Posts
Hitwise has provided a great piece of insight into what activities Australians are actually doing online in their February monthly newsletter.
If you don't subscribe to Hitwise's service - which is not cheap - their newsletter is a great free way to keep an eye on some of the key trends in Australian online traffic.
Australia Newsletter - February, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
What are Australians doing online? | Tweet |
Friday, May 16, 2008
The four purposes of an Intranet | Tweet |
As always James from Step Two Designs is both thought provoking and slightly controversial in his down-to-earth approach in this presentation, The four purposes of an intranet.
- Content
- Communication
- Collaboration
- Activity
It comes with voiceover which makes it easy to follow.
To eTransact, or not to eTransact - is that the question? | Tweet |
I've been looking through AGIMO's 2007 report on Australians' Use of and Satisfaction with e-Government Services within the context of the channel research my Agency has been undertaking.
AGIMO's report make it clear that the online channel has become THE channel of choice for Australians to engage with Government.
To quote the report's executive summary,
This has been driven by citizens' desire to engage Government at the time and place of their choosing. To avoid queues and phone wait times. To be in control of the relationship.The internet is now the preferred way to contact government.
- Two in five (41%) people would now prefer to contact government by internet. This is a substantial increase from 2004–05, when less than a third (31%) nominated the internet as their preference.
- At the same time, there has been an ongoing decline in preference for in-person contact; this has fallen from 33% in 2004–05 to 20% in 2007.
Naturally Government in Australia has sat up and taken notice. Massive funding is pouring into the online channel and Agencies are busy planning the closure of many of their outlets and call centres.
NOT
Many Agency maintain a phone-first philosophy.
This is driven by 'common knowledge' that their customers do not use the internet, that they are happy contacting Government strictly between 8.30am and 4.45pm (excluding international customers) and that only via phone can customers receive the level of personal service they crave (except for those customers who refuse to call Government agencies).
While I have expressed the view above in an emotive way, it does reflect the thinking of many senior people across the Public Service.
And they aren't totally wrong.
AGIMO's report measures both actual use and intentions. As they say about the road to hell, you can find yourself in very hot water if you plan for intentions while ignoring day-to-day reality.
Certainly online is a growing channel - growing faster than the wheels of Government can turn.
Certainly also people find phone and face-to-face engagement frustrating. Both require them to be in a certain place at a certain time.
And within my own agency - which is also 'phone first', I track more minutes of website use per month than our total inbound customer calls (and more visits than phone calls).
However Government in Australia is not yet ready to change the balance from calls or face-to-face to online transactions.
People say they are willing to transact online and, in many cases, the Australian Government has those services there, online, waiting for people to use.
When they begin using them in great numbers and the phone volumes drop off Agency Heads will revisit their channel strategy.
However until agencies see that occurring their philosophies will remain in place, notwithstanding the efforts on those, such as myself, who see the online channel as being the best way to effectively deliver consistent customer service to citizens in a cost effective manner.
Of course this is based on a few assumptions;
- that the right services are provided online and they are usable and accessible,
- that Agencies will resource and promote their online channels so people realise they have the choice to not call, and
- that senior management in the Public Service - most of whom are baby-boomers, will adapt their reality to match customer behaviour, rather than attempting to follow the approach that has served them so well for thirty years.
I'm certainly interested in seeing what will happen.
Monday, May 12, 2008
What is eGovernment? | Tweet |
I've pondered for a long time over the meaning and common understanding of the term eGovernment.
I've seen many definitions - often hinging on the delivery of services by government to citizens or the facilitation of communications between and within government agencies.
I find these very narrow and 'government-centric' views of eGovernment. They are about the government doing to citizens, rather than enabling citizens to do with government.
In other words, they are focused on a command and control approach rather than collaborative outcomes through participatory engagement.
So I've formed my own definition of the term as below.
eGovernment involves the use of digital channels and tools to:
- facilitate and support citizen participation in the process of governance
- enable and extend meaningful dialogue to improve understanding between citizens and the government bodies that serve them
- streamline and improve governance processes in order to improve citizen engagement
- deliver appropriate cost-effective services and information to citizens
Explanation of terms
I use the term digital channels and tools to refer to any connected digital-based devices - computers, mobile wireless devices (such as mobile phones and PDAs) and so on. All of these devices can be used to enable anytime/anyplace connections between citizens and between citizens and government.
Where I use the term citizen I include all people, organisations and institutions that exist and/or operate within a particular legal jurisdiction.
While I do include the delivery of services to citizens in the definition, I see it as an outcome of the preceding processes of engagement. The engagement is critical for establishing which services are appropriate for citizens and can be cost-effectively provided via digital channels.
All comments and other views of the definition of eGovernment are most welcome.
Reading (online) is for Neanderthals | Tweet |
Words - the stuff with which dreams are written.
One of the core elements of modern society is our ability to say and write down our feelings, opinions and gripes. To create meaning where none exists, or shine a light on that which does.
Those who are good at crafting words even get paid, by the word - although it costs none of us to use the self-same words whenever we wish.
Words are also the bane of modern existence - too many words, thrown at us from all quarters, overwhelming us with details.
Few of us have time to listen and read all the words presented to us each day. Many of us deliberately go out of our way to avoid words, seeking synopses, précis, executive summaries, briefs, briefings and elevator pitches.
Having satisfied my own word bug, let's get to the point.
Government websites are full of unnecessary words, frequently using jargon, bureaucratic terms and marketing speak.
If we want our audiences to absorb what we say, we need to use fewer, shorter and common use words.
This was reinforced by a recent Alertbox (from usability guru Jakob Neilsen).
Here's the summary and link - I'll leave it up to you whether you want to encounter more of Jakob's own words.
Summary:
On the average Web page, users have time to read
at most 28% of the words during an average visit; 20% is more likely.
Full article: How Little Do Users Read?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
