The White House breaks new ground in online communications

I was reading the local newspaper last weekend, and noticed an inspirational article about the Obama administration’s innovative use of the Internet as a public engagement tool.

It’s not so much the technology that’s innovative; but rather, the decision to use the Internet as a key vehicle to maintain a dialogue with America and the world.

The initiative’s called Open for Questions (OQ), and the objective is to create a community-based online town hall where the public submits questions via email through the White House website, which are later answered by the President via Webcast.  While the busy man clearly doesn’t have time to answer all questions submitted, he is able to select the most pertinent ones to frame his video response.

President Obama’s objective is to embrace technology to “open up the White House to the American people”.  What a great initiative, and why on earth wasn’t it done sooner?!  The tools have been available for a little while now, it’s an incredibly cost effective way of mass-communication, and it is – at least for now – still considered groundbreaking in terms of large-scale government communications. 

Whether it be streamed Webcasts or pre-recorded videos, the Obama camp have latched onto a trend that I personally hope will be infectious among other organisations, agencies and administrations – particularly the government sector.

It’s time for the Internet to be appropriately credited as the mega-communications tool that it is.  Unsurprisingly, Internet usage is on the rise globally, and we all know it’s going to continue this way.  According to Nielsen Online, over 1.5 billion people are using the Internet worldwide, and world Internet usage has grown five-fold since 2000.  Of more relevance to President Obama will be the 220 million Internet users in the United States (US), which accounts for over 72% of the US population.

I notice that the Australian Prime Minister has also introduced a new website to educate the public about the government’s economic stimulus package.  A pre-recorded video introduction from Prime Minister Rudd awaits users on the site’s homepage, but I wonder whether he’ll follow Obama’s Webcasting lead?  The world’s current economic challenges – and Australia’s subsequent ‘endurance’ strategy – are certainly worthy of some continuous dialogue with the Australian public…and using the Internet would be a very responsible use of taxpayer money!

Rob

Government web teams need to hang with the communicators rather than the propellerheads

Something which has increasingly concerned me over the years has been the decision by certain government departments to position their web teams and webmasters within the IT section, rather than the communications section.

Before going any further, let me clarify what I mean by ‘web team’.  I’m essentially talking about those working at (or close to) the coalface, usually responsible for:

• managing and governing the department’s site(s)
• ensuring compliance with relevant web standards and guidelines
• carrying out web development work
• maintaining site content, and
• plotting future developments for the department’s site(s)

In addition, for the purposes of this post, I’m including the following people under the banner of ‘communications section’:

• marketing and media staff
• creative staff (i.e. graphic designers, branding specialists)
• corporate affairs and executive staff (probably to a lesser degree)

From my experience, the positioning of web teams in IT environments is a mistake.  The vast majority of government websites share a common set of objectives which usually include – at a simplistic level – the need to:

• project a professional and responsible image of the department/agency
• communicate timely and accurate information to target markets
• provide user contact and feedback mechanisms, and
• where feasible, provide interactive communication mechanisms (e.g. chat rooms, discussion forums, etc)

How are web teams supposed to achieve these objectives when they’re not working in strict harmony with the department’s communicators, marketers, executives and media people?

I’ve seen first-hand how geographic, cultural and bureaucratic barriers between different ‘enabling areas’ can cause both short and long-term problems in the workplace.  While IT and communications sections are both generally regarded as enabling services within government departments, this is about the only similarity they seem to have.  In fact, few would doubt the fundamental differences in thinking, skills and general mindset that exist between the two.

Therefore, I believe it becomes very important to understand which of the two environments is better-suited to hosting a web team, particularly when considering the objectives and purpose of the department’s Internet presence. 

I believe it has to be the communications section. 

Why?

Firstly, this section has the corporate and strategic vision to drive the department’s site(s) forward, ensuring overall consistency and alignment with peripheral communications products and initiatives (e.g. media and advertising campaigns).  In addition, this section – as a commonly centralised and key business unit of the department – will receive clear direction and backing from the senior executive (including the department head), encouraging greater financial and strategic investment in the department’s Internet presence.

Secondly, the communications section has a healthy level of creative potency among its staff, which is beneficial in challenging boundaries and conventions, and conceiving new ideas in relation to the site(s).  It’s this kind of approach which can have a significant impact on site interactivity, usability, and overall appeal.

Thirdly, it is the communications section which hosts dedicated editorial, creative and publishing expertise which has much to offer the department’s site(s).  While the editorial and publishing expertise is obviously useful for content development, the section’s graphic designers could also offer their expertise on some visual enhancements to the front-end (interface).

Finally – and following on from my first point – the communications section is responsible for carrying out a broad, holistic array of marketing and communications initiatives; many of which rely on the use of the Internet due to its superiority in terms of market reach, cost and speed.  Therefore, this section must have a high level of influence over the web team, to ensure these initiatives can be successful. 

Now, having said all of that, it’s important to acknowledge that government IT and communications sections can work together.  Of course they can, and I’m not trying to challenge this.  My point is that too much ‘communications value’ is at risk of being lost when the web team – who are meant to be driving the department’s Internet presence – are nestled-in amongst IT geeks instead of living alongside the department’s central communicators and corporate visionaries.   

Just because web teams comprise technical staff, doesn’t mean they should automatically live in the IT section.

Rob

Social networking in government – we know it’s possible

It’s certainly encouraging to see the American government turning its attention to social networking culture with projects like govloop.  It provides me with hope that the Australian government may begin to forge a more sophisticated culture of sharing and collaboration, underpinned by sound social networking practices.

The U.S. government’s Government Star profile on YouTube also makes for impressive viewing.  Surely, this new shift in thinking will have a positive impact down under – and it won’t be a day too soon, either.

Needless to say, such an approach from our government will require a good amount of work, including a sizable group of inter-departmental believers who are passionate and committed to the cause.

Reforming government ICT – possibility or pipe dream?

Somewhat contrary to what the title might suggest, the main purpose of this post is to empathise with others who have experienced the frustrations of delivering ICT solutions within Australian government departments. 

I’ve only been paddling in the public sector whirlpool for the past six years or so, and before that I was working on the ‘other side’ in smaller private sector agencies.  That said, the inherent pains of government ICT projects – or any progressive, technology-driven government projects for that matter – don’t seem to discriminate. 

The senseless (or total lack of) business processes, workflows and approval lines; the complex web of bureaucracy; the apparent over-supply of dried-up and institutionalised staff; the cagey micro-managers who are also self-proclaimed web design experts; the political game-playing by everyone from the CEO to the cleaner – and of course, the stock-standard ‘approval by committee’ regime which has been delaying and de-railing projects for years.  Pardon my cynicism folks, but such a cocktail of inefficiency and disorganisation can be extremely disheartening as well as damaging.

Stephen Collins from www.acidlabs.org recently wrote a great article which stirred a thoughtful batch of responses and subsequently provided me with a good dose of inspiration for this post.  In this article, Stephen and his readers discussed the notion of a ‘just do it’ approach to government IT projects, characterised by smaller, iterative and more timely outputs rather than trying to deliver a far larger amount of project work all at once.  My perception is that Stephen feels that smaller steps and incremental, staged ICT outputs are fundamentally more likely to agree with the government ‘way of life’ while still addressing (to varying degrees) the needs of those end-users who will be using the final ICT product/service.

I agree with Stephen on this. 

However, I think it’s unforgivable that most Australian government departments don’t appear to be embracing progressive ICT (including Web 2.0) in earnest.  In fact, it’s downright frustrating and disappointing, and I know many people share these feelings.

Despite the passion of committed ICT professionals in the government sector, are we always going to be classified as insignificant pieces of the complex government puzzle?  Is our expertise ever going to be heard in whole, and not just in part?

Or, will we live to see a new wave of thinking (demonstrated by a complete overhaul of government culture, resources and management techniques) which subsequently begs for passionate and highly skilled staff, progressive thinking, best practice, common sense and creativity in ICT development? 

It’s sure nice to dream.  Unfortunately, I’d say we’ll all be living in space stations on Mars before the latter happens.

Rob