Colin McKay posted earlier this week about a fascinating piece of research published by the Canadian government. The paper, New Technologies and GC Communications [Word], is the first phase (the qualitative) of a survey into Canadians views on their government’s use of Web 2.0 technologies.
There are a couple of points that the survey throws up that illustrate some of the issues that we are facing here in New Zealand. Working on the assumption that there would not be too much difference between the views of the Canadians in the focus groups and their Kiwi counterparts (an assumption based on the fact that, reading the survey, the comments seem for the most part to be eminently sensible), there are some valuable insights to be gained.
Pace
The first point, and one that brings warmth to my cardigan wearing breast, is that there is no need to be bleeding edge with this stuff:
[G]overnment should proceed, if not cautiously, at least thoughtfully in the implementation of these technologies. Concretely, this involves preceding on a case-by-case basis when deciding which application to use and for what purpose. [...] the GC should not adopt Web 2.0 applications simply to look ‘cool’ or modern, but rather should adopt specific applications to address specific communications or service requirements. (My emphasis)
That means no gratuitous or ill-conceived attempts to deploy social media solutions for the sake of it. It also means that, from a planning point of view, these implementations are driven by business and communications objectives – not technology ones.
Supply
At the same time as framing the need for implementations that are part of a planned approach, participants in the focus groups did provide a strong mandate for government agencies to adopt social media.
There was a widespread perception that the GC must foster awareness of its use of these new applications among the population. This was a theme that recurred at various parts of the discussion, and was seen to be essential to their use.
This desire to see government introduce these tools was based on a number of reasons. Two that stood out for me, given one of the themes that I have been belaboring here, were inevitability:
[G]overnment cannot ignore these applications because they are more and more prevalent. [...]In short, there is a technological imperative at work, and one that will force the government to respond and/or adapt. (My emphasis)
and the opportunity to support more and richer engagement with our publics:
[A] recurring theme throughout the discussions was the perception that [Web 2.0] adoption represents an opportunity to transform the ‘face’ of the Government of Canada, to make it more approachable, less remote, and more responsive to Canadians. [...]Conversely, if it does not adopt these types of applications, the GC risks being seen as more out-of-touch than it is already perceived to be.
Audience
The risk that, in avoiding or being too slow to understand these tools, government’s can damage their reputations is a real one. The negative impact of this inability to adapt sufficiently nimbly to new technologies will manifest itself initially – and critically – with employees.
A related point and one of the most interesting observations is included as part of the final miscellaneous communications issues
. The authors note that, of the sub group of participants classified as ‘Internet users,’ nearly all of them think that public servants should be able to use these tools as part of their work;
There was general agreement that public servants should be able to access these sites to understand how they work, as well as their potential strengths and weaknesses as communications vehicles if the government is considering using them.
If public servants can’t access these sites, can’t learn how social media work by observing how the public use them, then there is precious little chance of, when they need to be able to deploy one of these tools, of them getting it right.
Conclusion
If this paper is any guide, the second phase of the project, the quantitative survey, promises to yield a rich array of insights about citizens’ expectations of governments use of social media.
What would be really interesting, however, would be some data on views about how these tools might be implemented inside government, because that is where, for me, the real value for much of this lies.
Without the people and knowledge management practices that can be achieved through the smart use of social media, governments will struggle to attract and retain the type of public servants that could use these tools to effectively engage with citizens. The question is: how long will it take us to reach that point. And, more tellingly, where will everyone else be by the time we get there?
Photo: victoriapeckham
9 Comments
I can only agree. Surely it is inevitable that Government will, sooner rather than later realise the importance of allowing Public Servants the right to access the feast of online tools available to most of us outside the sector. Promotion of social media use in house, if nothing else, allows Public Servants to become more familiar with the channels the general public use and therefore better equip them to do their job.
As Matt Lane points out:
By encouraging responsible use of social media within the Public Sector, it may provide guidance for intelligent use and help avoid as much as possible, the inevitable fall-out of irresponsible social media use.
Interesting post Jason. Preventing staff from social media engagement is sufficiently stupid to assume it is a knee jerk aberration which will be corrected quickly in the New Zealand Public Sector.
However, I completely agree that the greatest value in social media for the public sector is in an internal application, and in fact if social media is applied externally first it is likely to damage the reputation of an organisation, not enhance it, as social media will open up the traditional siloed hierarchical structure, the dark satanic mills, for all to see. However, if social media is applied internally first to increase organisational cohesion, engagement and agility its application to external communications will be a natural next step.
However, I disagree government shouldn’t be bleeding edge or startlingly innovative in this space and this relates to your point about being able to adapt sufficiently nimbly to changes in social interaction brought about by the adoption of social media by the general public. The only way an organisation can practise the use of social media and derive benefits internally and externally for doing so is through the practise of social media.
Social media competence is reason enough to justify social media innovation. In other words, to my mind, a sufficient argument from the business to warrant investment in public time and money in the implementation of social media services and applications is for the organisation to gain experience in the implementation of social media services and applications, which I will caveat with two things.
No one knows the eventual outcomes
Social media is a revolution in how we all communicate as individuals with each other and the organisations above us and as such it is very complex and complicated. If I could predict successful systems that produce high value outcomes in this space, I would be a Web 2.0 billionaire, which sadly I am not. This means an organisation’s activities in this area will sometimes succeed and sometimes fail, so don’t bet the farm. Agencies need to experiment with innovation on a small scale and replicate success on a larger scale.
Learn the lessons and share them
Public sector organisations and agencies should have a platform in which lessons of both success and failure can be shared with others which necessitates and inter agency framework with agreed and congruent metrics. This body of knowledge needs to be constructed specifically for the New Zealand Public Sector; I appreciate the Canadian experience you link to but New Zealanders and subsequently New Zealand organisations are different and that difference means we are going to have to learn these lessons ourselves.
Thanks Sam: your points are well made.
My comment about being was a traditional bureaucrats concern regarding prudent investment of taxpayer dollars, so I would elaborate by adding that I am all for innovation, as long as there is no unjustified cost in capital or reputation. Risk? I am all for some of that…
I think you capture the same point where you say:
Jason, I think the fuelled4schools bebo presence is a good initiative, and I’m surprised that you consider it gratuitous and ill-conceived. If there is one place online to engage with today’s youth, then bebo is it. As I see it the only risk to public sector reputation is abandoning the page and not moderating the comments. As a side note: I’ll wager that the bebo site cost less than many kick off meetings.
Thanks Terrence. I agree that we should engage with our audiences wherever they choose to congregate. I just don’t think “give them free stuff” amounts to much of a strategy for engagement…
“give them free stuff” is the m.o of multinationals in the fast moving consumer goods sector (food, supermarkets etc) and unless we regulate this type of promotion I think it is reasonable to use similar tactics in an effort to promote healthy eating to our youth.
fuelled4schools is part of “mission on” a package containing ten key initiatives aimed at improving nutrition and reversing the declining levels of physical activity among young Kiwis. http://is.gd/10D5
The fact that the “strategy” mimics the approach of the competition is a poor justification on two counts: one, the Ministry cannot hope to compete in terms of resources and two, a social network is a poor choice for that sort of strategy anyway…
You have only to read the comments on the page to determine the (lack of) engagement. All of them are a variant of, “Thanks for the schwag.” Given that the aim of the site is:
I think it is safe to say that the ready supply of bags and t-shirts, however well recieved, is not fuelling that outcome.
The site is richer that the comment thread alone: I see engagement in the polls, user submitted artwork, stories / essays, and photos from real life events.
Whether the bebo site is / has been “successful” or not is beside the point (and it begs the question: successful by which metric? comment quality from inbetweenies?) - it’s a first (afaik) and it’s better to try and fail quickly than not try at all. I am more interested in learning from the exercise, than dismissing it this early as ill-conceived.
It’s not a fact that the “strategy” mimics the competition - it’s conjecture from us both. I suspect that the agency responsible is well aware that it is not resourced in a way to compete with multinational for marketshare on an ongoing basis. However, it is a fact that enticements and freebies work for creating traction and “mind share” (otherwise multinationals wouldn’t do it). It is a fact that a bebo site and a few free bags and tees is way, way cheaper than a traditional media campaign. And it is a fact that neither of us really know what the strategy is.
It’s important to remember this is just one channel for one initiative in a larger programme of work.
I think if you’re targeting ‘inbetweenies’, then you should be able to take substantial stock from the ‘inbetweenies’ comments and responses..
I agree that the initiative is rather ill concieved. Surely these multinationals garner more sales from these giveaways, but i doubt you’ll find a bunch of kids discussing the virtues of a corporations product on their forums, as a result. I mean, they dont really want a community do they? they just want you to buy more stuff..
These things however, do need to be fostered. Its a learning process after all.
Its great to see a site such as this, here in NZ. This Canadian report is making for some damn good reading.
Sam O’Leary
One Trackback
[...] too? (I hesitate to mention ROI, but someone is bound to ask) The Canadian focus group research (helpful commentary from Jason Ryan), and the EC Joint Research Centre report on ‘Web 2.0 in Government: Why and [...]