Would you like some insight into how the general public perceives government efforts to jump on the Web 2.0 bandwagon? Thanks to regulations requiring the release of public opinion research reports no more than 6 months after their commissioning, we all have access to New Technologies and Government of Canada Communications, an analysis of focus groups conducted across Canada in September 2007.

This research, sponsored by a number of Government of Canada departments, asked three separate strata of Canadian society (Web 2.0 users, occasional internet users, and non-users) a series of questions about their impressions of government activities online and what they would think of government efforts to launch “Web 2.0″ technologies.

The results were blunt, if only qualitative.

“… the [Government of Canada] 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, where such applications can more effectively address the objectives than pre-existing methods.”

… At present, Web 2.0 users have no expectations regarding the adoption of such applications by the Government of Canada (in other words, most have never thought about this).

Despite this lack of expectations, there was a near consensus among Web 2.0 users (as well as among members of the other two audiences) that the government should use these new applications to communicate with and provide service to Canadians …

When participants were shown specific examples of how these applications are being used by different governments, … many said they were impressed by the range of applications available. Positive reactions also typically included impressions that these applications make government less remote, allow for greater citizens influence over government, and allow government to reach different cross-sections of the population …”

The public opinion research specialists concluded, from these comments, that Canadians could see their government using Web 2.0 tools to seek out opinion and feedback on evolving policy and emerging issues.

That means we’re back to the old dilemma about consultations: how much capacity exists to really listen to a large number of concerned citizens? How can their contributions be reflected equitably in the final product? Can we handle a truly participatory process when it is accelerated by Web 2.0 technology? (’cause we can’t really handle it now!)

This natural skepticism emerges in the analysis:

“… Feedback tended to be general and focused on a range of issues, including: allowing citizens to choose or help choose topics of discussion, ensuring that consultations are well advertised and easy to locate, providing advance information on topics, ensuring that participation is easy, ensuring that high-level public servants or politicians are involved, providing information on next steps/follow-up to consultations, and ensuring that the consultations are meaningful and will result in concrete outcomes.

In addition to being in favour of using these applications for consultations, most Internet users said they themselves would participate if it was on a topic that interested them.

Doubt expressed about the GC’s use of the applications for public consultations focused squarely on perceptions that they would not result in meaningful outcomes …”

Participants also made it clear that their government would have to continue to work through more traditional channels of communication - a decision I would consider assumed by most government communicators, but often lost in the enthusiasm to demonstrate that we, the stodgy bureaucrats, are on to the new new thing.

There were other interesting/startling observations in the research (all government blogs, no matter what their subject, should be found on one common site? Citizens don’t hold much confidence in blogs, which can be seen as platforms for opinion, not fact?), and the document provides a detailed analysis of the research.

And the experimenting by government institutions gets either more creative, or simply strange.

A user called UKParliament has shown up on Twitter, sending tweets several times a day about the business of the House and other Parliamentary housekeeping.

The user/operator/junior communications clerk was kind enough to reciprocate my following, but I honestly don’t expect the disembodied voice of the House to reply back to my daily commuter commentary on Twitter.

Technorati Tags: twitter, United Kingdom, Parliament

Here in Canada, we’re undergoing a routine review of all our major government-wide administrative policies - and that includes the Government Communications Policy.

Earlier this week, the Auditor General of Canada was appearing before a Standing Committee of Parliament, speaking to MPs about her department’s spending plans for the upcoming year.

An opposition Member of Parliament, David Christopherson, asked the Auditor General about the rumoured revisions to the Communications Policy. As one news report characterized their exchange:

“… [The Auditor General] … revealed this week that the government is drafting a new policy that could require departments to vet their communications plans through the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic wing of the Prime Minister’s Office.

“There’s a draft communication policy going around that would have all communication strategies, all communications, everything, go through Privy Council Office,” Fraser told a Commons committee on Tuesday. “Well, I can tell you there is no way that my press releases about my report are going to go to Privy Council Office or our communications strategies are going to be vetted by Privy Council Office.”…” (Toronto Star)

You see, the Auditor General is an Officer of Parliament - her and five other Officers* are considered independent of the Government of the day.

The exchange got a little news coverage.

All thanks to the liveblogging of Macleans journalist Kady O’Malley.

I mean, who liveblogs parliamentary committee meetings? A lot of them?

Despite the attention paid to the exchange, it’s important to note a separate paragraph from the Toronto Star piece cited above:

“… Treasury Board President Vic Toews wrote the six officers of Parliament in March saying he wants to “preserve and strengthen” their independence. “I fully accept that due to the unique statutory mandates of agents of Parliament, not all Treasury Board instruments can be applied to these offices in exactly the same manner as they would to other government institutions,” he wrote…”

*and I happen to work at one of those Offices, in the interest of full disclosure. At the moment, our communications materials do not go to PCO for review or approval. And we don’t expect that to change in the future.

and I’m jealous of all the other Brits, heading off to their facilitation get-togethers, their community building projects and their semi-secretive social media initiatives for government.

Look at this recent twitter from Simon:

@Canuckflack Wait til you see next week. We’re going mashup crazy.

Meanwhile, he’s also pointing to experiments like the twittering of the next diplomatic mission to Washington. This from the official statement from 10 Downing Street:

“…Gordon Brown will visit the US next week, his second trip to the country as Prime Minister.

The Downing Street website will run a live microsite including images, rolling updates and a Twitter feed throughout the PM’s stay from 16 - 19 April. Log on from Wednesday to follow the PM’s activities.

Mr Brown is expected to visit Boston, the United Nations in New York and meet President Bush at the White House in Washington. His meetings will focus on the global economy and other areas of mutual bilateral interest.

Gordon Brown’s first trip to the US as PM saw him travel to Camp David in July last year.

Seeing as I AM a social media nerd, or a real politics nerd, I would ask:

• does this mean there’s a communications assistant responsible for the twitter feed?
• what sort of vetting process is there for twitter messages? On the fly?
• is the content going to concentrate on policy announcements? Any chance of side remarks about the entrees at the state dinner? Snide remarks about the little kids handing over flowers at events?
• what sort of twitter app are they going to use? Is it on a BlackBerry, Treo or other PDA?

Technorati Tags: government communications, United Kingdom, Gordon Brown, twitter, public diplomacy

Had an interesting meeting with a fellow Director of Communications yesterday - but this guy was from the Government of New Zealand. It’s always useful to compare how the communications function is managed in sister parliamentary systems - and often somewhat startling that the function can evolve in very different ways.

Midway through our conversation, I noticed that his Moleskine notebook had an embossed insignia on the back. Turns out Air New Zealand gives out custom notebooks to frequent fliers of a sort.

Sniff.

Michael Bryant, Ontario’s Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, has posted a series of 5 videos on a new YouTube channel, all dealing with a contentious aboriginal land claim in Caledonia, Ontario.

Over the past twenty years (or so), there have been several dramatic and sometimes violent confrontations over aboriginal land claims in Quebec and Ontario.

These videos seem to be an attempt to demonstrate the Government of Ontario’s continuing engagement in the dispute in Caledonia - which has been ongoing for two years.

While the medium encourages unrehearsed and somewhat rough production values, these videos may just be too informal for such a serious subject.

They are shot in a casual and unscripted style, with WAY TOO MANY references to the Tim Horton’s donut chain. In fact, it has become trite for politicians to use the local Tim Horton’s as the universal “man on the street” interview booth.

That said, the opposition parties’ criticism of the tactic seems blind to the opportunities presented by new media channels like YouTube and other video sharing sites.

“… “It shows complete lack of leadership on the part of [Ontario’s] McGuinty government,” said [New Democratic Party leader] Mr. Hampton, adding Mr. Bryant’s video campaign just makes a joke out of a serious situation.

“YouTube is not the place to communicate either policy or to communicate government messages. But this seems to be the kind of three-ring circus that Dalton McGuinty is running now.” (Canadian Press)

The Ottawa Citizen runs a weekly column purporting to shed some insight into the lives of senior civil servants and their staff. Problem is, their EX feature is often self-indulgent and takes 700 words to work through a 20 word problem. (Boss doesn’t know how to use computers. Boss doesn’t recognize work of underlings. Boss would be lost without executive assistant)

Which is why Civil Serf, a relatively new blog from an anonymous British civil servant, is so appealing.

Unfortunately, that anonymous civil servant seems to be dealing with frustration, irritation and maybe anger issues. This is a normal state for most civil servants nowadays, but does not bode well for the longevity of the blog.

Civil servants bring an unappreciated skill to blogging: they are well used to writing briefing notes and explanatory material that couch difficult ideas and conflicting opinions in mealy-mouthed words and conditional clauses.

It’s an unusual power usually left underutilized.

How do you balance the need to have a common set of messages and priorities across government - with the urge that frequently overwhelms scientists and researchers to speak frankly about their work and its implications?

From a manager’s point of view, you could lean towards imposing discipline in messaging and some limited form of central review and approval.

But then you’d be getting the same reactions facing managers in a Canadian government department:

“…Until now, Environment Canada has been one of the most open and accessible departments in the federal government, which the executive committee says is a problem that needs to be remedied.

…  The reality, say insiders, is the policy is blocking communication and infuriating scientists. Researchers have been told to refer all media queries to the government. The media office then asks reporters to submit their questions in writing. Sources say researchers are then asked to respond in writing to the media office, which then sends the answers to senior management for approval. If a researcher is eventually cleared to do an interview, he or she is instructed to stick to the ‘approved lines.’

…”They can’t even now comment on why a storm hit the area without going through head office,” says {University of Victoria climatologist] Mr. Weaver, whose been fielding calls from frustrated media organizations who can no longer get through to federal expert scientists who once spoke freely about their fields of work, be it atmospheric winds affecting airliners or disease outbreaks at bird colonies.” (Ottawa Citizen)

A hopeful, but pragmatic, hope for increased experimentation in outreach and consultation by government institutions in the recent Democracy Journal:

“…By being explicitly experimental with new forms of digital institution-building, we have an opportunity to increase the legitimacy of governmental decisions. The tools–increasingly cheap, sometimes free–will not replace the professionals. Technology will not, by itself, make complex regulatory problems any more tractable, or eliminate partisan disputes about values. What this next generation of civic software can do, however, is introduce better information by enabling the expert public to contribute targeted information. In doing so, it can make possible practices of governance that are, at once, more expert and more democratic…”

I’ve a wholly uninformed opinion about the consultation process here in Ottawa - which frequently depends upon publication in the Canada Gazette and distribution to a specialized but limited group of experts and interested parties.

How do you widen the participation in a consultative process while ensuring a level of informed debate and positive contribution?

After all, the real hurdle to comprehensive and open consultation is the effort it demands from the responsible parties in government: a policy analyst has to open, read, and render a judgment on all the contributions.

I’ve mentioned James Watson’s new book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science, elsewhere, but I thought this passage would appeal to public sector types:

“… Watson notes that many intellectual conflicts in science play themselves out as contests over the control of physical space. Salaries are important, but space is even more important, since it’s a publicly visible sign of your standing and power: “Always buy adjacent property that comes up for sale”; “Be prepared to resign over inadequate space”; “In the Darwinian world of an academic department, if you don’t create such crises, limited resources will surely go to gutsier colleagues.” (Harvard Magazine)

I’m not sure if the battle for space is really the fiercest in the bureaucratic jungle:  budget cuts, tax cuts and increasing emphasis on management efficiency have moved a lot of the hard work to the accountant’s shanty.

Still,  everyone reporting to a supervisor will tell you that space and appearances matter to some executives.