Posts
I've attended DrupalGov today in Canberra. Below is my presentation for people who missed it.
There's also a recording that will become available in due course.
There's also a recording that will become available in due course.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Why should governments continue to control voting systems and processes? | Tweet |
Having centralised systems for voting is the standard approach for countries around the world.
In most places it is simply accepted that the government funds the system for election and referendum voting - funding the polling places, ballot boxes, officials and vote counting systems, whether this be directly or at arms length via a body independent of government, but reliant on government funding.
And let's face it, voting is integral to governance. Voting provides legitimacy to a country's government, providing some form of mandate for a ruling party and ensuring that populations are satisfied with a given set of representatives by giving them a role in choosing them.
Looking at it cynically, having governments control voting could be seen as a conflict of interest - the politicians with an interest in re-election both create the electoral laws and fund the system for casting ballots.
Indeed in some parts of the world systematic electoral fraud is a major concern - the government can influence elections outcomes by changing the legal requirements for voting, adjusting electoral boundaries, place onerous condition on forming or operating new parties or on standing for election, limit electoral donations or advertising by opposition parties, or restricting physical access to ballot boxes.
That's before getting to issues with who votes, how many times and how the votes are counted.
In countries where there's substantial trust in governance and the electoral system these issues are generally small-scale, though ever present as we continue to see with voter identification laws introduced in some US states, major parties voting themselves more electoral funding (as Australia's two major parties tried to do in 2013) and individual examples of bad practice by candidates across all democracies.
In places where democracy is fragile and institutions are weak these issues are magnified, and various systems have been developed to keep elections honest - independent observers are often involved (where allowed) to scrutinise an electoral process; citizens and activist groups have photographed and published issues at ballot boxes online via mobile devices, first in ad hoc ways and then via map-based reporting systems such as Ushahidi; entire websites dedicated to exposing electoral fraud and bad practice have popped up around the world.
These systems have often migrated back to established democracies, for example, the mobile phone tool used to scrutinise the 2007 Kenyan elections was reused in the US Presidential race in 2008, demonstrating that in sustaining freedom to vote, eternal vigilance remains important.
However these are simply systems to scrutinise how governments run elections, rather than independent voting processes. They watch and report what happens in electoral systems, but don't seek to replace these systems directly.
Switzerland is perhaps unique in that it has an entrenched system of direct democracy which allows citizens to overrule parliament through a plebiscite vote - but even then the electoral process is funded and managed by the state.
More recently we've seen pseudo-electoral systems emerge - online petition systems like Change.org, which is having a material impact on government decisions. We've also seen systems that allow citizens to put forward laws to parliaments using banking details to validate individual supports (voters) for a given legislative proposal.
Governments broadly keep these systems at arms length, retaining the discretion to ignore these votes where they choose, for whatever reason they see fit - and fair enough, these systems are often flawed electorally, representing specific groups, can be prone to some level of gaming and don't have the same level of scrutiny as a formal government-run electoral process.
However the technology now exists for this to change - and it already is, beginning in Hong Kong.
In June this year two legislative steps by China were seen in Hong Kong to weaken the 'One country, Two system' approach that the city had been operating under since reunification with China.
As a result academics and citizens of Hong Kong started the ‘Occupy Central with Love and Peace’ campaign, which involved the non-violent occupation of the main business district of the city with the goal of achieving universal suffrage for voting in time for the 2017 election of the next Hong Kong Chief Executive.
Attached to this process was an unofficial city referendum which took place from June 20th – June 29th 2014. The poll asked two simple questions: which proposal for universal suffrage would you like to see implemented in Hong Kong and should the legislative council adopts an universal suffrage system if it does not abide with the international definition?
This was held outside (and without the support) of Hong Kong's government by citizens, involving online, mobile and physical voting at 20 'pop-up' polling booths set up across the city, with all Hong Kong residents aged over 18 eligible to vote.
While there were official efforts to prevent the referendum, including a large scale attack on the referendum website, the confiscation of voting boxes by Chinese officials and censorship of mentions of the referendum online by Chinese authorities, these did not prevent large scale voting by citizens.
At the end of the ten day process, 798,000 residents had voted - over 20 per cent of the eligible population. Most had voted via the mobile apps, with the second most popular way being online.
Despite the turnout, the Hong Kong government took the view that civil referendums had no legal standing under Hong Kong law, and therefore the result could be ignored.
This led to the largest public protest in Hong Kong since 2003, with over 500,000 people taking to the streets on July 1st 2014.
A good article detailing the process in detail is at Free Speech Debate, as Vote for Hong Kong – on the streets and online.
This type of unofficial civil referendum, where citizens get together to develop robust electoral systems and use them to state a view to a government, is possible today in much of the world.
The notion that voting systems are the province of governments, that only a central jurisdiction can manage a fair national electoral approach, simply no longer holds true.
So while citizens may choose to allow governments to manage these systems, it is feasible to outsource them - on a case-by-case or a permanent basis, detaching electoral processes from the individuals and groups seeking power.
In the future we may see more populations hold their own civil referendums on government policy or on who governs them.
While governments might decry these as illegitimate, as they are not covered within the laws that parliaments have created, these civil electoral processes may indeed be more legitimate in the long run - as the voting process and system are not designed or modified at the whim of those who hold power.
Indeed it will be interesting to see how the government of an advanced democracy reacts in the face of a civil referendum. Even if they deny the legitimacy of the process, they may find it hard to ignore the democratic backlash.
In most places it is simply accepted that the government funds the system for election and referendum voting - funding the polling places, ballot boxes, officials and vote counting systems, whether this be directly or at arms length via a body independent of government, but reliant on government funding.
And let's face it, voting is integral to governance. Voting provides legitimacy to a country's government, providing some form of mandate for a ruling party and ensuring that populations are satisfied with a given set of representatives by giving them a role in choosing them.
Looking at it cynically, having governments control voting could be seen as a conflict of interest - the politicians with an interest in re-election both create the electoral laws and fund the system for casting ballots.
Indeed in some parts of the world systematic electoral fraud is a major concern - the government can influence elections outcomes by changing the legal requirements for voting, adjusting electoral boundaries, place onerous condition on forming or operating new parties or on standing for election, limit electoral donations or advertising by opposition parties, or restricting physical access to ballot boxes.
That's before getting to issues with who votes, how many times and how the votes are counted.
In countries where there's substantial trust in governance and the electoral system these issues are generally small-scale, though ever present as we continue to see with voter identification laws introduced in some US states, major parties voting themselves more electoral funding (as Australia's two major parties tried to do in 2013) and individual examples of bad practice by candidates across all democracies.
In places where democracy is fragile and institutions are weak these issues are magnified, and various systems have been developed to keep elections honest - independent observers are often involved (where allowed) to scrutinise an electoral process; citizens and activist groups have photographed and published issues at ballot boxes online via mobile devices, first in ad hoc ways and then via map-based reporting systems such as Ushahidi; entire websites dedicated to exposing electoral fraud and bad practice have popped up around the world.
These systems have often migrated back to established democracies, for example, the mobile phone tool used to scrutinise the 2007 Kenyan elections was reused in the US Presidential race in 2008, demonstrating that in sustaining freedom to vote, eternal vigilance remains important.
However these are simply systems to scrutinise how governments run elections, rather than independent voting processes. They watch and report what happens in electoral systems, but don't seek to replace these systems directly.
Switzerland is perhaps unique in that it has an entrenched system of direct democracy which allows citizens to overrule parliament through a plebiscite vote - but even then the electoral process is funded and managed by the state.
Governments broadly keep these systems at arms length, retaining the discretion to ignore these votes where they choose, for whatever reason they see fit - and fair enough, these systems are often flawed electorally, representing specific groups, can be prone to some level of gaming and don't have the same level of scrutiny as a formal government-run electoral process.
However the technology now exists for this to change - and it already is, beginning in Hong Kong.
In June this year two legislative steps by China were seen in Hong Kong to weaken the 'One country, Two system' approach that the city had been operating under since reunification with China.
As a result academics and citizens of Hong Kong started the ‘Occupy Central with Love and Peace’ campaign, which involved the non-violent occupation of the main business district of the city with the goal of achieving universal suffrage for voting in time for the 2017 election of the next Hong Kong Chief Executive.
Attached to this process was an unofficial city referendum which took place from June 20th – June 29th 2014. The poll asked two simple questions: which proposal for universal suffrage would you like to see implemented in Hong Kong and should the legislative council adopts an universal suffrage system if it does not abide with the international definition?
This was held outside (and without the support) of Hong Kong's government by citizens, involving online, mobile and physical voting at 20 'pop-up' polling booths set up across the city, with all Hong Kong residents aged over 18 eligible to vote.
While there were official efforts to prevent the referendum, including a large scale attack on the referendum website, the confiscation of voting boxes by Chinese officials and censorship of mentions of the referendum online by Chinese authorities, these did not prevent large scale voting by citizens.
Despite the turnout, the Hong Kong government took the view that civil referendums had no legal standing under Hong Kong law, and therefore the result could be ignored.
This led to the largest public protest in Hong Kong since 2003, with over 500,000 people taking to the streets on July 1st 2014.
A good article detailing the process in detail is at Free Speech Debate, as Vote for Hong Kong – on the streets and online.
This type of unofficial civil referendum, where citizens get together to develop robust electoral systems and use them to state a view to a government, is possible today in much of the world.
The notion that voting systems are the province of governments, that only a central jurisdiction can manage a fair national electoral approach, simply no longer holds true.
So while citizens may choose to allow governments to manage these systems, it is feasible to outsource them - on a case-by-case or a permanent basis, detaching electoral processes from the individuals and groups seeking power.
In the future we may see more populations hold their own civil referendums on government policy or on who governs them.
While governments might decry these as illegitimate, as they are not covered within the laws that parliaments have created, these civil electoral processes may indeed be more legitimate in the long run - as the voting process and system are not designed or modified at the whim of those who hold power.
Indeed it will be interesting to see how the government of an advanced democracy reacts in the face of a civil referendum. Even if they deny the legitimacy of the process, they may find it hard to ignore the democratic backlash.
Friday, August 15, 2014
Who won GovHack's National prizes - analysis | Tweet |
I've done some work analysing who actually won the National awards at GovHack based on the official results at govhack.org/2014-winners/, and this is what I've discovered...
There were 87 National GovHack awards given out to Projects and Teams, with one GovHack subcategory (Best Science Reporting) unawarded. Of these, 66 awards were awarded to Teams for their Projects, and 21 to Teams as team achievement awards that were not for a specific project.
Every GovHack location except for Mount Gambier won at least one national award.
Fifty six different teams won awards (across the entire eighty seven awards), with the leading prize winner being Sarbii from Perth with five awards, followed by Jonathan and Wai, Michael de Hoog and R3K1 on four awards and another six teams winning three awards. Eighty per cent of winning teams won either two or one award.
Forty five projects won an award (across the sixty six prizes for projects). Show the Gap was the top awarded project, with four awards, followed by eight projects with three awards: CancerMash, Data-by-region comparator, Energy Calculator and Comparison tool, Sarbii - Search and Rescue, Stat.Map, The Hack Report, What is Gov (Baby don't hurt me) and When the Heck am I?
Again about eighty per cent of winning projects won one or two awards.
Looking at locations, Canberra was the biggest winner by number of prizes (24), followed by Sydney (17), Adelaide (13) and Perth (11).
By the number of prizes relative to the number of entries, noting that some entries won more than one prize so this overstates the actual share of entries that won prizes, the winning location was Tasmania (89%), followed by Canberra (77%), Sydney (68%) and Perth (61%).
The most prizes were awarded in the Team category (22), followed by Best Social Inclusion (Hack (14), Best Business Hack (13) and Best Digital Humanities Hack (12).
You can see all of these statistics and more, as well as links to all the winners, in my Google spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18H4gWSuVLb5Mjt84YdymeXSlSaAxjY78lX5T90i6RmQ/edit?usp=sharing
There were also several prizes given to government agencies which I've not analysed:
There were 87 National GovHack awards given out to Projects and Teams, with one GovHack subcategory (Best Science Reporting) unawarded. Of these, 66 awards were awarded to Teams for their Projects, and 21 to Teams as team achievement awards that were not for a specific project.
Every GovHack location except for Mount Gambier won at least one national award.
Fifty six different teams won awards (across the entire eighty seven awards), with the leading prize winner being Sarbii from Perth with five awards, followed by Jonathan and Wai, Michael de Hoog and R3K1 on four awards and another six teams winning three awards. Eighty per cent of winning teams won either two or one award.
Forty five projects won an award (across the sixty six prizes for projects). Show the Gap was the top awarded project, with four awards, followed by eight projects with three awards: CancerMash, Data-by-region comparator, Energy Calculator and Comparison tool, Sarbii - Search and Rescue, Stat.Map, The Hack Report, What is Gov (Baby don't hurt me) and When the Heck am I?
Again about eighty per cent of winning projects won one or two awards.
Looking at locations, Canberra was the biggest winner by number of prizes (24), followed by Sydney (17), Adelaide (13) and Perth (11).
By the number of prizes relative to the number of entries, noting that some entries won more than one prize so this overstates the actual share of entries that won prizes, the winning location was Tasmania (89%), followed by Canberra (77%), Sydney (68%) and Perth (61%).
The most prizes were awarded in the Team category (22), followed by Best Social Inclusion (Hack (14), Best Business Hack (13) and Best Digital Humanities Hack (12).
You can see all of these statistics and more, as well as links to all the winners, in my Google spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18H4gWSuVLb5Mjt84YdymeXSlSaAxjY78lX5T90i6RmQ/edit?usp=sharing
There were also several prizes given to government agencies which I've not analysed:
- Best Government Participation, won by the South Australian Government, with 2nd place shared by the Federal Department of Communication and The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; and
- Highest Voted Government Data, won by the National Library for Trove and 2nd place going to the Victorian Building Authority.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
NSW highlights open data as one of four focuses in the Premier's Innovation Initiative | Tweet |
The NSW government today launched the NSW Premier's Innovation Initiative, a program seeking expressions of interest in projects that support NSW government innovation in four focal areas - Congestion, Social Housing Assets, Open Ideas and Open Data.
The process will invite organisations and individuals to submit Expressions of Interest setting out proposals the government could consider in one or more focal area.
Following this, selected respondents will be invited to submit full proposals for funding and implementation consideration.
While this process is far more complex and bureaucratic that similar processes I've seen run in the US, UK and other nations , it is great to see a government in Australia taking the step to formally ask the community for ideas and proposals to improve aspects of the state and government.
The inclusion of Open Data is quite notable. This looks like a genuine and sophisticated attempt to accelerate the NSW open data agenda, involving the consumers of the data in the process of defining what data is released and how.
Given the significant economic value attributed to opening up public sector data it is good to see both the attention and the funding placed behind this initiative - in too many cases we see only one, or neither of these, with open data catalogues run on a shoestring and their managers required to cajole and beg government agencies into participating by supplying data.
The process will invite organisations and individuals to submit Expressions of Interest setting out proposals the government could consider in one or more focal area.
Following this, selected respondents will be invited to submit full proposals for funding and implementation consideration.
While this process is far more complex and bureaucratic that similar processes I've seen run in the US, UK and other nations , it is great to see a government in Australia taking the step to formally ask the community for ideas and proposals to improve aspects of the state and government.
The inclusion of Open Data is quite notable. This looks like a genuine and sophisticated attempt to accelerate the NSW open data agenda, involving the consumers of the data in the process of defining what data is released and how.
Given the significant economic value attributed to opening up public sector data it is good to see both the attention and the funding placed behind this initiative - in too many cases we see only one, or neither of these, with open data catalogues run on a shoestring and their managers required to cajole and beg government agencies into participating by supplying data.
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Support the Emergency 2.0 wiki's founder to present and participate in the 5th International Disaster and Risk Conference in Switzerland | Tweet |
Eileen Culleton, the Founder and CEO of the Emergency 2.0 Wiki has been offered a speaking slot at the 5th International Disaster and Risk Conference (#IDRC2014) and is crowdfunding the money she needs to get there.
The International Disaster and Risk Conference from IDRC is one of the world's premier risk management conferences, attracting over 1,000 delegates from more than 100 countries and supported by hundreds of disaster and risk management organisations, associations and not-for-profits around the world. This year it is being held from 24-28 August in Davos, Switzerland.
The Emergency 2.0 Wiki is a free online global resource and knowledge sharing hub for using social media and new technologies in emergencies. The wiki serves a global hub for emergency response agencies, government, NGOs, schools, hospitals, community groups, faith based groups, business, media and citizens to use social media to better prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies.
The wiki includes tips, guides, mobile apps, mapping tools, videos and an international directory of emergency services on social media. It has tips for citizens to help themselves and help others, an accessibility toolkit for people with disabilities and guidelines for emergency services, government, community groups and NGOs, schools, hospitals and business.
Eileen runs the wiki (as its voluntary CEO) with the support of a range of volunteers. It does not currently attract funding from governments or risk management organisations.
Eileen's attendance at the 5th International Disaster and Risk Conference is an opportunity to showcase the expertise of Australia's emergency sector and the great work of Australian volunteers within and outside government in building the Emergency 2.0 wiki.
It is an opportunity to highlight and extend Australia's expertise in emergency management to the world.
However this isn't just a speaking slot, it is also an opportunity to shape world emergency management policy into the future.
As a speaker Eileen will be making recommendations for the Post 2015 Disaster Risk Framework that will be ratified at the UN World Conference in Sendai, Japan in 2015.
Eileen ran a previous successful crowdsourcing campaign to raise the funds for the conference fee. She's now crowdfunding her travel.
As a volunteer, Eileen would otherwise have to pay out of her own pocket - which isn't a great way to promote Australia's expertise to the world.
You can support Eileen via her Pozible crowdfounding campaign at www.pozible.com/project/184557
Also please share Eileen's campaign via your social networks, and with your peers across government and the emergency management space.
Every dollar counts!
The International Disaster and Risk Conference from IDRC is one of the world's premier risk management conferences, attracting over 1,000 delegates from more than 100 countries and supported by hundreds of disaster and risk management organisations, associations and not-for-profits around the world. This year it is being held from 24-28 August in Davos, Switzerland.
The Emergency 2.0 Wiki is a free online global resource and knowledge sharing hub for using social media and new technologies in emergencies. The wiki serves a global hub for emergency response agencies, government, NGOs, schools, hospitals, community groups, faith based groups, business, media and citizens to use social media to better prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies.
The wiki includes tips, guides, mobile apps, mapping tools, videos and an international directory of emergency services on social media. It has tips for citizens to help themselves and help others, an accessibility toolkit for people with disabilities and guidelines for emergency services, government, community groups and NGOs, schools, hospitals and business.
Eileen runs the wiki (as its voluntary CEO) with the support of a range of volunteers. It does not currently attract funding from governments or risk management organisations.
Eileen's attendance at the 5th International Disaster and Risk Conference is an opportunity to showcase the expertise of Australia's emergency sector and the great work of Australian volunteers within and outside government in building the Emergency 2.0 wiki.
It is an opportunity to highlight and extend Australia's expertise in emergency management to the world.
However this isn't just a speaking slot, it is also an opportunity to shape world emergency management policy into the future.
As a speaker Eileen will be making recommendations for the Post 2015 Disaster Risk Framework that will be ratified at the UN World Conference in Sendai, Japan in 2015.
Eileen ran a previous successful crowdsourcing campaign to raise the funds for the conference fee. She's now crowdfunding her travel.
As a volunteer, Eileen would otherwise have to pay out of her own pocket - which isn't a great way to promote Australia's expertise to the world.
You can support Eileen via her Pozible crowdfounding campaign at www.pozible.com/project/184557
Also please share Eileen's campaign via your social networks, and with your peers across government and the emergency management space.
Every dollar counts!
ACT Crime Stats data - ready for people to analyse and mashup | Tweet |
At GovHack a few weeks ago my team, The Hack Warriors, wanted to integrate ACT crime data into our project 'Where Should I?'
While the ACT makes the data available visually in the awesome Crime Statistics site, it wasn't available as open data from data.act.gov.au.
So during the weekend I went through the code for the Crime Statistics site and (with a little help) identified where the data was coming from. I was able to download the actual Crime Stats data and process it into a spreadsheet with all the figures by suburb.
For reuse purposes I put the data up as a public Google Fusion table, which anyone can now access via a search of Fusion tables, or via the direct web address: https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1Cztgi-LF4CtXtS-EbU1M6JXnZAzPt1wLAH5YdXnN#rows:id=1
What this means is that now anyone who wants to mine the crime statistics for the ACT can do so easily using this table - performing statistical analysis or mashing it up with other data and mapping it easily.
Even better I found that while the ACT Crime Statistics site allowed people to see data back to 2010, the actual data went all the way back to 2007 - providing more historical data than is visually available from the site.
So if you want to play with the actual numbers behind the ACT's Crime Statistics site - you could start with the table below.
While the ACT makes the data available visually in the awesome Crime Statistics site, it wasn't available as open data from data.act.gov.au.
So during the weekend I went through the code for the Crime Statistics site and (with a little help) identified where the data was coming from. I was able to download the actual Crime Stats data and process it into a spreadsheet with all the figures by suburb.
For reuse purposes I put the data up as a public Google Fusion table, which anyone can now access via a search of Fusion tables, or via the direct web address: https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1Cztgi-LF4CtXtS-EbU1M6JXnZAzPt1wLAH5YdXnN#rows:id=1
What this means is that now anyone who wants to mine the crime statistics for the ACT can do so easily using this table - performing statistical analysis or mashing it up with other data and mapping it easily.
Even better I found that while the ACT Crime Statistics site allowed people to see data back to 2010, the actual data went all the way back to 2007 - providing more historical data than is visually available from the site.
So if you want to play with the actual numbers behind the ACT's Crime Statistics site - you could start with the table below.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Don't help your official agency and Ministerial photos become parody memes through poor selection and timing | Tweet |
A challenge today for politicians and public servants is how easy it is for a photo or frame from a video to be reused out-of-context to parody, well, literally anything.
The second example of a government photo-turned-meme was the phone call from David Cameron to President Obama in March this year, where the UK Prime Minister tweeted a serious photo of him listening to a landline phone, claiming he was on the phone to President Obama of the USA to discuss the Ukrainian situation (below).
This was parodied by a range of people, who started by posting tweets of them speaking on the phone, and then on a variety of other items. It even attracted celebrity attention from people like Sir Patrick Stewart (as below), and in the end David Cameron played along and tweeted a photo of him meeting an ex-US President in person.
This second 'on the phone' meme was replicated a month after the Cameron call in Australia when the Prime Minister tweeted a serious photo of himself on the phone addressing the MH17 crisis. This was predictably mocked by many people online in the same vein.
Now while it isn't possible to prevent the 'photoshopping' of images and their reuse in parody form, it is possible for agencies and politicians to consider what images they wish to 'put out there' to reduce the prospect of having their message overshadowed by a clever, funny or touching parody.
This means avoiding deliberately publishing images which are obvious fodder for parody - anything related to being 'on the phone', 'inspecting developments' or easily misinterpreted facial expressions.
It is also important to avoid 'follow the leader' shots - where an Australian official is photographed in a similar pose, or doing a similar thing, to an overseas official who was recently parodied for the same pose (such as the Cameron - Abbott situation).
I saw one of these images yesterday from an Australian politician and decided to see how easy it would be to modify it for use in parody.
Using my trusty copy of Seashore - a free graphics editing tool with many of the same features of Photoshop, I was able to cut out the relevant parts of the original image within about 15 minutes.
It then took a simple Google image search to locate some freely available images and a matter of second to import and place the politicians within the scenes.
Below I've included a copy of the original image (in its original tweet), as well as several of the 'photoshopped' parody images.
Consider this what is possible by a relatively inexperienced user of a free graphic design program in under an hour - then consider what someone with more experience and more intent could do with images that make parody easy.
The original Tweet (with a 'watching infrastructure' image - a type very likely to be parodied):
My (very quickly) 'photoshopped' images - starting with my favourite:
Now think about how you want your Minister and staff portrayed, and how you can minimise the likelihood of your official images being reused for parody purposes.
While you can't prevent this from happening, prudent image selection and advice can, at least, minimise the potential and help you retain control of your message.
We've seen the increasing use of 'photoshopped' images on social media to support all kinds of political and social positions, ranging from the clever and amusing to the downright disturbing.
Two of the most notable examples - which have become memes in their own right - include the 'floating Chinese officials' from 2011, the result of the accidental upload of a poorly photoshopped image of three council officials (below).
The image appeared to show the officials (including the County mayor and vice-mayor) floating above the road and was immediately parodied by internet users, who placed the officials in a range of amusing and inappropriate locations, such as below.
The second example of a government photo-turned-meme was the phone call from David Cameron to President Obama in March this year, where the UK Prime Minister tweeted a serious photo of him listening to a landline phone, claiming he was on the phone to President Obama of the USA to discuss the Ukrainian situation (below).
I've been speaking to @BarackObama about the situation in Ukraine. We are united in condemnation of Russia's actions. pic.twitter.com/7Rk2k8iOIK
— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) March 5, 2014
This was parodied by a range of people, who started by posting tweets of them speaking on the phone, and then on a variety of other items. It even attracted celebrity attention from people like Sir Patrick Stewart (as below), and in the end David Cameron played along and tweeted a photo of him meeting an ex-US President in person.
.@robdelaney @David_Cameron @BarackObama I'm now patched in as well. Sorry for the delay. pic.twitter.com/elLQcKcV3w
— Patrick Stewart (@SirPatStew) March 5, 2014
This second 'on the phone' meme was replicated a month after the Cameron call in Australia when the Prime Minister tweeted a serious photo of himself on the phone addressing the MH17 crisis. This was predictably mocked by many people online in the same vein.
Now while it isn't possible to prevent the 'photoshopping' of images and their reuse in parody form, it is possible for agencies and politicians to consider what images they wish to 'put out there' to reduce the prospect of having their message overshadowed by a clever, funny or touching parody.
This means avoiding deliberately publishing images which are obvious fodder for parody - anything related to being 'on the phone', 'inspecting developments' or easily misinterpreted facial expressions.
It is also important to avoid 'follow the leader' shots - where an Australian official is photographed in a similar pose, or doing a similar thing, to an overseas official who was recently parodied for the same pose (such as the Cameron - Abbott situation).
I saw one of these images yesterday from an Australian politician and decided to see how easy it would be to modify it for use in parody.
Using my trusty copy of Seashore - a free graphics editing tool with many of the same features of Photoshop, I was able to cut out the relevant parts of the original image within about 15 minutes.
It then took a simple Google image search to locate some freely available images and a matter of second to import and place the politicians within the scenes.
Below I've included a copy of the original image (in its original tweet), as well as several of the 'photoshopped' parody images.
Consider this what is possible by a relatively inexperienced user of a free graphic design program in under an hour - then consider what someone with more experience and more intent could do with images that make parody easy.
The original Tweet (with a 'watching infrastructure' image - a type very likely to be parodied):
Watching the NBN rollout with @peterdutton_mp at Murrumba Downs in Peter's electorate of Dickson. pic.twitter.com/IEbDp1TcZ1
— Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) August 11, 2014
My (very quickly) 'photoshopped' images - starting with my favourite:
While you can't prevent this from happening, prudent image selection and advice can, at least, minimise the potential and help you retain control of your message.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Watch the video of the GovHack 2014 Red Carpet Awards | Tweet |
The GovHack Red Carpet Awards was awesome (as you can see from the liveblog from Sunday).
If you weren't able to attend or watch the event's livestream, the video of the awards is now live at the GovHack site, and I've embedded it below for your convenience.
If you weren't able to attend or watch the event's livestream, the video of the awards is now live at the GovHack site, and I've embedded it below for your convenience.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
GovHack 2014 Red Carpet Awards liveblog | Tweet |
Tonight I am attending the GovHack 2014 Red Carpet Awards night in Brisbane, and will be liveblogging the proceedings.
Keep an eye on my live blog (below) and the Twitter hashtag #GovHack for all the winners and happenings.
Keep an eye on my live blog (below) and the Twitter hashtag #GovHack for all the winners and happenings.
Friday, August 08, 2014
GovHack 2014 winners to be announced on 10 August | Tweet |
GovHack 2014 was the largest open data in Australian history.
With over 1,300 participants across 10 locations, it set a new benchmark for engagement with, and reuse of, government data.
On Sunday evening the winners will be announced at a Red Carpet Awards Night in Brisbane. I'll be attending and liveblogging & tweeting the event, so keep an eye on eGovAU and on the hashtags #govhack, #govhackau and #govhack14.
If you want to check out the entries before the event, visit the complete list of GovHack projects at http://hackerspace.govhack.org/
Don't have time to look through 200-odd projects?
Here's some that the GovHack team has particularly noted (note this doesn't mean they will necessarily be finalists, there's a lot of good projects):
With over 1,300 participants across 10 locations, it set a new benchmark for engagement with, and reuse of, government data.
On Sunday evening the winners will be announced at a Red Carpet Awards Night in Brisbane. I'll be attending and liveblogging & tweeting the event, so keep an eye on eGovAU and on the hashtags #govhack, #govhackau and #govhack14.
If you want to check out the entries before the event, visit the complete list of GovHack projects at http://hackerspace.govhack.org/
Don't have time to look through 200-odd projects?
Here's some that the GovHack team has particularly noted (note this doesn't mean they will necessarily be finalists, there's a lot of good projects):
- Energy Calculator and Comparison Tool - http://hackerspace.govhack.org/content/energy-calculator-and-comparison-tool
- Live Labor Force - http://hackerspace.govhack.org/content/live-labour-force
- Data-by-region Comparator - http://hackerspace.govhack.org/content/data-region-comparator
- Hot News Time Machine - http://hackerspace.govhack.org/content/hot-news-time-machine
- Project Doom - http://hackerspace.govhack.org/content/project-doom
- Unlock Australia - http://hackerspace.govhack.org/content/unlockaustralia
Tuesday, August 05, 2014
Accessibility is for everyone - an awesome accessibility alphabet | Tweet |
Gian Wild of AccessibilityOz made me aware of this awesome accessibility alphabet of mini-personas, reflecting a large group of people for whom accessibility in websites and documents is critical.
This is the sort of material I think agencies should make available to all their staff to help them be more mindful of the range of people who may be affected by accessibility issues.
An Alphabet of Accessibility Issues - the-pastry-box-project.net/anne-gibson/2014-July-31
This is the sort of material I think agencies should make available to all their staff to help them be more mindful of the range of people who may be affected by accessibility issues.
An Alphabet of Accessibility Issues - the-pastry-box-project.net/anne-gibson/2014-July-31
Monday, August 04, 2014
Get ready for the GovHack Red Carpet Awards night | Tweet |
This Sunday GovHack returns with the 2014 GovHack awards night.
With an exclusive Red Carpet Award event in Brisbane, and local events across Australia, it should be a great night to see which teams win the top GovHack awards for the year.
The invitation only red carpet event will be streamed nationally from the Brisbane City Town Hall from 7pm on August 10 (see video feed below).
The event will feature Adam Spencer as Master of Ceremonies, senior representatives from participating Federal, State, and Local government jurisdictions as well as many of the finalists - over 200 people in all.
I will be covering the event in Brisbane, and with over 200 entries into GovHack, there should be plenty of excitement as the National and Local winners are announced.
A complete list of GovHack entries is available online, and you can still vote for the People's Choice winner at http://hackerspace.govhack.org
With an exclusive Red Carpet Award event in Brisbane, and local events across Australia, it should be a great night to see which teams win the top GovHack awards for the year.
The invitation only red carpet event will be streamed nationally from the Brisbane City Town Hall from 7pm on August 10 (see video feed below).
The event will feature Adam Spencer as Master of Ceremonies, senior representatives from participating Federal, State, and Local government jurisdictions as well as many of the finalists - over 200 people in all.
I will be covering the event in Brisbane, and with over 200 entries into GovHack, there should be plenty of excitement as the National and Local winners are announced.
A complete list of GovHack entries is available online, and you can still vote for the People's Choice winner at http://hackerspace.govhack.org
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Indonesia's 'People's Cabinet' is one of the most innovative uses of Gov 2.0 in the Asia-Pacific region | Tweet |
In Australia roughly 90% of us use the internet, whereas in Indonesia only around 42% of the population do - which still means that roughly 75 million Indonesians are online, or roughly four times the number of Australians that use the internet.
In fact Indonesia was ranked in 2013 as the fourth largest nation of Facebook users in the world, with 63 million users. This is behind the US with 147 million users, India with 115 million and Brazil with 69 million.
Where does Australia rank for Facebook use? We don't make the top twelve.
Even back in 2012 Indonesia was the fifth largest nation on Twitter by number of accounts and Jakarta was known as the Twitter capital of the world, sending more tweets per day than Tokyo, London, Manchester or New York.
With that level of social media usage, and as 44% of Indonesian voters were aged under 25, meaning that social media was the natural way for them to politically engage, it's no surprise that the recent election campaign in Indonesia saw some highly innovative use of social media.
After the election the Indonesian President-elect had to decide on his cabinet.
Historically this is a behind-the-doors process, where the President and his advisors consider different candidates, sound them out and then announce the cabinet to the public as a 'done deal'.
Australia follows a similar model when the Prime Minister decides on his Cabinet Ministers (with the difference that they must be elected members of parliament). The decision is made behind closed doors, with some media and community speculation but no public engagement.
President-elect Jokoni, however, decided to follow a different model. He crowdsourced his cabinet.
Rather than making the selection a closed process, his team created and promoted a Google Survey where they identified three candidates for each of the 34 Cabinet positions and asked the Indonesian public to vote for which candidate they thought was most appropriate for the role.
If citizens didn't like any of the candidates, they even had the option to suggest their own.
The form specified that the President would ultimately decide which candidate was right for which role (fair enough), but the public did get the right to have a say.
You can see the original Google Form here (and at left translated), although the process has now closed.
It has now been moved and is live instead at eSurv: http://esurv.org/online-survey.php?surveyID=LKKJLO_6dcc89ce (translated image at left).
As of last week, over 18,000 people had given their views on which candidates they preferred for each role.
What influence did the public have over these choices? It's too early to say. However the approach adds a new level of engagement and transparency to the Cabinet selection process.
Could Australia do this type of thing? Well actually I've created a tool to do this, though it hasn't been used in an actual election as yet (keep your eyes open).
More importantly - would Australian governments do this type of thing? Have a Premier or Prime Minister give up some level of decision control in return for improved engagement and insights into public views?
Whether or not the current crop of politicians see the benefits, the next group probably will.
Hopefully they'll also be more willing to look beyond the anglosphere at some of the most innovative use of Gov 2.0 going on in elsewhere in the world, particulary in our neighbours.
As Professor David Hill of Murdoch University told The Citizen about Indonesia's attempt to crowdsource a cabinet, “This is a highly technologically-engaged electorate and there’s a lot that Australian political parties could learn from their Indonesian counterparts.”
In fact Indonesia was ranked in 2013 as the fourth largest nation of Facebook users in the world, with 63 million users. This is behind the US with 147 million users, India with 115 million and Brazil with 69 million.
Where does Australia rank for Facebook use? We don't make the top twelve.
Even back in 2012 Indonesia was the fifth largest nation on Twitter by number of accounts and Jakarta was known as the Twitter capital of the world, sending more tweets per day than Tokyo, London, Manchester or New York.
With that level of social media usage, and as 44% of Indonesian voters were aged under 25, meaning that social media was the natural way for them to politically engage, it's no surprise that the recent election campaign in Indonesia saw some highly innovative use of social media.
After the election the Indonesian President-elect had to decide on his cabinet.
Historically this is a behind-the-doors process, where the President and his advisors consider different candidates, sound them out and then announce the cabinet to the public as a 'done deal'.
Australia follows a similar model when the Prime Minister decides on his Cabinet Ministers (with the difference that they must be elected members of parliament). The decision is made behind closed doors, with some media and community speculation but no public engagement.
President-elect Jokoni, however, decided to follow a different model. He crowdsourced his cabinet.Rather than making the selection a closed process, his team created and promoted a Google Survey where they identified three candidates for each of the 34 Cabinet positions and asked the Indonesian public to vote for which candidate they thought was most appropriate for the role.
If citizens didn't like any of the candidates, they even had the option to suggest their own.
The form specified that the President would ultimately decide which candidate was right for which role (fair enough), but the public did get the right to have a say.
You can see the original Google Form here (and at left translated), although the process has now closed.
It has now been moved and is live instead at eSurv: http://esurv.org/online-survey.php?surveyID=LKKJLO_6dcc89ce (translated image at left).
As of last week, over 18,000 people had given their views on which candidates they preferred for each role.
What influence did the public have over these choices? It's too early to say. However the approach adds a new level of engagement and transparency to the Cabinet selection process.
Could Australia do this type of thing? Well actually I've created a tool to do this, though it hasn't been used in an actual election as yet (keep your eyes open).
More importantly - would Australian governments do this type of thing? Have a Premier or Prime Minister give up some level of decision control in return for improved engagement and insights into public views?
Whether or not the current crop of politicians see the benefits, the next group probably will.
Hopefully they'll also be more willing to look beyond the anglosphere at some of the most innovative use of Gov 2.0 going on in elsewhere in the world, particulary in our neighbours.
As Professor David Hill of Murdoch University told The Citizen about Indonesia's attempt to crowdsource a cabinet, “This is a highly technologically-engaged electorate and there’s a lot that Australian political parties could learn from their Indonesian counterparts.”
Monday, July 28, 2014
Communications professionals have only five years to understand digital, or become unemployable, and other professions are close behind | Tweet |
Back in 2009 I started telling communications professionals that they had ten years to understand digital channels and integrate them into their thinking, or there would no longer be jobs for them in the industry.
I also blogged about this in February 2010.
At the time this was highly confronting to a number of experienced comms people, and I got quite a bit of push-back, particularly from more senior and experienced professionals about how their skills would always be necessary and valued.
I've stuck to this prediction and still refer to it regularly when presenting on the topic, adjusted for the number of years remaining. We're now at five years and counting.
Today I came across a post by Anika Johnson in her LinkedIn blog 'Why digital is no longer optional (or why digital shouldn’t exist at all)' which points out that communications professionals with strong digital skills are now earning more than traditional communications people - and their jobs didn't even exist a few years ago.
She also has a prediction on timelines:
However the digital transformation society is undergoing isn't restricted to communications, so it isn't only people working in media, PR, strategic, internal and corporate communications, marketing and market research who are affected.
For everyone else out there, the digital steamroller is encroaching on your turf too.
Police and emergency services increasingly use social media to gather intelligence, coordinate and communicate during emergencies.
Human resources (or 'People' as they now like to be known as) personnel conduct the majority of their recruitment and employee checks online and increasingly employee issues involve the use of digital channels.
Teachers source materials and learn via online mechanisms, communicating with busy parents via emails and running portals for gathering assignments.
Policy officers conduct their research and source views online, tracking influencers and activists on social channels.
Service delivery officers increasingly respond to requests and complaints via digital and social channels, and the services they deliver are increasingly digital-first.
Engineers and IT professionals manage and host their projects in the cloud, as do accountants and bankers their books.
Lawyers keep up with common law rulings and law changes via digital repositories and carry tablets instead of trolleys of files, and senior executives increasingly access their board papers and organisational dashboards via handheld digital devices.
Landscapers and builders plan their work via online tools and taxi drivers live on their GPS systems in most large cities - even when they know every street, their internet connected device gives them the fastest route for the day's conditions.
Soldiers are increasingly using digital tools to assist in everything from surveillance (like drones) to logistics support, with the first autonomous robotic sentry devices currently in active testing
There's few professions unaffected by digital and, in most cases, the better the understanding of the digital tools at their disposal the better an individual can perform.
Of course many of these professions has more than five years before someone with no interest or aptitude for digital becomes unemployable, however in most cases it won't be longer than twenty years.
Indeed some of these professions may even disappear or be replaced - who needs taxi drivers when we have autonomous cars?
So if you're in any profession and still resist learning and applying digital approaches and tools to your job requirements, you're probably in the twilight years of your career.
Enjoy these years while they last. There will be plenty of digitally savvy youngsters (and oldsters too) ready to take on your role when you are no longer suitable.
I also blogged about this in February 2010.
At the time this was highly confronting to a number of experienced comms people, and I got quite a bit of push-back, particularly from more senior and experienced professionals about how their skills would always be necessary and valued.
I've stuck to this prediction and still refer to it regularly when presenting on the topic, adjusted for the number of years remaining. We're now at five years and counting.
Today I came across a post by Anika Johnson in her LinkedIn blog 'Why digital is no longer optional (or why digital shouldn’t exist at all)' which points out that communications professionals with strong digital skills are now earning more than traditional communications people - and their jobs didn't even exist a few years ago.
She also has a prediction on timelines:
My prediction is that if you work as a communications, media relations or marketing professional and you continue to avoid digital you will probably have trouble finding a job within five years. It’s harsh I know but the horse has already bolted. My world is already digital – yours, whether you like it or not, is too.Five years left if you're a traditional communications professional, unwilling to build your digital skills.
However the digital transformation society is undergoing isn't restricted to communications, so it isn't only people working in media, PR, strategic, internal and corporate communications, marketing and market research who are affected.
For everyone else out there, the digital steamroller is encroaching on your turf too.
Police and emergency services increasingly use social media to gather intelligence, coordinate and communicate during emergencies.
Human resources (or 'People' as they now like to be known as) personnel conduct the majority of their recruitment and employee checks online and increasingly employee issues involve the use of digital channels.
Teachers source materials and learn via online mechanisms, communicating with busy parents via emails and running portals for gathering assignments.
Policy officers conduct their research and source views online, tracking influencers and activists on social channels.
Service delivery officers increasingly respond to requests and complaints via digital and social channels, and the services they deliver are increasingly digital-first.
Engineers and IT professionals manage and host their projects in the cloud, as do accountants and bankers their books.
Lawyers keep up with common law rulings and law changes via digital repositories and carry tablets instead of trolleys of files, and senior executives increasingly access their board papers and organisational dashboards via handheld digital devices.
Landscapers and builders plan their work via online tools and taxi drivers live on their GPS systems in most large cities - even when they know every street, their internet connected device gives them the fastest route for the day's conditions.
Soldiers are increasingly using digital tools to assist in everything from surveillance (like drones) to logistics support, with the first autonomous robotic sentry devices currently in active testing
There's few professions unaffected by digital and, in most cases, the better the understanding of the digital tools at their disposal the better an individual can perform.
Of course many of these professions has more than five years before someone with no interest or aptitude for digital becomes unemployable, however in most cases it won't be longer than twenty years.
Indeed some of these professions may even disappear or be replaced - who needs taxi drivers when we have autonomous cars?
So if you're in any profession and still resist learning and applying digital approaches and tools to your job requirements, you're probably in the twilight years of your career.
Enjoy these years while they last. There will be plenty of digitally savvy youngsters (and oldsters too) ready to take on your role when you are no longer suitable.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Innovation in Ageing Challenge launched by SA Office for the Ageing and TACSI | Tweet |
Coming hot on the heels of the VicHealth Physical Activity Innovation Challenge, the South Australian Office for the Ageing in the South Australian Department of Health has partnered with TACSI (The Australian Centre for Social Innovation) to launch an Innovation in Ageing Challenge.
The Challenge invites teams to review two briefs and come up with an idea for a great social business.
Up to ten shortlisted entries will have their teams invited to a two-day pitch training workshop, and the top pitches will be awarded a share of the $100,000 in funding available.
The winning teams will then have six months of rigorous support and mentoring to develop their business model.
Anyone in the world can enter the challenge, although entries have to demonstrate how they will materially benefit older people within South Australia (which is reasonable enough).
The Challenge invites teams to review two briefs and come up with an idea for a great social business.
Up to ten shortlisted entries will have their teams invited to a two-day pitch training workshop, and the top pitches will be awarded a share of the $100,000 in funding available.
The winning teams will then have six months of rigorous support and mentoring to develop their business model.
Anyone in the world can enter the challenge, although entries have to demonstrate how they will materially benefit older people within South Australia (which is reasonable enough).
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
VicHealth launches Physical Activity Innovation Challenge | Tweet |
VicHealth appears to be one of only a few agencies across Australian state and federal governments that has made a solid attempt at introducing public challenges as an adjunct to traditional policy approaches.
While most governments in Australia still use the same techniques for policy creation that they've used for 80 or more years, after the success of last year's Seed Challenge, VicHealth recently launched a new challenge around physical activity innovation.
With $400,000 in start-up funds available to be awarded to the best ideas, the new challenge invites sports bodies, entrepreneurs and changemakers to develop innovative approaches to get more Victorians physically active.
With information available at VicHealth's website, the Physical Activity Innovation Challenge both brings the public and various sporting and innovation bodies into the policy development process, and helps expose the department to the latest thinking and ideas around prompting people to take up physical activity.
This is the type of thinking that more Australian policy makers need to adopt in recognition that expertise is no longer concentrated within government agencies, and that they need to look further than the 'usual suspects' of lobbyists, activists and pressure groups, for great ideas to feed into policy development processes.
While most governments in Australia still use the same techniques for policy creation that they've used for 80 or more years, after the success of last year's Seed Challenge, VicHealth recently launched a new challenge around physical activity innovation.
With $400,000 in start-up funds available to be awarded to the best ideas, the new challenge invites sports bodies, entrepreneurs and changemakers to develop innovative approaches to get more Victorians physically active.
With information available at VicHealth's website, the Physical Activity Innovation Challenge both brings the public and various sporting and innovation bodies into the policy development process, and helps expose the department to the latest thinking and ideas around prompting people to take up physical activity.
This is the type of thinking that more Australian policy makers need to adopt in recognition that expertise is no longer concentrated within government agencies, and that they need to look further than the 'usual suspects' of lobbyists, activists and pressure groups, for great ideas to feed into policy development processes.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
What happened at Innovation GovCamp 2014 (Canberra) | Tweet |
Last Saturday Australia's first national GovCamp was held as part of the Innovation Month program.
Innovation GovCamp 2014 involved events in six locations across Australia. Over 500 people registered to attend.
I attended (and helped organise) the event in Canberra, at the Inspire Centre at the University of Canberra.
It was a good day - with planned and impromptu discussions across five topic streams. There were a few technical issues with live broadcasting national sessions to all six locations, however we were able to adapt around this.
A report is being compiled by the national organisers, John Wells and Allison Hornery, however I've also put together a video slideshow that tells the story of the day, from my perspective.
The slideshow (embedded below) was compiled from the photos the camera I wore took. Called a Narrative Clip, and used for 'lifestreaming' the camera was mounted (visibly) on my lapel, and automatically took a photo every 30 seconds.
The Narrative Clip was lent to me by Alexander Hayes, an international expert on emerging technologies and Professional Associate with the College of Adjuncts at the University of Canberra, INSPIRE Centre.
The video slideshow was cut-down from the 800+ photos the Narrative Clip took throughout the day.
It was my first experience using a wearable electronic device for that length of time. I found that while it did capture some interesting moments, a large number of the automatic photographs were of not-so interesting moments or simply too blurred for use.
I did reduce the size of the photos (and therefore their resolution if viewed full screen) to accelerate the process of producing the video slideshow.
Innovation GovCamp 2014 involved events in six locations across Australia. Over 500 people registered to attend.
I attended (and helped organise) the event in Canberra, at the Inspire Centre at the University of Canberra.
It was a good day - with planned and impromptu discussions across five topic streams. There were a few technical issues with live broadcasting national sessions to all six locations, however we were able to adapt around this.
A report is being compiled by the national organisers, John Wells and Allison Hornery, however I've also put together a video slideshow that tells the story of the day, from my perspective.
The slideshow (embedded below) was compiled from the photos the camera I wore took. Called a Narrative Clip, and used for 'lifestreaming' the camera was mounted (visibly) on my lapel, and automatically took a photo every 30 seconds.
The Narrative Clip was lent to me by Alexander Hayes, an international expert on emerging technologies and Professional Associate with the College of Adjuncts at the University of Canberra, INSPIRE Centre.
The video slideshow was cut-down from the 800+ photos the Narrative Clip took throughout the day.
It was my first experience using a wearable electronic device for that length of time. I found that while it did capture some interesting moments, a large number of the automatic photographs were of not-so interesting moments or simply too blurred for use.
I did reduce the size of the photos (and therefore their resolution if viewed full screen) to accelerate the process of producing the video slideshow.
Monday, July 21, 2014
Presentation from the AEMI Connections! Social Media in Emergency Management Conference | Tweet |
Last week I spent two days in the Australian Emergency Management Institute's Mt Macedon training centre facilitating and presenting at the Connections! Social Media in Emergency Management Master Class and conference.
It was an excellent event, with some outstanding presentations representing both government and public use of social media in emergencies.
Below is my presentation setting the scene for the use of social media in emergency management.
It was an excellent event, with some outstanding presentations representing both government and public use of social media in emergencies.
Below is my presentation setting the scene for the use of social media in emergency management.
You're probably not the audience | Tweet |
I've been reflecting on the number of comments and decisions I've witnessed lately where people have decided that a particular online approach, website design, engagement channel, interface design, fact sheet or other design or content is no good as it didn't appeal personally to them.
There's definitely a tendency in our society for individuals to think they are the central audience for everything they are exposed to - advertisements, entertainment, news and online content.
This individual viewpoint has been fostered over decades for both commercial and political ends.
The advertising industry has applied psychological triggers to make individuals feel that they are unique and worthy of consideration, while selling them mass produced goods on an epic scale. Hundreds of ads are targeted at each of us every day, attempting to influence our buying decisions by making us feel special or by convincing us that by buying their products we will become special.
Political leaders adjust their messages for their audiences, to help create an emotional bond. In effect they tell everyone separately that the view of the specific audience/industry/organisation/club they are talking to are special and therefore deserve to be heard and respected.
Schools do it when they refuse to give failing grades, simply 'needs improvement' and parents do it when they don't hold children accountable for their actions.
Even employers do it - using the notion of 'special' as a key tool for recruiting and retaining key worlers. Of course your staff are special - intelligent, hard-working, committed - otherwise you'd have hired someone else.
All of this helps build a belief in the infallibility and centrality of the individual. This isn't by itself negative, having strong self-belief is a key attribute for success in almost every field.
However it can also lead to ego pitfalls, the belief that an individual's opinion must be worth more than that of another person, or a view that the world needs to organise itself neatly around what we want or believe.
One of the areas I see this coming out frequently is in how governments design services, policies, content and engagements. All of these have traditionally been organised around what public servants or politicians believe are the right way to do them.
And by the 'right way' I mean the way that the politician or public servant would personally prefer to use or engage with government.
Again this isn't a universally bad thing - a particular politician or public servant may accurately represent the audience of the service, policy or content, or engage via the same channels and approaches as the citizens they seek to involve.
However, more often than not, they aren't the audience.
The late-40s male white public servant really doesn't comprehend the life experience of an early 20s female African migrant.
The career politician who has unfailingly worked for their party for forty years to achieve a seat as a older lady, doesn't have the life experience of spending 20 years running start-up businesses in the technology sector.
This isn't to say they aren't good people, committed to good outcomes, or unable to represent communities or administer programs on the public's behalf.
However it does beg the question of why we hold up senior bureaucrats and politicians as the final decision makers on programs, policies, content and engagement processes which are aimed at supporting more diverse communities.
What if the next time a website needed to be approved for launch, instead of a Secretary or Minister, the agency went to the community and asked, 'does this meet your needs' as the final approval step?
What if a policy team had to report to a citizen starring committee to approve a particular policy direction, or an agency delivering public services had to approve every process change with citizen stakeholders?
And I don't simply mean engaging with stakeholder groups - bodies purporting to represent different groups of citizens - I mean going directly to citizens and bypassing bodies with their own agendas.
The ABC does this in quite a sound way, inviting citizens to nominate for its board and having live audiences for a number of shows (there's no better way to ensure performance and detect bad concepts fast).
Our justice system does it too - we empanel juries of people, pay them a small sum for giving up their time, and have them involved as the decision-makers in trials, under the impartial eyes of a court-appointed judge.
Many councils around the world - and even some provincial/state and national governments appoint citizen oversight panels for various decisions.
This approach could be extended into the Australian Government as well. Rather than simply having members of parliament elected based on who decides to stand - a self-selecting bunch who often see politics as their career - we could seek to appoint panels of citizens to oversee a range of decisions and processes.
True it could cost a bit to set up and operate such a scheme, however the savings from adjusting decisions formerly approved by individuals who weren't the audience, to be approved by those who are, could lead to massive savings over time.
Fewer policies would have to be discarded, fewer services reconfigured and fewer actions apologised for and compensated in court.
So when you are next faced with deciding on a direction or approving the final version of a policy, service, program, website, mobile app, or other government decision - take a moment to reflect on whether you're the audience and whether you're the right person to be making that final decision.
There's definitely a tendency in our society for individuals to think they are the central audience for everything they are exposed to - advertisements, entertainment, news and online content.
This individual viewpoint has been fostered over decades for both commercial and political ends.
The advertising industry has applied psychological triggers to make individuals feel that they are unique and worthy of consideration, while selling them mass produced goods on an epic scale. Hundreds of ads are targeted at each of us every day, attempting to influence our buying decisions by making us feel special or by convincing us that by buying their products we will become special.
Political leaders adjust their messages for their audiences, to help create an emotional bond. In effect they tell everyone separately that the view of the specific audience/industry/organisation/club they are talking to are special and therefore deserve to be heard and respected.
Schools do it when they refuse to give failing grades, simply 'needs improvement' and parents do it when they don't hold children accountable for their actions.
Even employers do it - using the notion of 'special' as a key tool for recruiting and retaining key worlers. Of course your staff are special - intelligent, hard-working, committed - otherwise you'd have hired someone else.
All of this helps build a belief in the infallibility and centrality of the individual. This isn't by itself negative, having strong self-belief is a key attribute for success in almost every field.
However it can also lead to ego pitfalls, the belief that an individual's opinion must be worth more than that of another person, or a view that the world needs to organise itself neatly around what we want or believe.
One of the areas I see this coming out frequently is in how governments design services, policies, content and engagements. All of these have traditionally been organised around what public servants or politicians believe are the right way to do them.
And by the 'right way' I mean the way that the politician or public servant would personally prefer to use or engage with government.
Again this isn't a universally bad thing - a particular politician or public servant may accurately represent the audience of the service, policy or content, or engage via the same channels and approaches as the citizens they seek to involve.
However, more often than not, they aren't the audience.
The late-40s male white public servant really doesn't comprehend the life experience of an early 20s female African migrant.
The career politician who has unfailingly worked for their party for forty years to achieve a seat as a older lady, doesn't have the life experience of spending 20 years running start-up businesses in the technology sector.
This isn't to say they aren't good people, committed to good outcomes, or unable to represent communities or administer programs on the public's behalf.
However it does beg the question of why we hold up senior bureaucrats and politicians as the final decision makers on programs, policies, content and engagement processes which are aimed at supporting more diverse communities.
What if the next time a website needed to be approved for launch, instead of a Secretary or Minister, the agency went to the community and asked, 'does this meet your needs' as the final approval step?
What if a policy team had to report to a citizen starring committee to approve a particular policy direction, or an agency delivering public services had to approve every process change with citizen stakeholders?
And I don't simply mean engaging with stakeholder groups - bodies purporting to represent different groups of citizens - I mean going directly to citizens and bypassing bodies with their own agendas.
The ABC does this in quite a sound way, inviting citizens to nominate for its board and having live audiences for a number of shows (there's no better way to ensure performance and detect bad concepts fast).
Our justice system does it too - we empanel juries of people, pay them a small sum for giving up their time, and have them involved as the decision-makers in trials, under the impartial eyes of a court-appointed judge.
Many councils around the world - and even some provincial/state and national governments appoint citizen oversight panels for various decisions.
This approach could be extended into the Australian Government as well. Rather than simply having members of parliament elected based on who decides to stand - a self-selecting bunch who often see politics as their career - we could seek to appoint panels of citizens to oversee a range of decisions and processes.
True it could cost a bit to set up and operate such a scheme, however the savings from adjusting decisions formerly approved by individuals who weren't the audience, to be approved by those who are, could lead to massive savings over time.
Fewer policies would have to be discarded, fewer services reconfigured and fewer actions apologised for and compensated in court.
So when you are next faced with deciding on a direction or approving the final version of a policy, service, program, website, mobile app, or other government decision - take a moment to reflect on whether you're the audience and whether you're the right person to be making that final decision.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Celebrate your social media successes, but don't forget that community trust is the key | Tweet |
In June Baltimore Police Department hit a milestone on Twitter, reaching 50,000 followers.
In celebration of this, they released the following video, reflecting the department's achievement and thanking the community for helping them make Baltimore's streets safer.
It is an awesome video and I totally support and respect organisations celebrating like this. It's important for staff to recognise when their organisation has done well and share in the success, and it can be a powerful way of connecting an organisation with its community.
This type of approach is also a great way to show that an organisation is composed of real people, who are simply performing a role when they don their uniforms. it humanises the staff and can bridge gaps between faceless bureaucracies and corporations and their constituents and customers.
Unfortunately this isn't where the story ends.
Several Baltimore Police officers have been charged with various offenses related to animal cruelty or inappropriate behaviour over the last few years, becoming the subject of significant media attention.
A local newspaper created a response to the Police Department's video using the same music (different lyrics) illustrating a number of these incidents, to paint a different picture of the Baltimore Police and, they said, as a courteous reminder for the Police Department to clean up their own act.
While this second video has only received 10% of the views of the Police video so far (it has been live for about half the time), it is a telling reminder for organisations of the importance of building and maintaining positive community relationships.
If the public are well disposed towards your organisation, they will (largely) support you on social channels. If your organisation has taken actions, or has been portrayed to have taken actions, that place it in a negative light, you will face a greater level of negativity when engaging with the public on social media.
This crosses channels, however is often most immediately visible on social channels due to their speed and reach. Ultimately a bad impression will reflect on how the public engages with your staff via other means - on the phone, in correspondence and in person - making it harder for staff to perform their roles.
Of course, it may take only one disgruntled, sarcastic or delusional individual to create and distribute material like the video above, and may not be reflective of broader community views. However how far this material will spread and how fair a representation it is seen to be depends on the pre-existing negative or positive views of your organisation.
A good reputation will have your community come out in support, a bad reputation will see the material distributed far and wide with support.
Social media isn't just a reflection of the world - it is part of the world. How your organisation conducts itself on social channels can significantly shape community views - creating a positive or negative impression.
So don't take this parody video as a reason to not celebrate your successes or shutdown your social accounts. Instead use them as ways to effectively engage with your community, helping solve problems and participating respectfully and humanly to build and maintain good relationships with the people you serve.
In celebration of this, they released the following video, reflecting the department's achievement and thanking the community for helping them make Baltimore's streets safer.
It is an awesome video and I totally support and respect organisations celebrating like this. It's important for staff to recognise when their organisation has done well and share in the success, and it can be a powerful way of connecting an organisation with its community.
This type of approach is also a great way to show that an organisation is composed of real people, who are simply performing a role when they don their uniforms. it humanises the staff and can bridge gaps between faceless bureaucracies and corporations and their constituents and customers.
Unfortunately this isn't where the story ends.
Several Baltimore Police officers have been charged with various offenses related to animal cruelty or inappropriate behaviour over the last few years, becoming the subject of significant media attention.
A local newspaper created a response to the Police Department's video using the same music (different lyrics) illustrating a number of these incidents, to paint a different picture of the Baltimore Police and, they said, as a courteous reminder for the Police Department to clean up their own act.
While this second video has only received 10% of the views of the Police video so far (it has been live for about half the time), it is a telling reminder for organisations of the importance of building and maintaining positive community relationships.
If the public are well disposed towards your organisation, they will (largely) support you on social channels. If your organisation has taken actions, or has been portrayed to have taken actions, that place it in a negative light, you will face a greater level of negativity when engaging with the public on social media.
This crosses channels, however is often most immediately visible on social channels due to their speed and reach. Ultimately a bad impression will reflect on how the public engages with your staff via other means - on the phone, in correspondence and in person - making it harder for staff to perform their roles.
Of course, it may take only one disgruntled, sarcastic or delusional individual to create and distribute material like the video above, and may not be reflective of broader community views. However how far this material will spread and how fair a representation it is seen to be depends on the pre-existing negative or positive views of your organisation.
A good reputation will have your community come out in support, a bad reputation will see the material distributed far and wide with support.
Social media isn't just a reflection of the world - it is part of the world. How your organisation conducts itself on social channels can significantly shape community views - creating a positive or negative impression.
So don't take this parody video as a reason to not celebrate your successes or shutdown your social accounts. Instead use them as ways to effectively engage with your community, helping solve problems and participating respectfully and humanly to build and maintain good relationships with the people you serve.
Monday, July 14, 2014
Round up from GovHack 2014 | Tweet |
GovHack is over for 2014, with teams finishing their hacks by 5:30pm on Sunday, 13 July.
With over 1,200 participants organised into 178 teams, 204 projects were developed in under two days, with 146 projects (based on my count) eligible for the approximately $70,000 in national prizes.
Note: GovHack has informed me they are still adding videos for teams with network issues, so the numbers in this post and my spreadsheet will underreport. I'll update it once final numbers are confirmed.
National prizes will be awarded in a red carpet event in Brisbane on 10 August. I'll be attending courtesy of GovHack, to live tweet and blog the event.
All the projects are visible at the GovHack website, linking to project pages. There's links to home pages and videos for projects eligible for the national awards.
I've analysed all of the GovHack projects and teams based on GovHack's site and you can view this analysis at: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18H4gWSuVLb5Mjt84YdymeXSlSaAxjY78lX5T90i6RmQ
Here's a few quick charts from my GovHack stats (mouseover for details):
Finally, below is the finishing video for GovHack 2014.
I hope I see you at the GovHack Red Carpet Awards!
With over 1,200 participants organised into 178 teams, 204 projects were developed in under two days, with 146 projects (based on my count) eligible for the approximately $70,000 in national prizes.
Note: GovHack has informed me they are still adding videos for teams with network issues, so the numbers in this post and my spreadsheet will underreport. I'll update it once final numbers are confirmed.
National prizes will be awarded in a red carpet event in Brisbane on 10 August. I'll be attending courtesy of GovHack, to live tweet and blog the event.
All the projects are visible at the GovHack website, linking to project pages. There's links to home pages and videos for projects eligible for the national awards.
I've analysed all of the GovHack projects and teams based on GovHack's site and you can view this analysis at: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18H4gWSuVLb5Mjt84YdymeXSlSaAxjY78lX5T90i6RmQ
Here's a few quick charts from my GovHack stats (mouseover for details):
Finally, below is the finishing video for GovHack 2014.
I hope I see you at the GovHack Red Carpet Awards!
Friday, July 11, 2014
GovHack is underway - but what is it? | Tweet |
I'm participating in GovHack this year, spending my weekend working with a team to build a cool tool from open government data.
If you're a bit unclear on what a Hack is, the five minute segment below from ABS News 24, featuring GovHack national coordinator Pia Waugh should give you a better idea.
If you want to learn more about GovHack, here's the opening video - also featuring Pia Waugh, as well as the Minister for Communication Malcolm Turnbull.
If you're a bit unclear on what a Hack is, the five minute segment below from ABS News 24, featuring GovHack national coordinator Pia Waugh should give you a better idea.
If you want to learn more about GovHack, here's the opening video - also featuring Pia Waugh, as well as the Minister for Communication Malcolm Turnbull.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Storify from the Innovation Month event "Google Glass as a certain reality" | Tweet |
This morning I attended the Innovation Month event "Google Glass as a certain reality", hosted by the Department of Education.
It was a great event, and extremely well attended (well over 100 people in the audience), featuring very engaging talks from Alexander Hayes, Matthew Purcell and seven of his students from Canberra Grammer School.
The Twitter back channel was highly engaging, and I created the Storify below from the conversation.
It was a great event, and extremely well attended (well over 100 people in the audience), featuring very engaging talks from Alexander Hayes, Matthew Purcell and seven of his students from Canberra Grammer School.
The Twitter back channel was highly engaging, and I created the Storify below from the conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
