion.org.au.

Patient Opinion, which has been live since 2005, allows patients to rate and comment on their experience with health providers. It has been an amazing (if sometimes painful) success in the UK, leading to a number of care improvements across the health system and at individual providers.

Having worked in the area in government in Australia, I recognise the sensitivities that get raised around the idea of rating health providers, or allowing public comment on individual experiences, particularly from hospitals and health professionals.

However decisions are made every day by people based on their views and experiences - which product to buy or shop to visit. They are even made about health services in private conversations that health providers can neither see or address.

Patient Opinion makes patient views and experiences visible in a central and public way, allowing health providers with the ability to access and review - even respond - to comments. The site also provides a level of governance and safety through monitoring stories and comments to ensure they are not defamatory.

The approach allows health providers to view and address operational concerns and provides valuable insights for policy makers into the Australian health system which, after all, is supposed to maximise the outcomes for patients.

While fears of negativity are common amongst organisations and individuals when social media channels open, the Patient Opinion experience in the UK has been that there is a high level of positive feedback provided - people do have faith in many health providers.

A brief video about the site is below, and you can learn more about Patient Opinion in Australia at www.patientopinion.org.au/info/about

Read full post...

View summary...

Intranet Innovation Awards 2012 open for entries

Step Two's annual global Intranet Innovation Awards for 2012 are now open for entry until 31 May 2012.

If you've done something extraordinary with your intranet this is a great way to get your organisation recognised for this work and share your idea with others across the intranet space.

The awards aren't just for entire intranets - you can simply enter a particular feature or tool - and you don't need to be a big organisation to necessarily win, many smaller organisations have done well where they've been agile and innovative.

For more information and to enter, visit http://www.steptwo.com.au/columntwo/the-2012-intranet-innovation-awards-are-now-open-for-entries/

Read full post...

View summary...

Global Data Science Hackthon - Canberra Event - 28 April 2012

I have just been alerted of the event below, well worth attending for any public service and data types. And there are prizes!

Are You a Smart Data Scientist? Participate in this Hackful Event. 24 Hours of Non-Stop, Fun Data Science Competition.

The aim of the hackathon is to promote Data Science and show the world what is possible today combining Data Science with Open Source, Hadoop, Machine Learning, and Data Mining tools.

In addition, the event’s aim is also to promote the sense of community, team work, and free spirit competition for the sake of Data Science.

Who: Hackers, computer scientists, programmers, mathematicians, statisticians, econometricians, data miners, YOU!

What: Use your smarts to compete against teams from around the world and win the title of "Global Data Science Hackathon Winner 2012" as well as some great prizes!

When: The venue opens from 8.30 pm on Saturday 28 April, and the competition kicks off at 10pm Canberra time on Saturday 28 April. You then have 24 hours to hack the data and win! Throughout the competition, there will be a live leaderboard (the competition is hosted by kaggle.com)

Where: Register for the Canberra event http://meetup.com/DSCanberra/events/57837482/ (nb registration is required but free!)

Why: For fun - a chance to test your skills against the best and participate in a global event.

How: Register on the address above and get your laptop ready for some serious data science hacking!

We will provide the venue and internet access. You bring a laptop and your data science hacking smarts! During the competition, we will be running venue based mini-events, talks and competitions. And we will have a video-hookup with other venues around the world.

Read full post...

View summary...

What are Australian Government agencies using social media to achieve?

I'm still collecting responses to my FOI request, however felt it worth providing some interim data on what Australian Government agencies are telling me that they are using social media to achieve.

Of the 166 FOI requests I sent out, I have, so far, received 59 legitimate responses in survey format (35%), another 10-20 in other formats (not analysed below) and 6 refusals to respond.

(I also received a survey response from the 'Dept of Silly Walks and Frilly Pants' that I've disregarded in this analysis. However I am pleased that FOI officers have healthy senses of humour!)

Of the 59 legitimate responses, 43 agencies indicated in Question 8 of my survey that they used social media channels for some purpose.

That is, 73% of Australian Government agencies in my sample are using social media.

This demonstrates how far the public service has come in embedding social media into their activities. However what do they say they are using social media to achieve?

Question 8 of my survey asked agencies:

Has your agency used social media services in the following activities?
(Please indicate all that apply and name each of the specific social media services used, ie: agency operated blogs or forums, third party blogs or forums, social networks such as Facebook or Twitter, social sharing sites such as YouTube, SlideShare or Flickr, etc)

The responses (so far) are as follows, listed from most to least popular uses of social media:

Answer choice	Responses	Share
For stakeholder engagement or collaboration	32	54.24%
Operating an information campaign	25	42.37%
Responding to customer enquiries/comments/complaints	25	42.37%
For engaging with journalists and media outlets	24	40.68%
For engagement or collaboration with other government agencies	24	40.68%
Monitoring citizen, stakeholder and/or lobbyist views and activities	17	28.81%
For a public consultation process	16	27.12%
For a stakeholder or other restricted access consultation process	13	22.03%
Other type of activity	11	18.64%
For policy or services co-design	7	11.86%

The 'Other' category was broken into the following 11 responses:

• cartoon competition - Flickr
• day to day information for subscribers and stakeholders
• Youtube
• No, but use of social media to advertise Gov Jobs is being assessed.
• YouTube
• LinkedIn (recruitment activity)
• Internal communication
• Yes
• Crowdsourcing
• Yes. Facebook (Promote Aboriginal Studies [ED: followed by two unreadable words])
• Facebook, Twitter

So, what are my conclusions from this data?

Firstly, there is a high use of social media for official purposes throughout the Australian Government. Almost three-quarters of agencies (73%) reported using at least one (and more commonly two or more) social media tools.

The most popular use for these tools is for stakeholder engagement or collaboration (53.24%) - well ahead of operating an information campaign (42.37%), indicating that social media use is expanding beyond Communication teams into broader agency use for two-way dialogues.

Responding to customer enquiries/comments/complaints was also quite high (42.37%), indicating that many agencies are serious about the use of social media channels for engaging.

Monitoring citizen, stakeholder and/or lobbyist views and activities was lower than I would have expected (28.81%). This is potentially the most cost-effective use for social media as it doesn't require engagement by an agency and can often be accomplished with free tools and limited time. I hope more agencies take this up in the future as it can provide deeper insights into their stakeholders and clients and help head-off issues.

Consultation was also lower than I had expected, with only a quarter of agencies respectively using social media for a public consultation process (27.12%) or for a stakeholder or other restricted access consultation process (22.03%). This is an area with significant potential to add value to policy deliberations and to provide a cost-effective extension or replacement of physical consultation events (particularly when budgets are tight). I hope more agencies take this up in the future as well.

The lowest rating answer was for policy or services co-design (11.86%), an emerging area which has a potentially bright future ahead of it. I can understand this being low as it is a new area for many agencies, but hope it grows as they realise the efficiencies of online co-design processes (alongside offline processes).

Finally, the other type of activity answer provided some interesting food for future thought. The answers provided by agencies, excluding the naming of specific social media tools and general use, fell into several significant categories; recruitment, internal communication and crowdsourcing.

These are all emerging areas where social media can make a significant difference and I hope we see a lot more of them in the future.

There is more analysis I will do down the track - which social media tools are most often used for each type of activity, what are the average number (and types) of tools used by agencies), however I'll wait for all responses to be received before putting this time in.

All in all the interim responses are very positive (at least from my position as a Gov 2.0 Advocate), with Australian Government agencies making strong use of social media across many different types of activities.

There's many who are testing, piloting and practicing different approaches to social media use, which will provide an ever-growing source of useful social media examples, case studies and expertise for all agencies to draw on and thereby build their capabilities and effectiveness online.

Read full post...

View summary...

Victorian government launches consultation blog for a new Vic.gov.au site

The Victorian government has launched a blog asking users for their ideas on how to improve the vic.gov.au website as it goes through a redevelopment.

The /blog states that the aim of the redevelopment is to provide:

• an appealing new branding and identity for the www.vic.gov.au website 
•  a new and usable look and feel 
• a more modern and relevant site to visitors 
• an easier way to find information (improved search and a clear starting point and navigation options) 
• more dynamic content 

So far the blog has attracted 14 comments on its (so far) three posts - with several being comments from the blog team responding to user feedback.

Alongside the blog it is also possible to rate vic.gov.au at the Victoria Online Customer Satisfaction survey.

Read full post...

View summary...

If Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Plus and MySpace were Aussie states

Many of you are probably aware that Facebook's active membership is larger than the population of the world's third largest country, however the numbers are getting too big to relate to Australia.

So I've taken the idea and compiled a view of Australia by state, including the main social networks used by Aussies as if they were states.




Notes

• Growth rates are based on 9 months, with state population for March 2012 extrapolated by applying 75% of the growth for the 2010/11 year from the ABS. The growth rates for social networks were calculated backwards based on having statistics on subscribers for both March 2012 and June 2011.
• Google Plus wasn't on the scene until August with 365,000 users - since then it has grown at a rate of approximately 337% per year, making it by far the fastest growing social network.
• Some social networks have decreased in numbers. Two data points are not enough to establish a trend and Twitter tends to fluctuate up and down on a monthly basis and it is difficult to define a clear direction for the service. MySpace's trend has generally been down for several years (refer to this Infograph and data for 2011 from Social Media News).

Sources:

• Australian population: Census projection - extrapolated to March 2012 from the Australian Bureau of Statistics
• Social media statistics: Social Media Statistics Australia – March 2012 from Social Media News

Read full post...

View summary...