Reinforcing the thin digital line

One of the benefits of my current role is getting to travel around Australia and meet many of the public servants working in the Government 2.0 and open government areas.

There's some fantastic people doing great work, often hidden in the most unlikely places.

It has also made me aware of how few people there are in government with significant experience in this area, who have designed, launched and managed more than a few social media initiatives, or who have worked in the online sector for many years.

Across all levels of government in Australia I could name less than 40 people working in agencies or councils who have more than three years practical experience with Government 2.0 and online channels, and who are also sharing their expertise beyond their immediate teams.

I worry what would happen if even half of these people left government suddenly. The impact on the capabilities of agencies and the cost, in years and mistakes, in rebuilding expertise.

I call them the 'thin digital line'.  They are the group that stands between government in Australia and the next agency social media disaster.

Many of the people I know in this group are mentally tired. They've worked for years, often in digitally hostile environments, to build business cases and run pilots to demonstrate the value of online channels.

Few have reached senior public service positions, due to their focus and 'troublemaking', often combined with a love of the practical hands-on thrill of seeing their actions result in positive outcomes.

Fortunately there's now a larger pool of people coming up through the ranks who are excited about getting into the digital arena. These people may have a few years professional experience with social media, but are more likely to be digital natives than some of us who have been involved in the online space for more than ten years.

They've internalised digital channels, but their knowledge of how to apply them in government agencies is still developing. They have skills and ideas, but sometimes lack confidence or experience.

If governments in Australia are to continue to embed Government 2.0 in business as usual activities, there needs to be a transfer of knowledge, experience and confidence from the 'thin digital line' and the group now following them.

I engaged in this kind of work last week, spending a day with a Commonwealth agency, meeting with with different teams to provide my experience and knowledge of the digital arena.

The people I spoke with were motivated, enthusiastic and empowered by their agency, with the permission to innovate in the digital space. However they still wanted independent confirmation to verify their good ideas, suggest refinements, risks, broader opportunities and build their confidence.

The day seemed to go very well and I have high hopes that the agency will be able to capitalise and continue to build its talent pool in this area. They'll be doing some awesome things over the next few years.

If you've plenty of digital experience under your belt, I encourage you to do likewise.

Find an agency or team who recognises the importance of online, but wants a sounding board or independent verification of their ideas.

Help them, give them confidence in their own knowledge and abilities, provide that 'expert opinion' that allows them to justify their good strategy to a policy area or senior manager - or gently steers them past strategies that are high risk.

Reinforce our 'thin digital line'. Help it to become a large embedded community of digitally capable and confident public servants, who can meet government online needs cost-effectively and quickly, then those who have done it before must share our experience.

The benefit to you will be that you've helped others to soar, potentially higher than you ever could.

Read full post...

View summary...

Adapting to being adaptable

We're starting to see government agencies come to terms with modern digital technologies, with more and more people in agency seeking to use them in their activities.

Agencies are beginning to operationalise social media and, while still working through the process, open licenses and data as well.

Some in digital related-roles in government are starting to feel their hard slog is nearly over, that they've won over management and can begin to focus on planning and doing rather than justifying, defending and educating.

Managers are beginning to resolve governance and risk questions and observe more acceptance of the use of digital channels by Ministers and their peers, making them feel more secure.

However there's a broader change taking place that public services and governments should not ignore.

Embedding Gov 2.0 thinking and technologies into an agency isn't simply a modification in how government engages, a reprioritisation of channels or an evolution of existing processes and procedures.

This change isn't like implementing a new structure or system - or introducing a new tool for staff, such as a fax machine or computer.

Governments and agencies don't just have to adapt to the internet and Gov 2.0.

They need to adapt to be more adaptable.


The web is only twenty years old, Web 2.0 and Gov 2.0 less than ten. In both cases we've seen an enormous flowering of ideas, rapid innovation and experimentation - with hundred-year-old industries already under threat.

This is but the opening gasp of what looks to be a continually changing and evolving digital landscape, a landscape which has already begun reshaped our physical world and calling into question many beliefs and traditions around how people behave, how organisations should operate and how governments should govern.

Public servants and politicians not only need to learn how to embed social media into their workplaces and activities, but how to design, manage and operate organisations and governments in fast changing environments and communities.

The change is as profound as moving entire nations from solid land and placing them on the sea, where unpredictable currents and storms continually challenge how structures are build and people organised.

We're entering an era where virtual states may be more relevant to people than physical ones, where the expertise government needs resides not only within their own staff, but outside the walls of their organisation, where programs succeed or fail based on whether communities wish them to - where governments are no longer the controller of states, but the servants of communities.

This era has only just begun, with self-organising groups only beginning to flex their muscles - often in uncoordinated baby-like ways. However as time passed and people learn how to better organise and design better platforms for doing so, we are likely to see radically different organisations appear and challenge incumbents for dominance at both micro and macro levels.

For governments to remain relevant they will need to learn to be adaptable, not simply to adapt to each new development, otherwise they will share the experience of the French in the opening days of World War II - with their plans, experience and processes for holding off Germany at the Maginot line were defeated by Germany going around the wall, failing to play by the rules of earlier engagements.

Governments seeking to control their citizens, or to set boundaries even for their staff, are already finding that many are going around the walls of process, governance and technology they have erected to define the boundaries of acceptable conduct or behaviour.

People are building, organising, sharing in spaces that agencies don't even recognise, let alone understand or engage in. Governance is lagging further and further behind practice and people are not waiting to let decision-makers catch up.

So how do governments learn to be adaptable, to be agile, to be inclusive, flexible and inclusive without giving up too much ground on areas such as privacy, security and governance?

This is an evolving body of work. However there are principles and similarity that adaptable organisations often share:

• Hire adaptable and resilient people
• Trust and empower your staff
• Foster community and collaboration
• Provide guidance rather than rules
• Respect and reward innovation and achievement
• Be transparent. Develop everything - policies, programs, systems, research, documents - to be accessible and shareable
• Never stop listening and learning

Organisations - even governments - who fail to adapt to being adaptable will keep falling further behind. At some point they may become irrelevant, unnecessary, or be forced to change from outside influences.

So while considering how you may use social media or Gov 2.0 tools and techniques today in an activity, think about the bigger picture. Are you and your organisation learning how to become more adaptable?

Read full post...

View summary...

The right way to release a mobile app - Human Services' new student app

I'm pleased to say that with all the apps now being developed by Australian governments, the Department of Human Services' new 'Express Plus Students' App, has managed to address almost all the criticisms I've had previously regarding government mobile apps.

What were these criticisms? And which did the Department fail to address? Read on...

Have a clear purpose

The first criticism I have about government mobile Apps is that sometimes they seem to be created without much thought about whether they actually are needed at all.

It is important to resist any urges to create a mobile App simply because you want to make one (as a shiny toy, for experience or credibility), or a senior manager wants to look good to their peers or Minister.

There are aspects of government business which, frankly, the community just isn't interested about. Apps, particularly in government, need a reason - a good reason - to exist, as well as an audience interested and ready to download and use them.

Don't create an App when you need a mobile site

One of the most costly mistakes governments (or anyone else) can make is in developing a mobile App when a mobile site would have met your needs and be more cost-effective.

If you're mainly providing a wrapper around website content and functionality, or providing textual information with a few images and buttons, it is usually faster and cheaper to build a mobile site than a mobile App.

This is because, well, building websites is simply cheaper, and while a mobile App needs to be recoded for every operating system and screen size, a mobile site will work across all internet-capable mobile devices without the coding overheads.

It is far easier to update as mobile site to suit emerging devices - by creating device specific style sheets, which are automatically applied when someone using a particular device visits.


This saves the money that would otherwise be spent in developing versions of your App for different devices and keeping them all up-to-date.

Mobile sites (should if built well) allow you to update the content easily, quickly and cheaply without potentially requiring development time and a user download. Though note that with clever App design this can also be achieved through having a mobile App that presents content drawn from a website or even a text file online.

The worst case - and I have seen it in practice - is when content is hard coded into an app, then there's a need to update it urgently. Frankly it's not easy to push an App through the iStore in less than two weeks, and this is after development. Apps are bad news for urgent updates.

Where your content is mostly words, mobile download speeds aren't generally an issue. It is when you get to video content and sophisticated functionality, or where your users are likely to operate beyond cost-effective 3G or wi-fi range (such as boat owners, remote communities and foreign travellers) that you may wish to consider a mobile App approach actively.

Design to standards including accessibility

When designing apps it seems that many basic usability and accessibility features can get forgotten, with many apps designed to operate in non-standard and non-intuitive ways. There are standards for a reason and standards-based apps will stand a better chance of feeling easy for regular app users to adopt (just like most Windows and Mac programs follow standards).

This means using the design paradigms for iOS, and Google's design principles for Android.

It also means tapping into the accessibility features built into iOS, and Android.

Use inbuilt controls

Using the inbuilt features and controls in mobile operating systems is also important. For example rather than building a map feature, use the one provided on the device.

I have seen Apps where the developer has built all kinds of nifty features that already existed in the operating system. This is sloppy, expensive and rarely results in a better experience.

Built in a reporting system

While you can find out how many App downloads have occurred from most App stores, tracking actual use of mobile Apps requires a reporting system hooked into the code itself.

This is fairly easy to do today, with Google Analytics supporting App reporting, and a number of custom reporting packages available from other organisations that are simply embedded in your App's code.

Having this reporting information is about more than accountability to the Minister, it is about understanding where, when, how and why people are using your mobile App, and helps you build an understanding of your audience so you can keep improving the App - and build new ones - that are even better.

Too many government apps are released without a reporting system, and it's very hard to reverse-engineer one in after release. People who previously downloaded an App can get mighty sensitive about the information you are suddenly collecting plus you miss the initial burst of activity that helps you identify issues and strengths.

Have an official agency account at App stores

This is one of my biggest frustrations, as seeing an official government App listed in an App store as having been created by 'Silly Mobile App Company' instantly reduces the credibility, trust and the ability to actually find the App by searching on the agency's name.

Also when an agency is making several Apps, often each is with a different Mobile App developer due to tender processes or skills. They then get listed under the name of the developer in the App store, which then cannot list your Apps together in a single place ('see other apps from this organisation'), reducing your agency's ability to cross-promote.

Plus, what happens if you make an App with a company, then have a falling out? It can be tricky, even impossible, to get the App out of the developer's account and move it to a new account on App stores.

It seems a no-brainer to me that agencies should register accounts on the main App stores before they start creating mobile Apps. This allows them to register their Apps under their own name, rather than that of developers and to use their reputation to build interest and trust.

Link to your Apps

Due to the wonders of modern technology it is possible to link from your media release and website to your App, as well as to link from your Apps to your other Apps.

Something that agencies still don't appear to do well is to link their mobile Apps together, with an in-App method of downloading other Apps from the same agency, or even government.

Also media releases still lack basic details such as screenshots of Apps or links to them in the App stores. I know it might come as a surprise to some people, but journalists understand how to use hyperlinks, as does the community - and both groups love pictures as much, if not more, than they love words.

Most media releases are read online, not on fax machines - so links can allow someone to get straight to the mobile App without messing around with a search in an App store.

With many releases now read on mobile devices, it makes sense to allow people to click to download the App straight away. It is inconsiderate to force someone to search when they can click.


And that final point is my only criticism of Human Services' 'Express Plus Students' App.

Go to their media release, which has been widely tweeted, and there is no link to the App in the iStore. Hopefully this is an oversight they will fix. It should not take long!

Note that I can't tell if Human Services' App has a reporting system built in either, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt!


So how has Human Services' App been received by its audience?

This is a great 'good news' story already - with a number of five-star reviews. Check them out yourself at the App iStore (and note that there's more reviews to read if you can click through to iTunes).

Read full post...

View summary...

When the dam breaks...

It is amazing to watch how quickly things can change once a key leadership change - of mind or person - occurs in a government department.

In the last four weeks Australia has gone from having no digital diplomats, lagging the world, to having four (@AusAmbUSA, @AusHCIndia@AusAmbJP and @DubesAustralia) - hopefully with many more to come (selected strategically) as we still lag behind nations like the US in leveraging these tools.

This is being reported to me as happening in other agencies as well - sometimes as almost a collective awakening to the benefits of engaging online.

Of course this isn't necessarily all good. There needs to be care taken to understand different online channels and use the right tools for purpose.

It also doesn't necessarily reflect a culture shift. I'm still seeing governments, every day, using 2.0 technologies in 1.0 ways and attempting to insert barriers to limit 'conversational risk' that, conversely, frustrate people and increase risk (they go talk about you somewhere else).

If you're a communications professional, or a proponent of social media, it is a very good time to ensure that your skills are up-to-date and your social media policy and plans ready - in draft form - to go to executive when they ask.

As I've blogged before, Ignorance (of social media) is risk and it pays to ensure you have enough knowledge to make good recommendations, avoiding the known pitfalls through good planning.

For Communications professionals who refuse to consider the use of online channels, your effective career is shortening fast, as is the effectiveness of policy and program managers - however there's still time to expand your skills to all the new 'tools of the trade'.

Read full post...

View summary...

Science, Technology & Wellbeing - plus community engagement by government

There's an interesting event coming up in Canberra for Science Week, a discussion around Science, Technology & Wellbeing that seeks to build engagement between government, scientists and the community around the topic of "How can we improve our lives? And how might science and technology help?"

To be held as a free event on 18 August at Canberra's Southern Cross Yacht Club, the aims are to build:

a clearer picture of what wellbeing means to people and current issues of concern, to experiment with thinking about science and technology in new ways, and to help develop DIISRTE's new framework for community engagement about science and technology, STEP (Science & Technology Engagement Pathways; http://www.innovation.gov.au/step).

The event is being run by the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education and should be a very interesting glimpse into how agencies are seeking to develop new frameworks for community engagement, building off increasing public participation engendered by the growth of the internet.

For more information and to book, visit http://wellbeingtechnologyforum.eventbrite.com.au/?ebtv=C

Read full post...

View summary...

What the Facebook ruling from the Advertising Standards Board (that comments are ads) means for agencies

There's been a lot of commentary this week in the media around the decision by the Australian Advertising Board (ASB) to rule that the comments of fans published on an brand's Facebook page are actually advertisements and must comply with industry self-regulation and consumer protection laws.

In face the ruling states that Facebook, and other social media tools, are advertising platforms - which may come as a surprise to long-term users of these services.

The ASB ruling is available as a PDF here. It involved Smirnoff Vodka and stated that content (comments and photos specifically) appearing on the company’s brand Facebook page constituted advertising, regardless of whether the company or members of the public posted it.

That's right - the ASB ruling states that all user comments in social media may be advertising.

The basis for this ruling was a recent legal decision:

The view that brands are responsible for consumer created content on their social media  pages has been supported by a recent decision of an Australian Federal Court (Australian  Competition and Consumer Commission v Allergy Pathway Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 74)1  that a health company was responsible for Facebook and Twitter comments by fans on its  account in defiance of a court order that the company not make misleading claims about its  allergy treatments  The Federal Court concluded that Allergy Pathway was responsible for third-party comments where it knew of them and made a  decision not to remove them from its Facebook page 

Therefore as Smirnoff had the technical capability to moderate user comments on its Facebook page, it had an obligation to do so. If it did not moderate user comments which made untrue claims about the company or its brands (as well as sexist, racist or otherwise unlawful statements) it was guilty of false advertising.

The apparent consequence of the ruling, for organisations who participate in the ASB's self-regulation scheme, is that they are now required to moderate all comments by individuals on their brand and corporate Facebook pages, other social networks, blogs, wikis, forums and social media channels in which they have the technical ability to do so.

This requirement may even potentially extend to platforms outside their direct control but where they can identify and request untrue (or otherwise uncompliant) comments about their company or brand to be removed - such as on Facebook pages or forums moderated by people outside the organisation (such as members of the public).

Some facts

The Australian Advertising Board is the directing group over the Advertising Standards Bureau body appointed to oversee the self-regulation of advertising in Australia by the members of the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA).

It is a body independent of government and independent of advertisers. It is not underpinned by any government legislation or policy and it is a voluntary organisation which participating associations, corporations, advertising agencies and other bodies agree to abide by.

Decisions by the Board are neither legally binding nor, necessarily, reflective of government policy.

Where a participating advertiser does not abide by an ASB ruling (which is apparently very rare), the ASB can "liaise with industry and media bodies such as FreeTV, and the Outdoor Media Association which will either negotiate with the advertiser directly for the removal of the advertisement or in specific cases, take action to remove the advertisement."

The ASB may also refer advertisers to an appropriate government body and recommend a course of action.

However the ASB and its secretariat - the Advertising Standards Bureau - has no direct enforcement power, nor any ability to force other parties (such as industry bodies or government agencies) to take action.

Putting the ruling in perspective

This ruling needs to be considered seriously by ASB participants - corporations and advertising agencies in particular.

They need to have a long hard look at whether they can afford to maintain social media channels with the risk that anyone in the community who comments in a channels they can technically control - including, potentially, their competitors - can cause them a world of pain by posting untrue things about them.

I'm not sure if governments participate directly in the self-regulation scheme, however it would be bad form for agencies to ignore direct rulings against their advertising by the ASB.

Is it 'right'?

This is my opinion, but the ASB's position doesn't stand up to scrutiny in a technical, practical or fair sense.

It is based on 20th Century thinking whereby organisations control the channels, and therefore the conversations, with audiences.

In reality this control has slipped almost totally out of the hands of organisations due to the internet and particularly due to social media. Organisations can (and should) control their direct statements, however they can't control the statements of other entities and individuals, beyond having some influence and oversight based on Australia's legal framework around defamation, slander and copyright.

Redefining individual comments as 'advertising' is highly problematic and is a disservice to the already weak freedom of speech provisions in Australia.

If I say on my blog that the Honda Jazz is the best car ever made, it is reasonable to assume that this is my opinion, not an advertisement. If I made the same statement on Honda's company Facebook page this remains my opinion - I am simply directing it at the people who made the car, in tribute to them.

Of course there is an exception if Honda has given me money, privileges, or a Honda Jazz - in which case my comments are advertising and need to be treated as such. (Note that Honda has not given me anything and I've never driven a Honda Jazz, nor wanted to)

Of course this is just about a car - a product. How about if I say on a government Facebook page that, for example, "I think the Fair Work Act is the best workplace relations bill in the world". Would this have to be moderated and removed as, despite it being a potentially heartfelt personal opinion, it is considered advertising (aka - has no facts to back it up)?

Isn't 'opinion' by definition a personal view which may, or may not, be supported by facts?

Apparently not. It's advertising. Hmmm...


Let's take practicality. On a Facebook page with 15,000 fans, 1% being active any week, that's 150 posts to moderate. Assuming it takes 3 minutes on average to assess each, it will take 450 minutes, or 7.5 hours, solid work to moderate all content.

That's possible with a single part-time, trained, moderation officer.

Now let's consider the Tourism Australia Facebook page. It has 3,375,675 fans. If 1% are active in any week, that's over 37,500 posts to moderate. Based on 3 minutes per post, it takes 112,500 minutes, 1,875 hours, or 250 person-days (based on a 7.5 hr work day) to moderate. Each week.

On that basis, Tourism Australia would require at least 50 people (plus extras to cover for leave) to moderate the page to get rid of user 'advertisement' comments which are not evidentially statements of fact, such as these real comments on the page right now:

• "A very blessed country. It has almost all the best things in life. I love Australia"
• "Australia the land of grace and tranquility"
• "Best country in the world"
• "better hurry to this Whitsunday resort before it too is closed like so many of the others"

What have others said?

Generally industry bodies have come out cautiously and indicated that companies need to digest the ruling and consider its implications.

Those experienced in social media have been less cautious and mostly said the idea won't work (though a minority have said it just reinforces what brands already had to do).

Here's a few articles on the topic as a reference:

• Watchdog clamps down on Facebook
• Facebook ruling poses challenges for advertisers
• Rethink forced on the use of Facebook by brands
• Brands forced to get Facebook trolls under control
• Making Social Media accountable
• ASB rules brands are responsible for all fan comments on Facebook
• Facebook page comments must pass advertising laws

Read full post...

View summary...

Is the Australian Government really slow to update staff to modern web browsers?

One of the concerns I faced when working in government, and that I know many other people faced as well, was the currency of the web browser(s) available for use by staff.

Some agencies still used Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, a ten year old browser that isn't supported by many major websites and online services and that even Microsoft admits is insecure and out-of-date. It is now used by only 0.8% of Australian web users.

Statcounter research - Web browsers used in April 2012
|in Australia and Oceania

Others prohibit access to Firefox or Chrome - which, according to some reports, together now hold a larger share of web browsing by Australians than Internet Explorer, and are also considered by many to be more standards compliant.

In fact Chrome v21 (at 21.1%) is reportedly the most used web browser by version in Australia, followed by Internet Explorer 9 (19.6%) and Firefox 11 (16%).

Why is the selection of browser so important?

There's a few reasons that spring to my mind.

Because the browser selected can limit the ability of staff at agencies to use the internet productively. To source information, monitor conversations online, use modern web services and even access advanced intranet features.

Because it costs more to develop for older, standards non-compliant web browsers - with Internet Explorer 6 compliance often adding 20% to the cost and development time of web sites and intranets.

Because it constrains testing of websites. While some web teams have special dispensation to access every browser for test purposes, in other agencies staff are forced to rely on their personal devices, or simply can't test for modern browsers.

Because there is an imperative on government to not use software more than two versions old - a particular issue for agencies still using Internet Explorer 6 when the current version is 9.


I can understand agencies who are 'trapped in the past'. There's often more important priorities for IT and management - critical systems that need to be managed, budget and resourcing concerns. However if you could improve the productivity and happiness of all your staff with a simple software upgrade which also improves your security, well...

There's also sometimes technical issues. While web browsers are free, upgrading an entire department isn't. There are dependencies - particularly with SAP, which stubbornly only supported Internet Explorer 6 until recent versions. It costs money to upgrade SAP and to manage this and a browser upgrade across thousands of computers, including any communication and training support required. Agencies, with other priorities, may put off this work as long as they can.

All this aside - how are Australian Government agencies actually doing in terms of how modern their web browsers are. Are the majority still stuck on Internet Explorer 6 or a similar old and insecure web browser?

As part of my FOI request on social media in March, I asked agencies which web browsers they used, as it impacts on which social media tools they can use.

The exact question was:

Which web browsers are currently mandated and/or supported for use by your agency's staff when using agency supplied IT equipment as specified below?
(Please tick applicable web browsers or supply by email a copy of the documentation on your Standard Operating Environment detailing this information)

While some agencies may regard this as confidential, please note the web browser type and version can, in most cases, be detected by any website visited by your staff.

Aside from two agencies who told me that this was "commercial-in-confidence" information they would not release, most agencies were very willing to provide this information.

I've aggregated the results in the chart below based on the 65 legitimate survey responses I received (the easiest information to analyse). Other (non-survey) responses haven't been included due to the analyse time required.

Web browsers officially mandated by Australian Government agencies
for use by their staff - sample from 65 agencies.

Looking at this response, many agencies supported multiple web browsers - generally Internet Explorer and one other.

Few remained on Internet Explorer 6 or 7, and most sat one version behind the most recent released web browsers - such as on Internet Explorer 8.

I did make one error. I forgot to include Blackberry's browser as an option for mobile phones. This is used as standard across all Blackberry mobile devices, so can be considered a standard.

So overall, how did Australia Government agencies do?

Very well in my view - and better than I had anticipated.

While a few agencies (including some very large ones) still lag back on Internet Explorer 6 or 7, most are using acceptably modern web browsers, even providing a choice in many cases - which helps compensate for some of the minor niggles in some browser versions.

Note
You can now view (and analyse) survey responses from my social media FOI as well at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=mE_2bvebDvXLOHHKrCnKP79IaCNkFpWjDocQJAN5aEvCQ_3d)

Read full post...

View summary...

Apps and hacks for social good (info-philanthropy)

It is nice to begin to see volunteering in more than simply physical ways beginning to be valued and rewarded in Australia.

Apps Aid (image from the Pro Bono Australia article,
'App Aid - Developers Unite with Charities For Greater Good')

I've just learnt about App Aid, a 48 hour event being held in Australia in September this year, from Pro Bono Australia).

Ten teams of seven (4 app developers and 3 charity representatives) will compete to create apps that make a positive difference to the community. $30,000 in charitable funds is up for grabs as prizes.

The event is being organised and sponsored by the Vodafone Foundation, the charitable wing of Vodafone Australia (who have quite a bit of experience with social media).

Like the Random Hacks of Kindness held last year in Melbourne as part of a global series of events, App Aid represents a new style of involvement in social issues.

Unfortunately, this type of 'giving back' isn't well recognised or supported in Australia as yet.

While the US has a number of foundations committed to 'information philanthropy' and 'hacking for good', Australia has a big legislative gap in this space.

I've looked in detail into setting up charitable foundations for information philanthropy and it's very hard to do here (Kudos to Open Australia who did indeed set up a foundation for their activities).

In fact the only recommendation by the Gov 2.0 Taskforce that was not taken up by the then Australian Government was about Info-Philanthropy. It was deferred, and subsequently has been ignored by other government reviews.

The lack of interest in this area has even been portrayed in the media as opposition to this type of philanthropy (Federal Government opposes info-philanthrophy) - though I suspect it would be more accurate to say that info-philanthropy hasn't reached a sufficient awareness threshold for governments to consider acting.

In the absence of support by government, I hope we do see more info-philanthropy from the private sector in Australia.

We don't just need to feed the hungry and house the homeless but to use technology to do these things and support other charitable and philanthropic activities in an increasingly efficient and effective manner.

Technology, coupled with information, has transformed how industries and governments operate. Ignoring the potential impact on the philanthropic and charitable sector is not only unwise, it is potentially extremely costly.

Read full post...

View summary...

In Perth this September? Come to RightClick!

If you're based in WA, or in Perth on 5th September this year, consider attending the Western Australia Institute of Public Administration's fourth annual RightClick conference, focusing on "Technology but not for its own sake".

I'll be providing a keynote on 'shiny new things' and why people are attracted to them and there's a great line-up of other speakers on topics including:

• Service in the age of the digital citizen
• Information Systems Audit Report
• Database design for longevity
• Harnessing technology to enhance the citizen experience
• Big Data: harnessing big data to acheive unpredented insights for service
  improvement and policy development

More detail is available at the IPAA's WA website at www.wa.ipaa.org.au/events/2012/rightclick_2012.aspx

Read full post...

View summary...

Do agencies unfairly assume that households have working printers?

While chatting with government folk in Victoria yesterday, the topic of printable PDFs in websites came up. Many agencies have them - large documents designed to be read on paper, rather than screen, and designed accordingly.

It made me ask the question: How many households actually have working printers and are able (and willing) to print large documents or forms?

The folks in the meeting couldn't answer, although one admitted that he didn't actually have a printer at home (despite working in an online capacity for the government).

This has now begun to intrigue me. is there an assumption in government agencies that every household that owns a computer must own a working printer as well?

Is there any evidence to justify this?

I've done a bit of looking today for statistics that might answer this question.

What have I found? Nothing that really answered it.

We have plenty of statistics from the ABS, Finance and other agencies and corporate entities on the number of households with computers and with internet access.

However none provides information on the number of printers in a household, whether they work or whether (given the cost of ink and supplies) people are prepared to print out those large documents with beautiful glossy full-colour images.

The most recent information I could find was from an e-waste brochure from Manly council, quoting the ABS as saying that in 2011, between households and businesses, Australians had around 5 million printers.

Given there's over 1 million businesses and around 9 million households in Australia, that means that as many as 5 million households, over 50%, may not have printers and be unable to print out those lovely documents on government sites.

How realistic is that figure? When I consider my wife and I as a sample of two, it actually appears plausible (and I understand how statistically unreliable that is).  While we are both professionals and knowledge workers, using computers and the internet as our primary tools - neither of us need to print often.

In fact my wife hadn't had a printer for years before we married, she either did things online or printed individual forms at work on the unusual occasion where this was required (and it was usually a form for work anyway).

I have a working printer now as I need it for work purposes. However until February this year I had also lived for several years quite happily without a working printer.

I had, however had a non-working printer. Why non-working? Because supplies were expensive and scarse. Printer manufacturers changed their cartridges when they changed their printers - making older printers harder to buy for. Why did I keep it? Because I might need a printer (although I never did until the supplies for it became impossible to buy).

So should agencies provide big documents on their sites under the belief that people will print them out at home?

Should they expect people to fill in forms online, and then print and sign them?

Perhaps - perhaps not. However it would be nice to see agencies making this decision based on evidence, rather than based on the assumption that every household with a computer has a working printer.

UPDATE:
Trevor Clarke has just let me know that his employer, IDC, tracks the movement of printers into Australia every month and quarter and reports on the number of households with printers. He tells me via Twitter that:

"IDC research shows 76% have 1 printer, 18% have 2. Only 7% don't use. Survey of 2000 Australian households in 2012"

So there's is some evidence that most Aussie households have printers. Good to know!

Read full post...

View summary...

Sharing policies, patterns, recipes & code across government

This morning at the Drupal Downunder event I learnt about the New Zealand Features site which shares recipes for re-usable Drupal code and patterns across NZ government.

To me this is representative of one of the significant opportunities I've seen for government in Australia emerging out of Gov 2.0 thinking and tools is the ability to share between agencies.

Sharing, as a concept, has allowed humans to move from the savannahs of Africa to our current position as the dominant species on earth. We taught each other how to create tools, how to farm, how to build and how to aspire.

While competition is often seen as the key driver of progress, under every competition is sharing - shared concepts, shared goals and, often, shared resources and knowledge. So even in the midst of the most ferocious competitions sharing is going on behind the scenes.

For organisations, sharing is also essential for survival and success. Organisations that configure themselves or act to successfully limit sharing will, by default, be slower to learn lessons, adapt to changing environments, cost more to operate and deliver less in the way of outcomes.

Unfortunately, through siloisation, this sits at the basis of the organisational structures that became popular following the success of the US railway corporations in the 19th Century.

This hierarchical approach for organising unskilled labour to deliver enormous achievements was very effective for managing large numbers of semi-skilled and semi-literate workers performing simple repetitive tasks, such as building a railway or operating a basis production line. Higher level managers, with greater education levels, provided the brains, innovation and held the broader view of the goals.

This hierarchical structure has become less and less valuable as an approach as populations have become highly educated and moved from performing repetitive physical activity to complex and multi-faceted knowledge work. 'Shifts' and 'gangs' became 'teams' and 'branches', where individuals were expected to perform a diverse range of tasks well - and to swap in for a colleague where necessary with limited time to train.

As modern organisations remain a hybrid of 19th century railway hierarchies and self-managed teams and networks, they have struggled to balance the needs of activity segmentation - leading to siloing - with the needs to share knowledge.

As the internet has done for many other activities it has taken sharing and put it on steroids. Suddenly you can source knowledge and expertise from anywhere in the world, sharing experiences, skills, lessons and outcomes.

This should likewise have a profound effect on government agencies, who seek to draw on the experiences of other jurisdictions and the knowledge of experts to inform their policy recommendations.

Also important is the ability to share within government between agencies. While a percentage of every agency's activities differ from those of other agencies, another percentage - frequently the larger number - involve repeating similar activities - HR, procurement, IT management, finance - as well as patterns of activities such as policy development processes, website development processes, internal communications processes.

This is all well and good - and clearly as the internet exists by default people can and will share.

The problem, of course, is that often public officers (like other people) need more motivation to share than the joy of giving. They need time and support, a framework in which to share and guidance on how to do it.

The US government has set about solving some of these underlying needs for a framework in which to share through the GovForge and MilForge initiatives. These sites support the sharing of code between agencies by providing a framework and mechanism whereby code can be provided, categorised, make available and the owners of the code reimbursed - through recognition.

I learnt this morning about the New Zealand site, where public officials have taken steps in the same direction, with the Features site sharing recipes for re-usable Drupal code and patterns.

In Australia we're a little further behind. While sharing definitely goes on, with some agencies, such as DEEWR, happy to share their web code and patterns with other agencies. I'm aware of code and pattern sharing for tenders, for research and for other activities where agencies go through the same processes, though often for different ends.

However we've not yet seen a central site within government for sharing these things. A place where agencies can store their staff policies, communications plan templates, business planning processes, emergency management frameworks, tender documents, research surveys, website code and patterns and more, so others across government can learn from, build on, modify and/or repurpose them - then submit their improvements back into the system.

Effectively this would provide a best practice repository that goes far beyond 'case studies' to support government agencies in standing on the shoulders of each other, improving their capability to serve government and improving policy and service deliver outcomes

Gov 2.0 makes this possible, and I hope that, with the example of the New Zealand Features site, these things are not too far away.

Read full post...

View summary...

Selecting the right tool for the job of online citizen engagement

This report was brought to my attention by Sandy Heierbacher in the Online Engagement Group at LinkedIn, and I thought it well worth sharing more widely.

Also blogged about by Sandy at the US National Coalition for Deliberation and Democracy (NCDD), in the post The Promise and Problems of Online Deliberation, the report provides a look at how online tools can be used in citizen deliberation, with recommendations on which tools to use when.

The report is available from: http://kettering.org/publications/the-promise-and-problems-of-online-deliberation/

There's even a supporting infographic as below:

Read full post...

View summary...

When does organised action turn into 'gaming the system' in online engagements?

It can be difficult to define the line at which organised responses to an online consultation or engagement change from being legitimate activity by an interest group to 'gaming' the system to influence the outcome.

For that matter it can be just as difficult in a paper-based or face-to-face process. Just who does a lobby group with the Minister's ear really represent, who is funding that thinktank releasing white papers, and who is organising and transporting people to a public protest of function (such as an anti-carbon tax rally or to a Olympic Torch relay)?

Should the line be drawn between personal self interest and financial interest?
How about when a financial interest is often just as personal, such as an impact on wages or jobs?

Should the line be drawn between organisations who fund activities versus those who involve volunteers only?
Even though this might marginalise people who can't afford a day off without compensation - making protests a well-off person's tool.

In this context, I've been watching the progress of Hangout with the Prime Minister. This initiative hosted by OurSay, an independent and non-partisan organisation that supporting democratic engagement between public figures and the public, Deakin University and Fairfax Media (who have promoted it through their newspapers) involves selecting three user submitted questions to ask the Prime Minister, based on an online vote.

The actual event occurs tomorrow (Saturday 21 July). It involves the Prime Minister meeting with the three top questioners to ask their questions on a live webcast - and hopefully have them answered.

The real interest for me is in how questions were submitted, promoted and voted up through the process.

OurSay has been doing this for awhile and has a fairly robust system. Anyone with internet access can register to the site (directly or via services like Facebook and Twitter) to ask questions and to vote for existing questions.

People may ask as many questions as they like, but may only vote seven times, dividing these between questions however they like (or blowing all their votes on a single question if they want).

There's different ways to view questions - by most recent, oldest, highest number of votes or comments - and generally the process is run simultaneously. People can ask questions and vote all the way through the process (though this does bias questions asked earlier as they have more time to gather votes).

For the Hangout with the PM, voting closed on Thursday 19 July with almost 2,000 questions asked and 109,000 votes cast (according to Fairfax). Assuming people spent all their seven votes, this means at least 15,500 people took part.

The top three questions were on same-sex marriage, on defense pensions and on school chaplains (submitted by the President of the Atheist Foundation of Australia). The top question was submitted three weeks ago, and rose to the top slowly. The next two were submitted only four days ago, and rose very quickly.

So, leaving aside the potential for people to register multiple times and vote (which OurSay has a policy and some mechanisms to manage), where does gaming the system come in?

I've watched two particular incident associated with this HangOut which could be considered gaming - but may not be.

The first involved Andrew Bolt, a newspaper and TV commentator with a large following amongst politically conservative Australians.

On Tuesday 10 July Bolt blogged in support of a question at OurSay about the impact of Australia's carbon price on global warming "By how much, measured in thousandths of degrees Celsius, will the Earth's temperature be reduced through the carbon tax?”

Within four hours this had become the top question on the site, driven by Bolt's supporters flocking to support the question.

Bolt bolstered this with a post the next day, Vote for an answer at last, where he commented that thanks to the support of his readers they'd gotten two questions into the top three.

Bolt's involvement was proclaimed by OurSay as a success, as covered in Crikey, OurSay gets a boost via a Bolt from the blue.

The second incident involves Get-Up who, six hours before the Hangout closed, sent an email to supporters prompting them to vote for an asylum seeker question:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, when will our government stop placing asylum seeker children in detention? We could hear an answer from the PM on Saturday - but there's only a few hours of voting on questions to go. Can you place your vote for this question?

The question in question asked “Dear Prime Minister, when will your government stop placing asylum seeker children in detention?”

This time I was quick enough to grab a couple of screenshots of the question as its votes increased.

The first screenshot, about 30 minutes after Get Up's email was sent, showed the question with 3,178 votes.

The second, taken two hours later, placed the question with 6,467 votes. That's an increase of nearly 3,300 votes (or between 470 and 3,300 people voting).

Now how did the questions supported by Bolt and Get Up do in the final analysis?

The tally is in the image below, however Bolt's two supported questions came 5th and 6th with 8,308 and 6,919 votes respectively.

The question supported by Get Up came in at 7th spot with 6,467 votes (which would have made Andrew Bolt happy).

The top three questions received 12,749, 10.933 and 10,756 votes respectively.

You can see the tally below.

So were the efforts by Bolt and Get Up attempts to game the system, or legitimate uses of organisational power? Were other efforts at gaming going on that we're unaware of?

Both are hard to answer and, ultimately, it is impossible to prove a negative (that no gaming has occurred).

However we do need to keep thinking about what defines 'gaming' and similar activities such as 'atroturfing' and consider whether the actions of interest groups unfairly distorts the outcomes of engagements.

Read full post...

View summary...

Next Canberra Gov 2.0 event, 14 August - take a walk on the web side with two fantastic speakers

Pia Waugh is organising the next Gov 2.0 event in Canberra, which will be hosted by DEEWR in their Theatre at 50 Marcus Clarke Rd from 12:30-1:30pm on Tuesday 14 August.

This time the event features two fantastic speakers, and has a much larger limit due to the large size of the venue.

The speakers are:

• Michael (Mick) Chisnall (@michaelchisnall), the Director of the Australian Capital Territory’s Government Information Office, who will be talking about the ACT's efforts in the open government space, and
• Keren Flavell (@KerenFlavell), a founding partner of Wholesome Media and co-founder of Bushfire Connect - a community driven crisis alert tool for sending fire warnings between communities. She'll be talking about the social engagement strategy and TownHall Facebook application developed by Wholesome Media for the Parliament of Victoria

Both have done awesome work in the Gov 2.0 space and have many practical tips and experiences to share.

Alongside the speakers there will be an open mike for people to talk about their latest online initiatives and plenty of engaged attendees to share stories with.

Note that this is a food-free event, however this also means it is free to attend! For anyone seeking food,  there's a cafe next door and plenty of other options nearby.

So if you're looking for some good Gov 2.0 tips and insights, learn more about the event and register at:  http://gov2augustact.eventbrite.com/

Read full post...

View summary...

Should government agencies or Ministers supply content to newspapers if it will end up paywalled?

Thirty years ago if you wanted to read the news, you bought a newspaper. A paper newspaper, with real money.

As a result all of a government's announcements - media releases, Ministerial statements, advertising and other content had a price tag by default.

You didn't get to see them if you didn't pay the paper's price (except if you browsed in-store - a practice news agents discouraged).

Over the last twenty years however, news has become freely available online. Go to any print publisher's masthead, online-only news service or agency website and you can read the releases, statements and even see the ads without paying a cent.

Clearly this has been good for governments, who can reach a wider audience with their content due to the lack of a 'paywall' barrier to consumption.

However with the major newspapers now considering paywalls, should government agencies be prepared to go back to the days of allowing commercial providers to charge money for the content they provide to newspaper proprietors for free?

This is a thorny question. On the surface it looks easy - it was OK before, it should be OK now. However we have a new generation of citizens who grew up with free news, who are less inclined to pay for news and therefore government is likely to struggle to reach them.

At the same time we have a phlethora of news sites, some will be paywalled but others won't. Agencies can now distribute releases, statements and even advertisements via their own websites, email lists, and social media channels.

So does government need to rely on traditional media to carry straight news? It is still appropriate for agencies to allow newsprint publishers to 'clip the ticket' for the content they release for free?

Should there be a requirement that Ministerial and agency content isn't hidden behind the paywall and remains part of the free content provided by news services? A traffic generator, but not a profit centre?

I don't have a ready answer to this.

I would expect the news publishers would be quite happy commercialising government content, as they have done in the past, as it gives them cheap content to boost their profits (which can, of course, be taxed).

I also expect that older public servants and politicians wouldn't even question the right of publishers to make money from government content, as it was done before.

However for younger people the situation may not be so black-and-white.

Read full post...

View summary...

How Facebook has become a risk for public servants, and what you can do about it

If you are one of the majority of public servants with a Facebook account, then it may be time to reconsider how you use the service.

As discussed in ZDNet's post, Is Facebook damaging your reputation with sneaky political posts?, Facebook is now posting messages in your timeline and saying you 'Like' the messages simply because you once 'Liked' the Facebook Page that posted them.

So what does this mean, and how is it a risk to public servants?  Here's how it works.

When you 'Like' a Page in Facebook, Facebook assumes this means you also like all the content, status updates, images and other material, that may be posted on that Page by its administrators.

To be 'helpful' Facebook will automatically place some of the Page's content in the newsfeeds of your Facebook friends, with a notice that you 'Like' the content.

Facebook calls this a feature, as quoted in the ZDNet article,

To help people find new Pages, events, and other interesting information, people may now see posts from a Page a friend likes. These posts will include the social context from your friends who like the Page and will respect all existing settings.

This may sound innocent enough, but what it means in practice is that if you ever 'Liked' a Facebook Page for any reason, any new content posted in that Page may now appear to your friends as explicitly 'Liked' by you.

As Pages can change administrator, content and focus, that innocuous Facebook Page on pet rabbits you liked two years ago may now start spewing controversial, obnoxious or otherwise inappropriate content into your Facebook friends' newsfeeds - with each piece of content indicating that you 'Liked' it.

This could merely be embarassing, or it could put your career at risk.

Say you 'Liked' a Facebook Page for a charity you support that works in a policy area covered by your agency. Due to a change in government policy, that charity loses funding and, as a result, begins posting messages on its Facebook Page which are strongly critical of the government's new policy to galvanise their supporters to write to the Minister. Even worse, one of the Page's administrators has been radicalised and frames some of these messages in very strong, almost abusive, language.

These messages begin appearing in the newsfeeds of your friends, complete with a notice that YOU 'Liked' them. Incidentally, you don't see them yourself because Facebook doesn't notify you that they're doing this and these messages don't appear in your own newsfeed.

One of your friends (a colleague at your agency) is horrified that you'd act so unprofessionally and sends screenshots of the messages with your 'Like' to HR, notifying them that you've broken the public service code of conduct by publicly criticising your agency and the government.

You get called in for a discussion with your manager and a HR representative, who shows you the screenshot and asks you to explain your conduct...

Will they believe you when you claim ignorance?


Now compound this issue by thinking about every single Facebook Page that you've every Liked.

Any of them could begin posting messages which could embarrass you, or threaten your job and, thanks to this Facebook feature, indicate automatically that you 'Liked' each message.

Even worse you don't even know when they're doing it because you don't see these messages in your own newsfeed.


So what should you do to deal with this?

Assuming that you're not prepared to close down your Facebook page or, at least, unLike all pages that you have liked, I recommend that public servants look at their 'Likes' page (accessible from their Favourites page) and cast an eye over the pages they've Liked to see if any are likely to post content that will get them in trouble in their friends' newsfeed.

Then make this a regular habit - check all your pages every month to see what they're saying.

Finally, bring this issue with Facebook to your agency's attention, so you'll not be accused of 'Liking' content you didn't.

Read full post...

View summary...

Mapping social media channels to engagement levels (based on IAP2 spectrum)

I developed the Online Engagement Spectrum around three three years ago, based on the IAP2 Spectrum  of Public Participation (PDF) and some complementary work by Bang The Table (no longer at the original web address).

As Gadi Ben-Yedah over at his IBM's Business of Government blog has begun a series of posts considering how social media can be used by government to engage online based on the IAP2 Spectrum, I thought it was timely to repost my Spectrum for people to consider.

To view Gadi's first post, go to Social Media for Public Participation: Step 1 - Inform

Online Engagement Spectrum 1.2

Read full post...

View summary...

Are Australia's web developers failing to deliver accessible websites?

In a recent story in ITNews, Accessibility checker surfaces errors, John Hibbert claimed that a new Mental Health website, www.mindhealthconnect.org.au, operated by the National Health Call Centre Network and funded by the Department of Health and Ageing, didn't meet the Australian Government's minimum web standards.

Based on a review using the ACheck tool for the minimum WCAG 2.0 'A' level of compliance, John reported that the checker:

highlighted two known problems, 245 "potential problems", 20 HTML validation errors and 115 cascading style sheet problems on the site.

I tend to always take the results of these tools with a grain of salt. Many of the reported validation errors and style sheet issues are often repeats of one single issue, or are not really issues at all, and the two known problems would take a couple of minutes to fix and do not pose direct accessibility risks at all.

However this article does highlight a concern I've had for several years - whether Web Developers, contracted to produce these sites for government, always have the appropriate skills and knowledge to develop accessible websites.

I've seen this type of issue repeated a number of times. A policy or program area, possibly with support from a central communication or IT area, goes out to tender for a website. Web Developers respond, get assessed and the successful tenderer goes about creating the site.

A few months later the site is complete with days to spare before the Ministerial launch - but fails accessibility testing by the agency.

"We didn't understand how important accessibility was to you" says the Web Developer. Note that I was in the room when these exact words were said to an agency by a reputable web developer regarding a website which was developed iteratively and we'd been giving them feedback about accessibility for a number of weeks.

So what happens next?

If accessibility was not explicit mentioned in the contract, the Web Developer asks for more cash to meet the requirement, even though it is a baseline requirement for all government websites across Australia, and says it won't be ready for launch.

If an accessibility level was explicitly agreed to in the contract, the Web Developer grudgingly assigns a junior developer to 'sort it out' - with a vague promise that it will be done in a few weeks or months.

The agency is left having to launch a website which doesn't meet the minimum and fix it as soon as possible afterwards - all because the Web Developer didn't recognise and act on the legal requirement for accessibility.

Of course there's many examples where Web Developers have done exceptional accessibility work for agencies, however I have seen and heard too many issues where professional Web Developers didn't understand the accessibility requirements of governments.

Delivering an inaccessible website to a government agency will cause that agency to break the law and expose it to enormous risks of legal damages. No vendor should ever put their client in this type of position knowingly, particularly where it is so easily avoidable.

My view is that any Web Developer that doesn't deliver a government website to at least the minimum accessible standards (unless otherwise explicitly agreed to by the agency in question) should not receive any payment until they have addressed all accessibility issues.

They should also lose their right to bid for other government business until they can prove they have fully trained their staff on accessible web design.

These may be harsh and strong measures, and I doubt they will be considered due to contractual and practical issues.

However if a vendor contracted to sell a government agency a car that turned out to not be street legal or rent them a building that turned out to not meet the building code, government would walk away without paying and ask for damages, plus be very cautious about working with that vendor again.

Why should it be any different with illegal websites?

Read full post...

View summary...

Australian government Twitter list expanded to 553 accounts

I've been working away in my (copious) spare time to update the list of Australian government Twitter accounts - representing all levels of government.

It has now reached 553 accounts - which has also forced me to start a new Twitter list due to their 500 follower limit.

You can view the spreadsheet embedded below, or access it at: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ap1exl80wB8OdHNKVmQ5RVlvQWpibDAxNHkzcU1nV2c&hl=en

You can subscribe to the listed australian government accounts using my Twitter lists:
Australian-gov-tweets (500 accounts)
Australian-gov-tweets2 (my new 'overflow' list)

I haven't yet created by level or by state lists yet - but will do so when I have time.

If you're aware of any Australian government Twitter accounts I've missed, or if your agency starts a new account, please update the list directly, or let me know so I can update it (my main issue in maintaining the list's currency is that government agencies are poor at telling people about their new social media accounts).

Please look at the Stats and By population tabs in the spreadsheet for the list to see how many accounts there are by category, state and government level, how long the average Twitter account name is, when accounts were started and the most popular months for starting accounts, plus the ratio of Twitter accounts to population at state and national levels.

Read full post...

View summary...

What should agencies do when social media channels close down?

Last week I received the following email:

Dear Hashable Users,

We regret to inform you that the Hashable mobile apps and Hashable.com will be shutting down on July 25th. The service will be unavailable after this date.

While we are still very passionate about making better connections and meeting new people, the time has come for us to focus our energy elsewhere.  

Some of you have stored valuable information in Hashable, and we want to give you the opportunity to save that data for your own records.  If you’d like to receive a file with your complete history, please log onto Hashable.com, navigate to the "Profile" tab, then to the “Your History” section on that page. You can download the file by clicking “Export full history to .csv” and accepting the dialog that pops up.

We are incredibly grateful for all the people we have met through Hashable.   Thank you for all your support, and we hope to connect with you again in the future. 

All the best,

The Hashable Team

It made me think about the situation that faces organisations when the social media tools they use close down.

How does the organisation tell people interacting with them via the service? Where will they move the community to? Can they extract and reuse any data they or their community have entered into the service? Who else will be able to access and reuse this data?

With the thousands of social media tools that now exist it is inevitable that a proportion of them will close down. In fact I've been surprised at how few have done so - largely because of the low cost of keeping them running.

Where agencies are using these services, what is their recourse? It's hard to hold a company to a service level, or sue, if you're paying next to nothing for access and the service is domiciled in another country with no local presence.


The key is to prepare and risk-manage before beginning to use these types of services.

Define why and how you'll use a social media service, what data you will be providing into the service and what data you wish to collect (and in what timeframes and formats).

Ensure you've carefully scrutinised the privacy policy and terms of use, both for your sake and for your audience - you may have an obligation to point out differences between your privacy policy and the policy of the service.

Check that the service allows you to extract your data if necessary and, if required, also confirm whether you can delete your account and purge all data.

Devise written exit plans for likely future scenarios. These should, at minimum, include:

• The social media service closing down in an orderly fashion,
• the social media service closing down suddenly and unexpectedly (for a short time or permanently),
• the social media service being bought and integrated into the offering of another company, or
• your program ending and needing to be closed down, even when the social media services you are using are still going strong.

These plans provide a framework to help you, your management and your successors to manage any shut-down in a measured way. They also form part of your governance and risk-mitigation strategy.

It's also important to put in place a regular back-up and review strategy. Back-up data from your account by downloading it every month (or if the service doesn't support this, reconsider if you're happy using it).

Also periodically review whether your stated purpose for using the service still reflects how you, and your audience are using it, and whether you need to adjust your approach or your data management policies. This review should include checking whether the service's privacy policy or terms of use have changed - avoiding the risk of the 'slippery slope' where you create your agency's account under a strict privacy policy, but find that your rights have eroded over time.

Together with the above, keep an eye on emerging services that might build on the tools you already use. I don't recommend switching horses regularly, however if a social media service important to you and your stakeholders is closing, knowing where you can move the community to maintain the conversation is important to have at hand.

As is often quoted, failing to plan means you're planning to fail.

This is as true for social media as for any other channel or project. So prepare yourself for the future by planning and keep a watchful eye on the services you use and how and why you're using them.

Read full post...

View summary...

Transforming public engagement though social media (almost live from Singapore)

This morning I presented at the Reading Room Digital Conversations forum to a group of Singaporean government officials on the topic of Transforming public engagement through social media.

I talked through how connected Australia had become, and pointed out that the goals of public engagement have not really changed (using the IAP2 model to illustrate), only our tools.

My presentation then went through a range of different engagement examples across the IAP2 spectrum, from Inform to Empower, and then pointed out that governments weren't necessarily the driving force behind Gov 2.0 - illustrating several Gov 2.0 initiatives created outside of government.

I concluded with Zombies (as all good presentations do) - demonstrating how governments can be more playful without being unprofessional, using popular culture and memes to stimulate public engagement with hard to reach audiences.


I've embedded my presentation below - enjoy!

View more presentations from Craig Thomler.

Read full post...

View summary...

Guest post: Public engagement: more customer service than comms

Today I'm featuring a guest post from Pia Waugh, former IT Advisor to Senator Lundy, convenor of the recent Canberra GovCamp and GovHack and one of the luminaries of the Australian Gov 2.0 scene.

As she plans to continue to update this post, for the latest version visit her blog at http://pipka.org/public-engagement-more-customer-service-than-comms/

Public engagement: more customer service than comms

I’ve been involved in online communities for many years. I’ve seen and been in projects that span every possible traditional barrier to collaboration (location, culture, language, politics, religion, gender, etc, etc). This experience combined with my time in government has given me some useful insights about the key elements that make for a constructive online community.

What I came to learn was the art and craft of community development and management. This skill is common in the technology world, particularly in large successful open source projects where projects either evolve to have good social infrastructure or they fail. There are of course a few exceptions to the rule where bad behaviour is part of the culture of a project, but by and large, a project that is socially inclusive and that empowers individuals to contribute meaningfully will do better than one that is not.

It turns out these skills are not as widespread as I expected. This is problematic as we are now seeing a horde of “social media experts” who often give shallow and unsustainable advice to government and companies alike, advice that is not rooted in the principles of community engagement.

The fact is that social media tools are part of a broader story. A story that sees “traditional” communications turned upside down. The skills to best navigate this space and have a meaningful outcome are not based in the outdated premise that a media office is the single source of communications due to the media being the primary mechanism to get information out to the general public. There will continue to be, I believe, a part for the media to play (we could all use professional analysis and unbiased news coverage, please). However, as governments in particular, we will have a far more meaningful and mutually beneficial relationship with citizens where we genuinely and directly engage with them on matters of policy, service delivery, democratic participation and ways that government can facilitate public and private innovation.

You might be lucky and have some media people who have adapted well to the new world order, but any social media strategy limited to the media office will have limitations in delivery that starts to chafe after a while.

It is when you get your customer service and policy people engaged online that you will start to see genuine engagement, genuine community building and the possibility to leverage crowdsourcing. It is when you start to get people skilled in community engagement involved to work alongside your media people and in collaboration with the broader organisation that you will be able to best identify sustainable and constructive ways your organisation can apply social media, or indeed, whatever comes next.

Below are some vital skills I would recommend you identify, hire or upskill in your organisation. Outsourcing can be useful but ideally, to do this stuff well, you need the skills within your organisation. Your own people who know the domain space and can engage with imprimatur on behalf of your organisation.

I’ll continue to build this post up as I have time, and would love your feedback

Herding Cats

In my time in online communities I came to understand the subtleties in what we in the geek world refer to as “herding cats”. That is, working with a large number of individuals who have each their own itch to scratch, skills, interests and indeed, vices. Individuals who have a lot to contribute and are motivated for myriad reasons to get involved.

I learnt how to get the best out of people by creating a compelling narrative, having a meaningful goal, uniting people over what we have in common rather than squabbling over what is different.

Herding cats is about genuinely wanting people to get involved, recognising you can’t “control” the conversation or outcomes, but you can encourage a constructive dialogue. Herding cats ends up being about leadership, building respect, being an active part of a live conversation, setting and encouraging a constructive tone, managing community expectations and being a constant presence that people can turn to and rely upon. Cat herding is about building community.

Finally, herding cats is about managing trolls in a constructive way. Sometimes trolls are just passionate people who have been burnt and feel frustrated. They can sometimes become your greatest contributors because they often care about the topic. If you always engage with trolls in a helpful and constructive way, you won’t miss the opportunities to connect with those who genuinely have something meaningful to contribute.

Community and Topic Research

You need to know the communities of interest. The thought leaders, where they are having their discussions, what one-to-many points (technical, social, events) can you tap into to encourage participation and to get your finger on the pulse of what the community really thinks. Community research is about knowing a little about the history and context of the communities involved, about the right (and wrong) language, about if and how they have engaged before and getting the information you need to build a community of interest.

Topic research means your community engagement person needs to know enough about the domain area to be able to engage intelligently with communities of interest. Your organisation is effectively represented by these people so you need them to be smart, informed, genuine, socially and emotionally intelligent, “customer service” oriented and able to say when they don’t know, but be able to follow it up.

Collaboration & Co-design

This skillset is about intuitively trying to include others in a process. Trying to connect the dots on communities, perspectives, skills and interests to draw people from industry, academia and any other relevant groups into the co-design of your project. By getting knowledgable, clever and connected people in the tent, you achieve both a better plan and a community of (possible influential) people who will hopefully want to see your initiative succeed. Co-design isn’t just about creating something and asking people’s opinion, but engaging them in the process of developing the idea in the first place.

A little thanks goes a long way. By publicly recognising the efforts of contributors you also encourage them to continue to contribute but whatever you are engaging on needs to be meaningful, and have tangible outcomes people can see and get behind.

Real outcomes of your online engagement are key in managing public expectations.

Monitoring, Analysis & Feedback Mechanisms

It is vital that you have internally the skills to monitor what is happening online, analyse both the content generated and the context around the content created (the community, individuals, location, related news, basically all the metadata that helps you understand what the data means).

By constantly monitoring and analysing, you should be able to identify iterative improvements to your online engagement strategy, your project, policy or “product”. Most people focus on one of these three (usually the latest toy with pretty but meaningless graphs spruiked by some slick salesperson), but it is by turning the data into knowledge and finally into actions or iterative improvements that you will be able to respond in a timely and appropriate manner to new opportunities and challenges.

Read full post...

View summary...

In government in Tassie? Come along to the IPAA Forum on Transforming public engagement through social media

I'm headed to Tassie in early August and whilst there will be presenting at an IPAA forum on the topic of Transforming public engagement through social media.

If you're in a Tassie state agency or local government and interested in Gov 2.0, social media or community engagement, I'd like to invite you to consider coming along.

Details are available at the IPAA Tasmania website: http://www.tas.ipaa.org.au/events

Read full post...

View summary...