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.

It sort of looks like an abstract McGruff the Crime dog, represented as a member of the British Civil Service. And this was a report comissionned and published by the Government of Canada!

This month, the Deputy Secretary to Cabinet at the Canadian Privy Council Office (org chart) wrote a short opinion column on the renewal of the communications functional community for Canadian Government Executive.

“… The relatively recent influx of new recruits has brought new ideas and vitality. The presence of more Generation X and Y communicators will facilitate the use of new technologies to engage the Canadian population. As we move to realizing some of the potential of Web 2.0 and the promise of more truly collaborative and open government, the need for technological virtuosity will only grow. At the same time, however, having a generally younger workforce has implications on institutional memory and continuity. This clearly speaks to a need within the community to develop effective knowledge transfer tools as well as robust development mechanisms such as mentoring …”

“… Of course, crossing professional boundaries needs to be broadly encouraged. Effective long-term renewal demands that greater effort be made to “ventilate” the public service and to break out of the bubble within which the institution occasionally functions. In many respects, the most important thing that communicators can bring to the table is a better understanding of, and connection with, Canadians.

At its heart, effective communications is about appreciating how ideas will play in the “real world.” Communicators need to be plugged into the interests and priorities of stakeholders, organizations and the public at large. There is a clear need for greater cross-pollination of ideas that can only be achieved through more effective engagement and mobility between sectors. Communicators must be at the forefront of driving change in this area …”

If you’re in the IS community in the Canadian Public Service, you should read this.

Commissioner Marleau followed up on his comments during a longer discussion with Wells, which Wells blogged this weekend.

The Information Commissioner, like my boss, is an independent Agent of the Parliament of Canada.

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

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

All the details are up in the air, but I’m imaging a very flexible and co-operative event, where we can get together to discuss personal initiatives in social media and bang heads about how to move innovative technology and tactics further within the context of working for the Government of Canada.

If you can, respond in the comments, so others in town will get an idea of the demand for this sort of self-organized social media event, I would appreciate it.

Otherwise, email me at colin@canuckflack.com.

Hopefully, we can generate as much energy as the UK version.

After all, a department will edit documents on its own network without leaving editing tracks.

But if a department feels it is making legitimate and independent changes to an erroneous Wikipedia entry, should it make the changes under an official identity?

Being a cautious species, many are experimenting behind the firewall, with Deputy Ministers setting up blogs to speak with their employees, and departments using wikis to revitalize their intranet.

Over the next year or so, this trend will accelerate - and managers will find themselves facing a staffing crunch.

That’s right. I think we all agree that social media demands a flexible skil lset, capable of interpreting organizational priorities, incorporating communications goals and acting as a strategic advisor on engagement and consultation

Social media strategists also need to have a sense of experimentation and an appetite for risk - in tools, tactics and strategy.

That’s not a combination easily found in the public service.

I can see a point - not too far in the future - when communications branches will be identifying the social media strategist as a valuable and high profile position in the branch.

It will be a transitional appointment, where young and upcoming strategists will be given the opportunity to bridge the world of traditional policy development and innovative communications.

It will be a recruiting tool and a staff retention strategy - to prevent the bleeding of otherwise interesting and stimulating staff in the communications branch.

These strategists will have to navigate the world of information technology, strategic communications planning and reassuring senior management - a skill set that will prepare them well for larger horizontal files and wide-ranging projects.

As we begin to see concrete and measurable results from government experiments in social media, these multi-faceted communications strategists will find more doors open to them at more senior levels of the bureaucracy.

The question is, will they want to move on?

I admire the pictures for their composition, but despise them for the effort they imply: the bureaucrats are shown posed behind their desks, stiff backed and waiting for a request to be opposed or denied.

There may be signs of modernity, like a solar calculator or a large bakelite phone, but the overwhelming imagery is of large bulky furniture, a traditionally built space in some form of disrepair, and a process that is largely dictated by paper documents and personal relationships.

That may be reality, but I don’t have to like it.