Comments on: The Four Facets of Web 2.0 in Government

By: Governments on Facebook Are Off The Records

Governments on Facebook Are Off The Records — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 07:00:14 +0000

[...] not change the fact that just being present as a government organization on a social media site does not make that presence relevant or compelling for the intended target audience. But at least it helps understand where to effectively engage citizens and where not to. [...]

By: Twitter Guidelines for British Government: Where Are Employees?

Twitter Guidelines for British Government: Where Are Employees? — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:47:06 +0000

[...] a previous post I discussed about the difference between the institutional presence and the individual presence on [...]

By: Faking Government Agencies on Facebook

Faking Government Agencies on Facebook — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:34:19 +0000

[...] media to make sure their logo is not used without their consent? Should they just avoid any “institutional presence” in mainstream social media, so that if the logo pops up, they can disclaim that [...]

By: pisola - links for 09-06-06

pisola - links for 09-06-06 — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:53:21 +0000

[...] The Four Facets of Web 2.0 in Government – ” 1. Internal (intra or inter-government) collaboration. 2. Institutional presence on external social networks. 3. Open government data. 4. Employees on external social networks” [...]

By: Andrea Di Maio

Andrea Di Maio — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:34:50 +0000

Thanks Richard, it is always great to have supporters.
As I said in previous replies, both Stephan and Gwynne offer useful perspectives and gave me a chance to more clearly articulate some of my positions.
I’d also like to pick on another comment, highlighting that my four facets “miss citizen participation completely”. I do not think I missed it. In fact participation can happen either through facet number 2 (Institutional presence on external social networks) or facet number 4 (Employees on external social networks).
What is missing – and I’m pretty sure some readers noticed that – is a facet where governments gather participation and achieve engagement by enhancing their existing web sites or creating new ones. Indeed this has been – and still is – pursued by some under the banner of “e-participation” (something that is quite popular on this side of the pond). The reason why I did not mention it is that it can either be seen as a particular instance of facet 2 (a government has such a compelling “social” proposition that people will come to whichever channel it established for participation) or – most likely – it is irrelevant.
When Gartner was saying in 2000 that government portals for service delivery would have enjoyed a modest success – if any, many clients (and their suppliers) felt outraged that we dared challenge the common wisdom. The same applies here: we do not believe that sustainable citizen participation will take place on government-owned or controlled channels.

By: Richard Filing

Richard Filing — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:08:01 +0000

I feel obliged to respond to the two previous commentators who suggested a lack of real analysis.

Andrea is correctly regarded as an authority on the subject of the relationship between government and the participative web. Suggest that you read some of his recent reports including The Future of Government is No Government (ID Number: G00167368).

By: Links for 2009-05-30 [del.icio.us] | Trinitude Network

Links for 2009-05-30 [del.icio.us] | Trinitude Network — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 05:55:40 +0000

[...] The Four Facets of Web 2.0 in Government 4 Facets of Web 2.0 in Government: http://bit.ly/E28tD Unfortunately, this list missed citizen participation completely. #gov20 [from http://twitter.com/dhinchcliffe/statuses/1976367291 [...]

By: Andrea Di Maio

Andrea Di Maio — Sun, 31 May 2009 05:32:18 +0000

Stephen, thanks for your comments. One of the reasons why organizations like ours and our competitors blog is to reach out to the research community and indeed improve our research.
I do agree with you and Gwynne that there are many good examples of use of Web 2.0 in federal, state and local agencies, nor do I believe I ever said otherwise. In case you are a Gartner client, you may wish to look at a couple of research notes that you may find of some interest: “Web 2.0 Opportunities Abound in Most Government Domains” (see http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=816013) and “How Governments Can Innovate and Cut Costs at the Same Time” (see http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=828513).
It seems that both you and Gwynne don’t like my observations on agencies having few “fans” on Facebook. I’m sure there are counterexamples, but the ones I’ve been tracking show a very modest growth and little sign of a vibrant community.
But do not forget this is only one of the four facets, and IMHO the least promising one. I am friend with civil servants in different countries and I am witnessing how some of them leverage these tools very well. This goes back to my point about the fourth facet (the use of Web 2.0 by individual employees) being the most important one.
I suspect we are in violent agreement on this but – as it happens sometimes – the skeptical or cynical tone of parts of our analysis make some people miss the bottom line. For the very reason you mention – i.e. change in the public sector is slow – we need to alert our clients as early as possible about whether they are taking a dead end, in order for them to focus their energy and limited resources on efforts that can deliver “sustainable value”. Sustainable value means long-lasting change and not the a-ha effect and the burst of enthusiasm of some pilots that make the news one day to then die by lack of oxygen and interest after a while (or stay on life support just to be able to tick the “Web 2.0″ box).
This triggers another thought: we should do (indeed) deeper analysis on how to evaluate success in this area, as we just skimmed the surface last year in “What Is the Public Value and Risk of Web 2.0?” (http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=772623).
Thanks again for sharing your views, and please keep them coming, maybe with factual references to examples that you deem as being a “sustainable success”. Both I and other readers of this blog will be very interested.

By: David Kraljic

David Kraljic — Sun, 31 May 2009 04:54:50 +0000

I am a complete new comer to this topic. I do not work for or around government. The only connection I have is that I am a citizen. And that a few friends created a site called http://www.votetocracy.com

The intro is to frame my general feeling about this and many other posts I read regarding gov 2.0. That feeling is that while it is a welcomed effort that our government is taking steps towards an open government, I do not believe that open government will happen as a result of these efforts. Rather – it will happen as a result of citizen involvement through tools developed by citizen businesses to have their voices heard.

The point you make: “The whole point here is to make as much public information as possible available to people and businesses, in order for them to leverage that information and create value.” In my opinion, this is the key. Citizens must take the data they are being provided and make use of it.

http://www.votetocracy.com

By: Stephen Collins

Stephen Collins — Sat, 30 May 2009 22:31:27 +0000

Andrea, I tend to agree with Gwynne. Your analysis lacks depth and a connection to the real experience and activity that is taking place in the public sector in the US, my country, Australia and others.

There are very many efforts that are bringing Western governments closer to the ideal of open government. The issue more often than not is the reticence to discuss and share through the risk averse nature of the public sector. This leads to an inability to connect efforts up. Siloed workplaces are still the norm in public sector agencies.

Like many other former public servants who now work with government on these issues, I see people striving daily to try to be more open and less “fan attracting”.

Change, especially in the public sector, is slow. Much slower than I would like, and probably you too. What we need to be doing is encouraging, opening channels, getting people to talk and analysing the positives in their work really hard to empower other individuals and agencies to take their own steps in the right direction.

I’m finding more and more that the analysis done by your organisation and your competitors like Forrester lacks connection to the subject matter and depth of real analysis. Which is a shame, because I know several people from your organisation and they are smart.