Response to the Government 2.0 Report
Today I am pleased to announce the next step in the Rudd Government’s agenda to utilise Web 2.0 technologies to deliver better services to, and facilitate greater engagement with, Australians by releasing our response to the Government 2.0 Taskforce report.
The Taskforce’s report recommended changes to a range of areas, including co-ordinated leadership, guidance, support and recognition for agencies and public servants engaging online, and the important considerations of accessibility and security.
In forming their report, the Taskforce undertook extensive work in consulting online and in person; considering submissions from individuals and organisations; and eventually delivering a thorough and informative report. For this, I would once again like to thank the Taskforce’s Chair Dr Nicholas Gruen, the Taskforce members and all those who contributed for their efforts.
The Government’s response to this report, which Senator Ludwig and I released today, shows twelve of the report’s 13 recommendations were generally agreed to. We have deferred our response to one recommendation about tax deductibility for information philanthropy until it can be considered in the context of the review of Australia’s Future Tax System and the research report on the Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector.
The Taskforce’s central recommendation was that the Australian Government make a declaration of open government. The Rudd Government has accepted this recommendation and we expect to make such a declaration in the coming months.
Whilst today is the completion of one phase, it is also very much the beginning of a new one. The task now is to implement these changes, beginning with assisting agencies to make the most of the opportunities offered by Web 2.0.
This blog is one of the first examples of what is possible, providing a forum for issues surrounding Government use of ICT. There is no doubt that the Australian Government will increasingly be looking for ICT solutions to 21st century challenges. There is also no doubt that not all of those solutions are going to come from inside government. That is what Gov 2.0 is all about, sharing information and engaging with citizens to determine better ways of doing things.
I will be closely monitoring the progress of our Gov 2.0 agenda across the rest of the Government and expect my department and its people to drive these reforms and hope that you will continue making contributions to this process via this blog.
The internet and collaborative technologies offer significant scope for the Government to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery, public administration and community engagement. I look forward to realising those improvements through our Gov 2.0 agenda.
loading...
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- Tweets that mention Response to the Government 2.0 Report | AGIMO Blog -- Topsy.com
- Tweets that mention Response to the Government 2.0 Report | AGIMO Blog -- Topsy.com
- Government 2.0: The Australian perspective « CO-LIBRARY
- Government and virtual worlds: Australia on the catch-up : The Metaverse Journal – Virtual World News
- Government and virtual worlds: Australia on the catch-up « VirtuaDOM.com
- Australian Federal Government Commits to Open Access » rsstimes.net
Comments are closed.
Subscribe via RSS
A sincere and energetic effort by government to engage citizenry in order to develop relevant and up-to-date policy. I’ve enjoyed watching the Australian Gov 2.0 story unfold. Keep up the good work!
loading...
This is a great step forward in the gov 2 process. The response is exactly the right trigger for innovation.
The promised high-level statement is going to be key and it is important that it is very clear in where the ‘line’ is. Hopefully the statement will not be vague.
The APS will need a clear drawing of the line. I believe that this needs to be done from the exclusions angle. What is not to be open. Then everything outside of the exclusion can therefore safely be assumed to be ‘safe’.
This is, as the TaskForce detailed, a huge culture shift and the natural tendency will be for agencies to err back on the side of caution. The top-level statement needs to be very clear about this.
I also see that there needs to be a very careful process of explaining the new game to the public. A new ‘covenent’ or understanding needs ...
... to be generated between gov and the people where the gov is clear on what transparency means and the people, over time, come to accept that the new open gov may well make some mistakes on the way.
As far as possible, the gov needs to extend this leniency twoard mistakes into the APS. Otherwise, innovation will soon become a feared path.
Somehow, politics need be removed from the equation and that will be a slow and difficult process. In the end, sticking to offical gov policy should be enough to ensure that the APS can find its feet in the new open gov. Perhaps this can be mandated in the statement.
Again, a great response from the gov and a testimont to the AGIMO driven process.
loading...
Jim
The willingness to make mistakes is a sign of great maturity applicable to both individuals and organizations. A tendency to caution is understandable but may be hampering innovation and engagement.
The rewards of accepting our own frailties and mistakes, especially within an open space will be sufficient unto themselves.
I would hate to see openness viewed as a “feared path.”
Let us agree to make mistakes together – with humility and forgiveness whilst aiming to achieve grounded engagement in achieving mutual goals – to achieve improved benchmarking in policy, practice and political arenas.
We need to strive for sustainability in such arenas and cannot begin to do so without opportunities to transparently learn from the lessons of the past, in addition to being vigilant in order to make sure that strategic planning helps us to avoid mistakes prospectively.
Gathering intelligence, exchanging views honestly and openly and striving for harmony between all stakeholders may go a ...
... long way to achieving these goals.
Cheers
Madeleine
Citizen Stakeholder
mkin2711@bigpond.net.au
loading...
Good to see the formal response to an excellent body of work finally released. As you can imagine, there is already significant Agency interest in following through with many people I come into contact with keen to be in the ‘early adopter’ tranche.
I note in the response to 4.5 that the approach proposed to be taken by Government to providing an online forum to register Agency initiatives will be restricted to an internal government audience for sharing experiences of Gov2.0 implementations, which seems to run against the overall grain and intent.
I’m well aware that there will be plenty of entities in the NGO and State /Territory government sectors, assisted by their own ecosystems of suppliers, who are also keen to draw on lessons learnt. Why keep this material closed? Curious..
loading...
Brian
I agree with you that lessons learned should be shared at inter-agency level and with other stakeholders in order to promote open discussion and trigger the provision of further information all round.
Gov2 has indeed produced an excellent body of work.
It is particularly encouraging that a flexible approach is being used to regard policies as works in progress that can be enhanced or modified as new ideas and material come to light.
The impetus of this dialogue needs to be maintained as people feed on each others’ ideas.
Though not part of the internal machinations of government, as an outside and keen citizen participant I am looking forward to ongoing dialogue.
Regards
Madeleine (Kingston)
Citizen Stakeholder
loading...
The response of Government to the report is, in many respects visionary. It is good that the question of the culture of the public service has been picked up.
However, a key part of that challenge is, in fact, associated with the quite outdated ways in which the human resource and organisational development areas go about grappling with culture shifts. Read more >>> http://bit.ly/bDtgUB
loading...
The link included in my previous post seems to be blocked. Which is probably symptomatic of the cultural problem. So here it is (hopefully) >>> http://bit.ly/9aZcPe
loading...
The link wasn’t blocked as far as I can see. It points to an OzLoop address requiring a login. The new one is ok.
loading...
I just noticed an article stating that the government had not gone far enough in responding to the Gov 2.0 Taskforce Report. Essentially not fast enough and not open enough seems to be the main gripe. http://idm.net.au/article/007807-labor-limps-towards-gov-20
I can’t say I agree with this at all. The way the report was put together and the degree of openness has been acknowledged as being world class. Certainly, everyone active in this space would like to move faster. However, as per my previous two posts the big challenge is organisational culture. (And, no I’m not forgetting the IT related issues).
Picking up on the learnings from the way the Taskforce and many other went about their work, I think we really need to harness the ideas many people to get the sorts of changes needed. To get to that point one of the key things that everyone could do now is start ...
... contributing to the AGIMO Blog right now.
Today, I’ll be encouraging my professional collegues to do just that.
Note: My views do not necessarily reflect any official views that may be held by the APS agency I work for.
loading...
Steve
I think that each organization (or individual stakeholder) should set aside a small block of time each day, with organizational consent to blog on this and related blog spaces with the view to exchanging ideas whilst at the same time achieving personal development goals.
In fact I will go as far as suggesting that such an opportunity should be regarded as part of a staff development program.
Organizational culture is slow to change but sanction of the social media fora as important learning and communication tools is long overdue and should be exploited at the earliest chance.
Cheers
Madeleine
Citizen Stakeholder
loading...
Steve
I have just looked at the May 4 article that you provided a link for entitled “Labor limps towards Gov 2.0″ published by IDM.net.au. It is indeed quite critical.
The article speaks of refusal by the Government “to provide any additional funding to address internal technical and policy barriers” to Gov 2.0.”
I appreciate that setting this project up has incurred costs and that these are early days. The capital investment needs to be carefully considered whilst recognizing the consequences of not robustly developing this innovative initiative.
The building blocks referred to in the Taskforce Report of policy; collaborative tools and practices; and access to PSI are highlighted in the IDM article, with some technological suggestions made regarding data management.
I agree with you that there is so much more to this than technology.
I understand too well the impediments of organizational culture. There is some excellent material available on this topic. I will try ...
... to hunt down a few relevant links on the topic.
In terms of full transparency, my understanding is that you are in favour of publishing of all material that is not abusive or inflammatory, and that individuals participating in the AGIMO initiative would like to see retention indefinitely of material, more especially where the deeper goals of Gov2 are impacted in terms of benchmarking of policies and practices.
Dealing with the political dimensions will not be simple, but must be addressed somehow, in addition to the cultural shifts required to make the whole thing work.
Rome was not built in a day. Careful thought is required and an effective Citizen’s Charter devised.
The existing impediments should be seen as opportunities and not necessarily threats.
Having said that some policy and legislative decisions are in progress that will have far reaching economic and social impacts.
Each arena appears to be making decisions in a virtual vacuum. Some matters will be irreversible or very costly to rectify. These matters concern me greatly in terms of ultimate impacts of policies formed in such conditions.
Governance, leadership, accountability and transparency are cornerstone issues and do need urgent attention across the board.
Cheers
Madeleine
Citizen Stakeholder
mkin2711@bigpond.net.au
loading...
you could start with just the bare basics: many of the RSS feeds offered by the Federal Government are completely incorrect, and do not meet the base RSS specifications, especially as regards the pubDate entity.
It’s a bit difficult to believe anything said about moving forward, when the government is unable to get very simple basics such as this correct.
loading...
The problem with Web 2.0 stuff is it can (and often does) disappear as fast as it is generated. In the supposedly bad old days when you made a submission, the letter and probably the response went into a file. Government kept important things like forever. You can still read submissions to the 1942 Dairying Industry Inquiry if you want.
The problem with government web sites is they change after every election even if the government is returned. If Web 2.0 is going to be The Way for engagement between government and citizens, how can we be sure that submissions from individuals (like this one I’m writing now) won’t be deleted at the whim by a future government?
loading...
Brian, you may be interested in this post about record-keeping and blog comments. It’s written specifically about our own blog and some of the ways we make sure we keep proper records of comments from the public, and looks at some of the same points you raise.
loading...
The National Library of Australia via PANDORA : Australia’s digital archive and other domain harvests has been archiving Australian government websites for many years. In particular, government websites are archived around elections just in case of a potential change of government and possible data loss.
loading...
Edgar
There certainly need to be practices in place that protect against culling of sensitive data for political reasons.
The concept of transparency, accountability and the value of lessons learned from the past will be eroded if data is not maintained and retained in a responsible manner.
Perhaps the Citizens’ Charter proposed can address the issue of mandated retention and archiving.
I have commented on this further on this page in response to Brian’s post below , reproducing most of what I have already posted on the APO site,
I have also dealt with some of the concerns expressed in the IDM.net.au article of 5 May to which Steve provided a link
Cheers
Madeleine
Citizen Stakeholder
mkin2711@bigpond.net.au
loading...
Brian
I am concerned to hear that there are risks inherent in the Gov2 web dialogue that may mean deletion of posts at whim by any government, whether existing or future. It is alarming that posts can disappear as quickly as they are posted.
My view is that if anything is removed or moderated, an explanation should be provided to individuals posting and an opportunity to meet criteria or to argue the case for retention.
This cannot be acceptable practice. Is a Constitutional change necessary – whilst the community considers what else may benefit from changes to political systems and enhancement of democracy and transparency principles?
The issues of transparency and accountability mean a great deal to the community.
In response to an APO article on 21 March entitled “Will Facebook Profiles Replace Government websites, I responded along the following lines:
All market demographics should be catered for. I would be sorry to see Government sites ...
... demolished.
I use them extensively and see much merit in them, though there is a role for improvement and consistency in the way that these are presented and managed generally.
Facebook and Twitter profiles and other such social media platforms should always be additional to Government websites.
There is no such thing as a single demographic for the “people” or where they are.
Adopting popular social media platforms to reach certain demographic profiles is important but should not replace more conventional platforms or ignore other needs.
The issue of layered participation and involvement must be considered. Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have their merits – and drawbacks.
These platforms do not appeal to all categories of stakeholders for numerous reasons.
Having said that as a newcomer stakeholder in the government and quasi-government social media arena, I readily admit that in these early days of establishing a social media strategy there is a dearth of response from the citizen stakeholders for which engagement is sought.
This may me explained by a number of moderating factors including:
1) Marketing strategies – Lack of knowledge of the existence of such informal opportunities to make enquiries, provide suggestions or express concerns may hamper engagement.
The National Measurement Institute (NMI) has an identifiable communication strategies aimed at increasing awareness, which will include radio. Their example may be worth emulating. Contact the Communications Analyst at the NMI for suggestions and advice.
2) Negative experiences with the engagement process by existing and would-be stakeholders.
The perception of tokenism of stakeholder consultation is widespread. It will take time and strategically planned effort to redress these impediments.
3) Costs in terms of time
It takes a huge amount of dedicated effort to effect engagement – from a citizen’s perspective or the perspective of other stakeholders.
4) Perceived lack of reward
Based on experiences to date with efforts to engagement with all three tiers of Government, it may be reasonable to suppose that quality of feedback, (if this occurs at all) be may be a barrrier.
People need to have the confidence that their views will
a) Be acknowledged – beyond the auto acknowledgements that normally follow direct email communication to a vast majority of government, quasi-government and funded entities.
Many of those entities that are structured as legal entities under corporations law as companies with limited guarantee but without share portfolio describe themselves as being “independent” and even believe themselves to be “unaccountable” except to their Boards of Management despite wholly or substantially being funded through public coffers.
For the purposes of this comment and in all other respects I include any entity providing a public service in comments relating to government services and profiles – and I have precisely the same expectations of accountability to voters and other stakeholders
b) respected and taken into account
c) be reflected in measurable and published outcomes in addition to be individually acknowledged and explained, with re-direction where appropriate when issues are beyond the charter or scope of the body originally approached
Engagement with stakeholders, including ordinary citizens is a complex and challenging matter that deserves careful strategic planning.
Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO); Steve Davies and others, here’s a change to develop policy principles that will effect maximal engagement with all classes of stakeholders.
Steve whilst you are considering the guiding principles for a Citizen’s Charter – maybe these additional reflections could be taken into account.
Those wishing further dialogue feel free to contact me directly or on this site.
Cheers
Madeleine Kingston
Citizen Stakeholder
mkin2711@bigpond.net.au
loading...
There will be room, I hope, as the wider government 2.0 project moves forward in its various elements for greater use of ‘inside/outside’ mechanisms that deliberately blend external perspectives and expertise with skills and resources from inside government.
Much as with the Govt 2.0 Task Force itself, and along the lines of the implementation group that the UK Government set up to respond to the Power of Information Task Force, there would be merit in experimenting with different hybrid models that go beyond consultation and even this kind of blog-based conversation (which is essential in its own right). The more we can get used to drawing on structural mixed models of work and implementation that keep eroding some of the less helpful distinctions between insiders and outsiders, the better.
loading...
Could not agree more Martin. As much as anything this is about maximising inclusion and ensuring we have a diversity of approaches so that in an overall sense we create a rich and diverse ‘Gov 2.0 environment’ for people. I believe that is also why we need a Common Charter for Citizen : Public Servant Engagement.
loading...
Martin
You have raised some important issues about demarcation – something I have struggled with as an “outsider” for many years in the formal consultative dialogue.
These who are blogging here are clearly committed to achieving enhanced communication models that will develop and mature with experimentation and open minds
I have high expectations and hopes and have not allowed my “outsider” status to deter me from active participation.
I am a bit concerned about how this initiative will be publicized so as to draw in inputs from a wider community of “outsiders.”
Those on the inside have many advantages in terms of existing grapevine exchanges etc.
It takes quite a bit of dedication to discover the possibilities and opportunities that this blog site can offer.
The National Measurement Institute’s new blog space will be managed and moderated by the Communications Analyst working there, who is very excited about possibilities. She is arranging media coverage by radio and ...
... other means. May be worth having a chat with her about how she went about this and costs involved.
I am looking at engagement well beyond what blogging, can achieve with its digital space limitations, etc.
I am so pleased that others can visualize the potential of this initiative even though there are existing cultural, political, funding, technical and other barriers to overcome.
Cheers
Madeleine
Citizen Stakeholder
mkin2711@bigpond.net.au
loading...
Good progress and as we know citizen engagement is an important element of government service delivery, and online tools may provide a unique opportunity to engage. However, it is important that our agencies not only focus on using tools because they exist; they need to think through how these tools can support deep engagement, and create conditions that allow citizens to participate in a meaningful and impactful way.
My blog (http://www.michaelallangreen.com/citizen-engagement-through-social-media/) has a series of eight strategic Social Media recommendations which are designed to increase the chances of success for governments which attempt to develop a Social Media presence.
loading...
Michael
Thank you very much for the link to your excellent article on citizen engagement and the serious thought that went into identifying crucial principles.
Recognizing the role of strategic planning, including top level staff recruitment and support is crucial. To that end you have suggested
“Especially in the early stages of community development, treat the role of community manager or community animator as a priority, and ensure that these government staff are enthusiastic and capable.”
I also appreciate recognition of the concept of layers of engagement, preferred styles and approaches of community bloggers and the important issues of interactive dialogue.
My view is that all participants must be treated as individuals with something unique to offer within the constraints of their own personality styles.
There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach when targeting strategies are considered.
The Victorian PigsWillFly initiative invites people at the outset of registration to indicate a willingness to participate in ...
... focus groups in addition to blogging. The National measurement Institute already has a marketing plan in hand with radio advertizing.
This may be something others will consider also, though it is not practical for most people to travel interstate for this.
As things develop AGIMO may consider fora for selected face-to-face discussions by those interested.
One challenge is to publicize the scheme to entice the influx of newcomers of which you have spoken.
Your recommendations will go a long way towards identifying engagement themes and principles.
Cheers
Madeleine
Citizen Stakeholder
loading...
Building on the comment about supporting ‘deep engagement’ I believe that what we need is a Common Charter for Citizen : Public Servant Engagement. That would build nicely on the statement on open government – when Government issues it.
I suspect we tend to assume that the moderation, blog rules etc will take care of everything. However, given the democratising influence of the technology I believe we need to, as it were, get the environment right for engagement for all. A common charter for all is one way of doing this.
Views?
loading...
A practical thought for the day folks. I have noticed that some of the links to external sites and people are blocked or coached within some APS Agencies.
This is one area that needs to be addressed if we are to open up conversation. At one stage even the site of the Gov 2.0 Taskforce was blocked or coached. Eventually resolved, but it does highlight the problems and challenges we face.
In my broad experience this sort of action – blocking or coaching sites – is a decision taken by corporate HR/OD areas. The very areas that, from an organisational development perspective, talked about ‘learning organisations’ and ‘self regulating systems’. Very odd indeed.
We need a more inclusive approach to what sites should not be blocked. Arbitrarily blocking social networking sites is overkill and an unhealthy cultural marker.
So how about we all start compiling a list of OK sites. Here are a few ...
... from me to get the ball rolling:
ePracice, Govloop, Govzine, Centre for Policy Development, Youtube, SlideShare, eGovAU, OZloop.
That’s the practical aspect, but how about a common APS wide policy on this? And, given the impact of the current situation on Gov 2.0, what better space to work on this collectively than the AGIMO blog.
What does everyone think? And barring pornography etc shouldn’t the default position be ‘open’?
loading...
Given the role of Gov 2.0 in facilitating greater engagment with the community, the latest utterances over the mining tax raise some interesting questions about the discussion of social and economic issues in the Gov 2.0 space by the community. (Well, all of us)
Should community input and discussion be facilitated by political parties outside this space? Pretty much status quo.
Is this something that should be facilitated in an impartial and transparent way by the public service? This is where the logic takes us.
How, if at all possible, do we take the party political dimension out of these sorts of issues?
What would you do with the views and comments expressed by citizens?
Obviously early days yet, but my concern is that these are issues and possibilities that should be considered and addressed soon so that we stay ahead of the game. I’m not sure folks, but I suspect this does ...
... come back to the question of a Gov 2.0 charter.
Maybe we should test the waters on all this by actively engaging the community to explore and address these questions. (Face-to-face and online).
Cheers – Steve Davies
loading...
Steve
I would much prefer to see open discussion of policy issues facilitated my government in this blog space and equivalents in other tiers or departments.
There are many important issues that come up impacting on policy decisions of one kind or another which are best aired in a forum like this. This does not of course preclude the prerogative of politicians or others to raise similar issues in private blog spaces also.
In browsing through various sites, I have found that many crucial policy issues are raised and discussed in private fora.
The following outcomes will be achievable more readily if policy discussions took place on blog spaces such as this one at AGIMO’s govspace:
a) Continuity
b) Maximal examination of policy implications and outcomes;
c) Maintenance of a consistent and transparent moderation policy including citizen engagement;
d) Consistent storage and retrieval policies in order that both prospective and retrospective glances may be made ...
... of the efficacy of policies and impacts
I encourage consideration of the best ways in which intelligence gathering can be maximized, not that I wish to minimize the importance of accessibility to documents authored by Government.
The exchanges between citizens and Government need to be transparent and managed in such a way as to promote confidence and certainty.
Your thoughtful input into these issues is much appreciated.
You know my views on the value of direct discussion by telephone, and face-to-face (wherever this is possible); and through blogging.
A variety of methods of gleaning intelligence and responding to these inputs from citizens should be considered.
A Gov2 Charter sounds an ideal way to go outlining the principles of information gathering, management and referral. Michael has raised some important issues about deep engagement. This is what I seek to achieve and look forward to reading of further strategies to optimize this.
As to taking the party political dimension out of things, this is challenging.
Perhaps there can be some broad principles and development of a corporate culture that recognizes the value of collecting both positive and negative feedback in order to evaluate the impacts of policies retrospectively, and aid with prospective strategic planning.
By the way, way I suggest APO as one of the sites that should be made accessible to “internal” stakeholders working in Government departments?
This social media space enables readers to quickly identify issues of relevance to them and provides useful links to further material for those wishing to seek more detail.
Regards
Madeleine (Kingston)
mkin2711@bigpond.net.au
loading...
An excellent post. Personally I could not agree more. Fundamentally it boils down to robust, rounded and grounded discussion. If we create a space that sets the tone for that we will be doing great.
Cheers – Steve
loading...
Steve
Thank you for acknowledging and supporting some of these broad principles outlined above and for all the other excellent suggestions made on this and other pages now maintained by AGIMO.
The dialogue began on Gov2. As a keen citizen participant I entered the dialogue late in the piece. My blogging career in 53 days old and I have much to catch up on.
Having had a short break, I need to get back to completing formal submissions in hand – despite my degree of personal disillusionment with the value of these strategies to effect true engagement.
Tokenism in community consultation has been an issue of sustained criticism by many stakeholders – some already too jaded to be bothered to continue.
The political will to engage with citizens and the corporate cultural environment that would best facilitate this will be amongst the most challenging issues to address as more serious thought is given to ...
... principles and processes through which effective partnerships can be formed.
The time is not only ripe for this to occur, but in some arenas there is some urgency before the course of events with massive changes to policy and legislation are rubber-stamped, perhaps without the benefit of the intelligence-gathering and strategic planning that should characterize every public management or corporate decagon made.
In a future blog I would like to call further attention to the book by Roger Hills “The Consensus Artifact” (2007) Astro Projects, which is a must read for those wishing to respond to Rethink Australia’s current Discussion Paper on possible Constitutional changes that will assist in achieving true democracy and grounded stakeholder participation of the calibre already supported in principle by the Gov2 initiative.
Email: info@astroprojects.com.au
Web: http://www.rethinkaustralia.org
The snow-balling effect of making all of this happen in a considered way that begins with a clean slate in terms of culture, attitude and commitment to effective stakeholder partnerships will inevitably effect every public service department.
Instead of viewing intelligence exchange as a threat, Governments should embrace the amazing opportunities that will be created in the move to enhancing optimal communication strategies.
Meanwhile, a Common Charter for Citizens as suggested by you last week (post above 18 May) will create the environment requirement.
There is so much more to this than accessibility and technology.
In the spirit of chunking, I will leave it there for now but will return with more!
Alternatively, I invite direct dialogue by email or telephone for those wishing to delve further, especially with regard to some of the more pressing issues.
Cheers
Madeleine
(Citizen Stakeholder)
mkin2711@bigpond.net.au
loading...
I think this is a great initiative by the Government and pleased to see this policy is progressing at a steady rate.
The US government has been doing this for some time with much success, UK also and many other governments are sure to follow.
I am a keen commentator and have already blogged about the initial progress of Gov2.0 – http://www.socialmedianews.com.au/federal-government-to-start-social-media-work-government-2-0-taskforce-report/
Keep up the great work guys and i will be blogging further about this topic as more unfolds on my blog http://www.socialmedianews.com.au
Best Regards,
David
loading...
David
I have made a post on your Social Media News site along the lines below for this site. I would like to be kept informed of new initiatives that you may be involved in apart from AGIMO.
I am just delighted about the outcomes of the Gov2 Taskforce Recommendations.
Congratulations to Nicholas Gruen as Chair of that Taskforce and his Team. And Thanks to Lindsay Tanner and Senator Joe Ludwig for giving the go-ahead for implementation and to Senator Kate Lundy for her support also.
Much material has been produced through social media exchanges that have acted as invaluable fodder to fan further consideration of the practicalities of implementation.
Gov2 has indeed produced an excellent body of work.
It is particularly encouraging that a flexible approach is being used to regard policies as works in progress that can be enhanced or modified as new ideas and material come to light.
The impetus of this dialogue ...
... needs to be maintained as people feed on each others’ ideas.
I support suggestions for a Gov2 Common Charter for Citizen: Public Servant Engagement, as proposed by Steve on 18 May.
Such a Charter will help identify broad principles for data management storage and retrieval; citizen engagement and practical ways in which lessons learned can be considered, acted upon and indefinitely archived in the interests of achieving the deeper goals of Gov2.
I have been blogging on the Gov2 site since early April, and after that on the AGIMO site when the Department of Finance and Deregulation took over policy and data management.
I am looking forward to developing a lasting citizen relationship with the AGIMO Team and with all those involved in the dialogue, including Steve Davies, whose thoughtful suggestions and accessibility has enhanced my understanding of the issues under consideration.
Creating the right cultural environment and dealing with any party political dimensions will certainly bring challenges – but these do need to be addressed if the initiative is to succeed.
I am placing my faith in those dealing with the policy and governance issues involved – more especially since my sustained and fruitless efforts to engage through more formal consultative fora have been unproductive, even demoralizing.
I invite personal dialogue or on this site, as always.
Cheers
Madeleine (Kingston)
Citizen Stakeholder
mkin2711@bigpond.net.au
loading...
The common thread running through the the reports on APS Reform, Innovation and Gov 2.0 is the need to change and improve the culture of public sector organisations.
I have been doing some thinking on that issue and have put together something on that very issue. Available here >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPgVdouY1d4
It is on YouTube so depending on your work place you may have to forward the link to your home address. The presentation is called Culture change for Gov 2.
The bottom line on the presentation is that we should take an inclusive approach to the question of organisational culture by using social media tools and that the traditional approaches typically used by human resource and organisational development areas have had their day.
loading...
Last Friday I took part in the Open Gov Un-Conference
It was an interesting day. Great conversation with great people.
I raised the idea of citizens being able to rate open data etc placed online by agencies. Someone then added the idea of agencies rating their data themselves when posting it and looking at the comparison. Criteria could be along the lines of currency, accuracy, citizen friendly, useful. Personally, I think there something around social utility or value that needs exploring.
Our group also had some discussion concerning citizen : public servant engagement. In a nutshell, it was pretty much a shared view that we need to be more deliberate and strategic about getting people into the gov 2.0 space. Personally, I think sitting and waiting for people to ‘get the Gov 2.0 bug’ is not good enough. To make it work we need, I guess, a citizen engagement strategy. ...
... And we can’t leave public servants out of that.
loading...
Steve
Finally, some of the reasons that I have abandoned other blog sites have included a feeling of being excluded, not belonging to the “clique” or elitist set; not being given a reason for moderation (not a criticism of this site); and not being able to adequately explore topics.
I have observed before that blogging partners need to have some compatibility fits in terms of expectations, otherwise nothing will work. Also if restrictions are too onerous and spontaneity squashed it won’t work either. It would be interesting to compare my lone views with other citizen’s viewpoints.
I suspect many would be happy enough with short sharp comments, no follow up and no interest in blogging as an alternative means of encaging withy Government with the ultimate goal of influence policies, legislation and the like.
The scheme needs to address how many target market groups are being catered for; whether majority interests should dictate ...
... engagement and moderation policy (which are inter-related); and whether the deeper Gov2 goals are intended to beyond theory level.
The right cultural attitude is crucial, and so is a genuine desire to understand people, the needs expectations and so on in order to develop effective engagement strategies.
As to the question of more aggressively marketing Gov2 rather than hoping that citizens will simply flock to it, I think thought should be given to this.
For example, the National Measurement Institute as part of an exercise to launch the era of national trade measurement held an event recently for invited stakeholders. In addition they have undertaken particular marketing that included radio issues that were then published online as a carrot for public response. Other such initiatives were calculated to raise awareness generally.
Better still, the NMI has a very open blog policy that allows people to choose topics of their own; select a subject line on the blog page of their own choosing and without waiting for an editorial piece or pre-approval of any topic; attach documents of their own – without pre-approval; and comment at any length. The only exclusions are abuse and porn. This to me represents admirable openness and a willingness to allow citizens to determine the agenda and their own needs. Important in terms of my personal needs, such a policy provides the right level of locus of control.
The concept of locus of control needs careful consideration in designing blog policy, as it is a significant motivating factor – for me diluting the freedoms that I both e4xpect and demand – or else walk away are crucial to the way that I operate. But I always expect to be courteous and dignified despite expressing a strong view – and despite perhaps expressing a minority view.
Your post could not have been more timely to that blog editorial or particular post. It has come at a time when I was seriously considering whether this space is the right place for me to be as an already interested and engaged citizen consumer.
My reservations are extensive and based on new information about moderation policies.
I would expect to be able to raise new topics spontaneously without writing ahead offline to seek an editorial blog to be made. At present there is no facility to do this, and this was confirmed in off-line-line enquiry direct.
On the issue of topic relevance, sometimes in a response such as this in spontaneously replying to a particular blog page other related issues may come up – for example though the topic here is citizen engagement, the issue of cyber security and the confidence of citizens in the participation process are inter-related.
To my way of thinking the issues raised are appropriate for the one blog, despite tangentially heading in what may seem to be another direction.
I would expect to exercise reasonable discretion in selecting the right blog page to past against, but can and do make mistakes as I am not as familiar with the directory tree as those managing the system. On that point I would like to see a published directory tree.
The cloud choice options are helpful – to some extent but one only sees what is absolutely relevant in the topic page shown.
Blogging needs to be an enjoyable and to some extent spontaneous exercise. As mentioned before, too many restrictions are likely to hamper these expectations and dilute the concept of collaborative citizen involvement.
On another page a few days ago I attempted fruitlessly after several attempts to respond to a post suggesting that moderation was not necessary (see Behind the Blog).
For a number of technical reasons that I would like to openly explain, my post was mistaken for spam whilst I was writing it.
I was also most disturbed to find that the WORDPRESS symbol was active and operating in the background whilst trying to post.
I viewed this as an intrusion whilst on a secure Government site and was not sure what to make of it or cyber risk
I received two quite discourteous messages online whilst attempting to send that were most likely robot messages saying that spam posting behaviour was not taken kindly regarded on this place. The tone of the message was similar to those that I have encountered on other private sites (non Government).
I have not experienced this sort of message previously on either Gov2 or AMIGO sites and do not believe they were generated from those sources. Yet my message appeared to be repeatedly intercepted and in the end failed.
I could find the time or incentive at the time to shorten the message or omit the links provided – which were in fact direct links to material that you had suggested to readers.
My view is that if automated messages are to be provided to readers, they should either simply say “your message awaits moderation” or “there is a technical hitch with your posting, please contact the Moderator by email”
The kind of messages that I received, similar to that experienced on other sites, and the frustration that accompanied it, which I presumed was due to external interference in some way, is liable to put potential citizen stakeholders off.
I was certainly very disconcerted by it, and began to re-think the question of how participation in blogging may impact on the safety and security of my computer. I could think of no justification for an active WORDPRESS screen to be rotating near my menu bar during a dialogue with the AGIMO site.
The issues raised matters if privacy generally since I believed I was on a secure site. I was assured by AGIMO staff that they did not receive these posts and they had not been held back on the server for manual moderation.
I still have the text and would like to post the content since they are extremely pertinent to moderation and citizen engagement principles – which I know that you are passionate about.
If you would like to discuss this further off-line please let me know or write to me directly.
Otherwise, assuming that I have picked the right place for this post and topic and I can post here.
I remain very concerned about two major things:
• cyber security
• spam and possible malware (spy bot) filtering – especially since I have believed that I was on a secure Government platform not longer using WORDPRESS or other such platforms
I am reluctant to dialogue much further till I have upgrade my personal computer security and feel more confident.
My view is that assessment needs to be made of all Cyber security and how security may be improved..
I have been inadvertently responding to spam robots online and am concerned not only for my own security but of others. Since I receive email notification I have responded to messages directing me to the site, often finding out later that I have in fact been responding to a spam robots In most cases these are making quite general statements that do not dictate restriction of relevance, and sometimes I have misjudged what may be acceptable as relevant.
The central for me is one of appropriate levels of engagement – to meet my needs as a citizen. I cannot speak for everyone else, but I am the one here and I have maintained by dialogue consistently and passionately for the past 61 days since I first discovered the Gov2 initiative.
I am assessing at this stage how useful my contributions may be at such an embryonic stage of development of the citizen engagement theme.
Again if you would like to nut this out off-line, happy to do that.
I have personalized this because you are working hard to get this issue right and make some recommendations and also because you did suggest some weeks ago that an offline discussion may be warranted.
Nevertheless the process of open discussion about these issues is important so that others can contribute.
We don’t all have to have the some viewpoint, but we do have to feel free to discuss the matter transparently, even if we sometimes chose the wrong blog page. Sometimes such a choice is subjective.
There is indeed a long way to go.
I am glad you are hanging in there continuing to put on the agenda the importance of citizen engagement. The blog that I had tried to respond to unsuccessfully seemed to suggest that those were unfamiliar with the technicalities and impliedly not “part of the scene” were not the correct target markets.
I disagree.
The target market needs to be left open and identified as citizens express their preferences and needs. The service needs to be responsive to them and their expectations not the other way round.
The fact that I have returned to the site is some evidence of my willingness to continue, but the jury is still out and I am still at a very experimental stage of my 61-day blogging career.
Cheers
Madeleine
Citizen Stakeholder
mkin2711@bigpond.net.au
loading...
Madeleine – thanks for your comments.
We see the AGIMO blog as an important online engagement and collaboration tool. The National Measurement Institute website you mention is actually a message board, which is quite different from a blog. The idea behind a blog is that authors publish blog posts which then start a conversation. A message board on the other hand will usually allow anyone to join and start their own topic.
We welcome people suggesting topics for blog posts either by suggesting them in comments or by sending us an email.
We’re not sure would have caused the WordPress error message you describe. I’ve passed it on to my technical staff anyway to look into. But I’d like to point out that while this blog is hosted on a Department of Finance and Deregulation server, it has been built using WordPress software. You may be interested in our ...
... terms of use and our privacy policy to learn more about what happens to personal information gathered through the blog. The short version is that we take great care to protect the privacy of visitors to the blog and it never goes to WordPress.
You should also look at our moderation page, including some of the comments from my team in response to your previous questions. The blog uses an automated spam filter to block the large amount of online spam which many blogs with open comments will receive. We check the Spam Filter to ensure nothing that should not be caught in it is not – sometimes the filter catches a legitimate post because it contains elements that the filter is set to catch. Also because we post moderate comments sometimes spam will get through the filter, and if you’ve subscribed to receive email notification of comments you may be emailed a copy of that comment. But we will pick these up very quickly and moderate any inappropriate content. If you’re ever unsure about a comment, and particularly any links it includes, you should exercise caution.
Another thing the spam filter may do is automatically stop some comments being submitted if they are too long and include a lot of links – both of these are common elements of spam. It sounds like this is what may have happened to your comment, as my team has found no trace of it in the system, and it should have be caught in the filter if the system thought it was spam – not just disappeared. I’d suggest you think about making your comment shorter and possibly removing some of the links before submitting it again.
Finally, thanks for your suggestion about cyber-security as a topic for future blog posts – we’ll look to cover it if possible.
loading...
Thank you Peter for your thoughtful reply.
What happened the other day that set me back went far beyond mere spam irritations.
I felt almost as if an outside intruder was interfering with my private dialogue with an active WordPress moving symbol near the top of the screen near my menu bar – something I have nether noticed before.
I was under the impression that after Gov2 AGIMO had adopted its own platform and were no longer using WordPress. I thought I had read something to that effect that Mark had posted in response to a comment made by Nicholas Gruen, but can’t quite remember which page it was on.
I have had endless similar problems with the WordPress platform on other sites, with multiple error messages, tactless observations, often inaccurate, disappearances from the screen, etc etc.
I brought some of these to the attention of the agency using the platform, who may ...
... have since changed to another platform.
Whichever platform in use, there is room to ensure that a tactful way of arranging robot messages is adopted, using softer language and providing more useful information than simply repeatedly alerting a potential blogger to misbehaviour.
My repeated attempts to send the message on 31 May in response to Ryan’s comments about moderation – on another page I believe it was Behind the Blog 31 May were thwarted and interrupted with messages like
“Hmmmm… look’s as if you are attempting to send spam. We don’t take very kindly to that sort of behaviour here.” or words to that effect.
I found it annoying and rude, and there was no explanation as to why my message was regarded as spam.
If it was a question of too many links – that is what the message should have said so. Also it would be most useful to have some tips about embedded links, etc. The links I produced in my failed blog were merely intended to reproduce several useful links that Steve D had posted. If the is a limit this should be clear. These small details would make use of the web pages more user-friendly though my concerns go much further to the heart of the deeper purpose of Gov2, which may be something that we are at odds with. I have come to this site with particular goals in mind.
If too long – that was more appropriate.
Having said that I was assured that length alone would not result in moderation.
I don’t mind waiting for a manual moderation but to disallow the message, make an unhelpful comment and then leave the blogger stranded after taking the time to compose a message, include links etc does not seem the right way for a robot moderator to behaviour
A more appropriate phrase would have been “your comment is awaiting moderation” or “technical hitch – please contact the Moderator.”
I will take the time to study the moderation policy again and the privacy policy.
Leaving aside the incident from the other day, it is only since the commencement of by very brief blogging career of 62 days that I have experienced issues that appear to be privacy-related, and may be resulting from the intrusion of spam robots that trigger me to respond to a perfectly legitimate link to an AGIOMO page, where I have more than once responded to a non-human blogger without knowing this.
I am endeavouring to find out how I may better protect my computer’s safety and data security.
I must say, without expecting to see a WordPress symbol in action during a dialogue online or knowing the context this did shake me up and lead me to possibly the wrong conclusions about privacy.
There is an issue with excessive spam at present, much of it emanating from the AGIMO site. I noticed one the other day that I queried from Jacinta – to whom I have responded before.
However, when I clicked on the several links provided they took me to a place that seemed unrelated to AGIMO business.
I have had several robot spam responses to my blogs some of which I have recognized as robots and some not.
Therefore the general issue of spam control and cyber security are issues for the agenda.
I almost walked away because of the perceived risk and in any case will have to see what risk I may have been placed at. I have discussed the matter with my Virus Control service staff also.
I am vigilant about using Malware Cleaners, etc updated each day, and also have an in-use virus scanner in motion whilst I work. One of my privacy settings is not functioning as it should.
For all of these reasons I need to take stock of what is happening, recognizing that being active on the internet does pose certain risks.
I felt it was best to discuss this matter openly rather than by email.
My past experience of WordPress both with moderation policies and technical hitches has not always been positive, so I guess this is a sensitive issue.
I had agonized about whether to do this openly or by email but decided that transparency was a better way to go, and would bring the issues and concerns out in the open.
It is not my intent to offend anyone though.
The experience was unsettling and since I did not know why things were happening a feeling of mistrust resulted.
You have cleared some but not all doubts up.
As to your mention of the NMI blog board, I take your point and see the differences, but I am adamant that for my personal needs I need a greater locus of control.
My ultimate goal is to bring to the attention of government matters that editorial staff cannot possibly devise since they relate to concerns about current policies, practices, legislation, consumer protection and the like.
I had believed that one of the central deeper goals of Gov2 was to gather intelligence about a range of issues that would assist government to deliver better services.
To my way of thinking this cannot be restricted simply to services providing information, but must also take into account what the community may be able to offer.
Perhaps I need to raise this again at a future stage hopefully on the right page against the correct editorial heading.
Again, the issue of relevance is often a subjective one and it is often appropriate for a blog to contain information that crosses over topics and may look as if a tangent was being addressed, when in fact the issues may be distant cousins at worst.
Enough said.
Thank you
Cheers
Madeleine
Citizen Stakeholder.
loading...
Is APS employee engagement via social media (and active participation) a necessary precondition of building a culture of citizen engagement in the APS? Read on
loading...
Comments on this post have been closed during the election period. For more information please see this post about the Caretaker Conventions.
loading...