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.

The United Kingdom Civil Service has come out with its Guidance on Participation Online, and the document is a beauty to behold. Short, simple, and, best of all, a document that encourages action and risk-taking.

Running the text through Wordle reveals that the writers have put the emphasis on the right concepts: representative, disclose, being aware, online participation - all enabling terms.

Peter Spaghetti, Dave and Emma (and Jeremy)have all commented on the guidelines ahead of me, but I don’t hold that against them.

Technorati Tags: Civil Servant Guidelines for Online Participation, United Kingdom, Govt 2.0

Over at our Department of Defense, they’ve been flipping around a powerpoint called “Killing with Keyboards” - which makes a very strong point that employees in defense areas can undermine national security simply by being too careless with their work documents and divulging too much about themselves in online communities - even communities ostensibly dedicated to professional development.

The powerpoint was prepared by a private sector contractor, and has been distributed to other groups as well.

The message, driven home with blunt force, is that your frequent but minor indiscretions online can accumulate into quite a database about your personal preferences (food, team - simple stuff like that), which can then be exploited by enemy agents and put your fellow citizens at risk.

Which is why it’s slightly disturbing that the powerpoint’s metadata itself provides enough information that, with a few Google searches, we can pinpoint the author, a gentleman who works here.

At what appears to be the Boeing Electronic Systems and Missile Defense Research and Technology Center.

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)

Do you want an informative hour long discussion on the details of launching a government blog? Joe Thornley of ProPr and ThornleyFallis was kind enough to record the Third Tuesday session last month, where I was the A in a lengthy Q &A session on the steps and strategy needed to launch a social media campaign for a government organization. Ian Ketcheson was the moderator that led me down the garden path.

I find you always sound more important if someone else filters your words and extracts the soundbites, as Joe did:

“I’d been spending four years slamming my head against a wall bringing up social media and building some sort of conversation within a much larger department. And I think everyone who’s worked in a bureaucracy realizes at some point or another that there are institutional barriers to social media - fairly strong ones. But what I realized coming into a smaller organization like the Privacy Commissioner … if you enter an organization that has at least one or two people who recognize the benefits of social media, if you build a strong business case … something that drives along a business case model that identifies risk and how you will mitigate risk, you can convince … people to try something new…”

If you every had an urge to hear my voice, Joe has also posted an mp3  of a substantial part of the discussion.

As a communicator, I always find management retreats are a field of flowers - and landmines.

Flowers: there is never a better opportunity to take measure of the important performance markers for your organization:

A management retreat also offers the opportunity to:

Landmines: if you don’t remain alert and participate throughout the management retreat, you can end up bearing a heavy burden:

In addition, most communicators spend their every day with their head buried in operational detail: we have little time to look at the larger management priorities.

This can be a tremendous risk for communications manager, especially at a management retreat. You have to arrive prepared, and that means being aware of:

I can understand why some government agencies feel they need to centralize control of “messaging” - particularly if the agency is responsible for wide-ranging issues or fundamental policies, like economic development, unemployment insurance, or fiscal policy.

But a policy of centralization tends to backfire when applied to an organization made up of scientists and researchers. Any attempt to truly restrict communication, whether by limiting the number of spokespeople on  truly technical matters or by boiling messaging down until only a wisp of information remains, will inevitably result in dis-satisfaction among the technical corps.

It’s also reflective of a poor understanding of the way scientists and researchers work. They may spend a lot of time in the lab or at a research station, but they also depend upon a web of publications, seminars, academic conferences and professional consultation to further their work and their careers. Increasingly, universities, businesses and governments are funding multi-disciplinary research projects. By their very nature, these projects encourage cooperation and information sharing.

Communicators earn their bread and butter by working with technically-minded folk to identify the innovative or ground-breaking nature of their work, then develop a theme or storyline appealing to the public and the media. Often, the scientists and researchers have done most of this work.

Which makes the centralization effort by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration unusual. Apparently, the NHTSA Administrator is the principal spokesperson for the agency.

“…I found this out recently when I asked to talk to an N.H.T.S.A. researcher about some technical safety issues in which he had a great deal of expertise. Agency officials told me I could talk to the expert on a background basis, but if I wanted to use any information or quotes from him, that would have to be worked out later with a N.H.T.S.A. official.”

“…Ms. Nason [the Administrator] felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a “central spokesperson” and “we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record,” David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me. He also insisted, after our telephone conversation, that he did not want to be quoted and had intended to speak only on background. (My notes show no such request.)” (NYTimes Wheels blog) 

This sort of policy doesn’t encourage fealty and silence. Just the opposite: scientists and researchers still have to do their work. They just stop telling communications staff and headquarters officials what they’re doing. Want evidence? Try this comment posted in response to the blog post cited above:

“… I’m a mid-level (non-management) lifer at a government agency that sometimes makes the news. I have talked to reporters before and will continue to do so. When I do so I inform my boss and the public affairs people after the fact. (They’re friends, and they deserve not to be blindsided.) I get a good paycheck and in return surrender 40+ hours of my time each week, but they can’t buy my silence … — Posted by Bureaucrat”

I’ve been doing some thinking about data collection and personal privacy lately, and it’s struck me that a lot of early adopters, online cognoscenti and bandwagoners are rushing headlong into a world framed by the overarching principles of transparency, honesty and personal interaction - without thinking of about how much of their personal information they are leaving exposed.

This isn’t a new development. Without understanding something of how customer relationship marketing, market segmentation and direct marketing works, the average person really doesn’t understand how their personal information swirls in currents and eddies of databases, mail lists, dodgy piles of index cards and thumb keys.

I’ll give you an example: at the right is a set of keys. Attached are the key tags for four loyalty programs: Albertson’s grocery, GNC vitamin shop, Ace Hardware and some Canadian chain. To the key’s owners, those tags are worth 5% off purchases.

To someone with access to one or all those databases, those tags represent a considerable amount of detail about the key owner’s shopping habits, product preferences, fondness for discounts or particular brand names, and even their travelling habits.

With that information, marketers and political strategists can micro-market to increasingly targeted segments of the population - and your neighbourhood. And your group of friends. And members of your family.

But we’re only discussing information consciously handed over to marketers and consumer companies in exchange for quantifiable benefits: I’ll let you track my shopping patterns in exchange for a discount on bulk purchases of panty liners; I’ll sign up for your program so I receive advance emails about Memorial Day sales.

What about the personal information you leave hanging, for all to see, in your online profiles?

• your birthday
• your home address
• your kid’s names
• your vacation schedule

Would you post a picture of your driver’s licence? Considered as individual data points, this information does not seem like much. In total, you are giving out far more information for free - and to everyone - than you would agree to let a marketer collect.

I’ve already posted about the dangers of mistaken or outright stolen identity online. But don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that social media is evil.

Instead, we all need to get into the habit of maintaining an inventory of our online identity. Nothing complicated, just a personal awareness of how much information you’ve revealed, and to who.

Even on social networks that are password protected and offer tools to restrict access to your profile information, you may end up “friending” people who you barely know. And that increases the risk.
After all, you need to be aware whether some hacker knows more about you than your best friend.

And you better not lose that keychain.

*crossposted from canuckflack.com

The Power of Information report is in. I’m slowly reading through it, but I’ll give you some highlights from the fifteen recommendations for action by the British Government:

• coordinate the development of experimental partnerships between major departments and user-generated sites in key policy areas, including parenting advice, services for young people, and healthcare.
• departments should be strongly advised to consult the operators and users of pre-existing user-generated sites before they build their own versions.
• research the scale and role of user-generated websites in their areas, with a view to either terminating government services that are no longer required, or modifying them to complement citizen-led endeavours.
• examine the introduction of non-commercial re-use licences.
• by autumn 2007 the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics and Government Communications teams should together clarify how civil servants should respond to citizens seeking government advice and guidance online.

The full document is available at the Cabinet Office site.

As more and more civil servants, government employees and politicians dip their toes in the rolling sea we like to call social media*, they are separating into three schools of behaviour:

• advocates for social media
• advocates for increased transparency in government
• advocates for advances in policy and programs

It’s that last group that can find themselves in real trouble. The first two are just blowing smoke and talking sweetness, in most citizen’s eyes.

Take the example of Owen Barder, currently the Director of the Global Development Effectiveness Department at the U.K. Department for International Development.

His personal blog is down after a right slagging in the Daily Mail. The Mail excerpted from his blog posts, concentrating in particular on an entry that apparently drew ties between Tony Blair, George Bush and Adolph Hitler. (commenters on LGNewMedia point out that his post was actually quoting from a piece published in the Guardian)

Now, Barder is not a neophyte to communications. He’s a senior official in the British government, and among previous positions was Director of Information, Communications and Knowledge at the same Department.

I haven’t been able to read his blog, so I won’t make any assumptions about its content or his judgment. Several commenters note that the Mail may have been motivated, in part, by Barder’s past work for Labour PM Tony Blair.

But civil servants have to be aware that their online musings may be exposed to much greater criticism than normally expected online. The freewheeling and bare chested mannerisms promoted by most pioneer bloggers are inconceivable for government bloggers: they will targeted for greater scrutiny and will be allowed less room for error.

Government blogs, podcasts, and other social media experiments will likely be researched to death for evidence of:

• political bias
• poor theoretical judgment
• poor political judgment
• selective use of information
• levity and lack of timbre befitting a civil servant
• lack of empathy for the common man

As Che Tibby points out, a “hot-heated morning with too much coffee can, and will, become a permanent record. If you’re a public servant who wants to blog, try to avoid typing anything at all around heated events in the political cycle.”

Most civil servants are used to tempering how they express their actual opinions when speaking in the pub, at conferences and around crazy Aunt Mae the libertarian. Maybe we need to remember that caution when working online.

At the very least, civil servants have to remember to provide context, clearly identify sources and ring fence their arguments. Oh - and remember the role civil servants always play in relation to their political leaders.

*(wow, really beat that metaphor to death, didn’t I?)