PoliticsWeb2.0: On the Future of Government in the Digital Era

I'm at the Politics Web 2.0 conference at the University of London, Royal Hollaway, and things have just kicked off. As always with my visits to conferences, I will try to blog that which I find interesting (I'm no Ethan Zuckerman) and all my renderings are not verbatim, but rough paraphrasing. Here are my notes on one of the first keynotes, which definitely held my attention.

Helen Margetts, of the Oxford Internet Institute, is presenting on "Digital-era Governance: Peer production, Co-creation and the Future of Government."

This is one area where the possible impact of the internet has been underestimated, especially within the community, she starts off. These technologies could have a huge meaning for government. Her talk starts with Digital Era Governance, a 2006 book, and a more recent OII report on the same topic which I believe can be found here on an intriguing site called Governmentontheweb.org.

Her key argument: We are seeing a shift in government management reform. For many years, the benchmark was "new public management," but this trend is dead or dying, she argues. For the next twenty years, the dominant theme will be around digital technologies.

New Public Management was focused on disaggregation (breaking up large bureacracies into smaller units), competition (more use of markets, outsourcing, deregulation) and incentivization (privatization, public-private partnerships, performance related pay).

Digital Era Governance has three flourishing themes: reintegration (joining up bits of govt, sharing central processes, simplification at the same time), needs-based holism (redesigning processes around the citizen, coproduction, agile govt, client-focused structures), digitalization (open book governance, electronic service delivery, disintermediation, and web 2.0 for govt).

She notes that "we found it very hard to find examples of web 2.0 government" while working on the "Government on the Internet" report for the OII last year. It's not there yet, but she is pointing towards where things are going. E-govt in the UK lags behind e-commerce: half as many people interacting with govt online compared to commerce sites (about 45% compared to 90%, if I saw the slide right).

The quality of government websites has barely improved since 2002 in the UK, very text heavy design, lacking 2.0 features like recommendation assistance. Right now the UK govt has embarked on a high risk "supersite" strategy of centralizing e-govt services on two sites: DirectGov and BusinessLink (while closing down 2500 disparate e-govt sites at the same time). Both have low brand recognition and problems competing with other sources.

Risks for the new model of digital era governance? One is that we'll get a digital super-state, a digitally enabled surveilance society with little input or participation of citizens. The other is that it will cut across new public management and we'll get a very chaotic, lagged and partial implementation of digital era governance.

What kind of management culture is needed for DEG to succeed? She argues that it requires really using transactional information to inform policy making, decoupling information analysis from control, being more oriented around customers, and getting more pro-active and experimental. These all seem like good principles, but I wish she'd give some practical examples to illustrate these points.

The citizen culture DEG implies includes the idea of "isocratic" government--helping citizens do for themselves; co-production, where the public sector provides a frame and citizens help deliver (like eBay enabling a cottage industry of sellers); co-creation of information as well. (Isocratic=personal democracy? I wonder.)

This new model can have positive incomes for social problem solving, she concludes.

Examples of Web 2.0 for government are difficult to find. People in govt have very 1.0 notions, like government shouldn't be cool, it should be boring. "Our site is not aimed at young people," she was told while working on the OII report. Only old-fashioned web uses make sense. Also, they were uncomfortable with the notion of partly-authenticated involvement, or para-state involvement--no integrating with society's networks. Govt is also very text based.

What might it mean, if we overcome these issues?
-rich information, not just text
-deep search to allow people to learn more about their own conditions
-playing back information to users, about what they do and feel
-creating part-finished products

For example, in the health arena. Performance data should be freely available, managers need to be socialized to be customer oriented, giving patients a direct voice (such as Patient Opinion or NHS Choices, where people can post their opinions about hospitals or report problems), creating peer production of information. In sum, patient input would replace controls. About half the comments on PatientOpinion are positive and half negative, she notes. (This reminds me of sites like RateMyTeacher.com, where the same kind of community feedback balance of positive and negative seems to be the norm.)

Or, take job search. The current UK govt site (sorry, I missed the link) is very 1.0--you can't even upload your own resume, while employers can list jobs. On Monster.com, you can build your c.v. (almost needing no writing skills, in fact). In contrast to the govt site, she notes, which doesn't help you do anything, this site takes you thru the process. Zubka.com has helpers on the site that do some of the work to help seekers find jobs.

Risks of not innovating? You ignore young people at your peril. Internet change is being led by them. Planning for text-only communications is a disaster. There's a lot of competition for people's attention--people go where they want to go, if govt is not there, this will lead to a net loss of visibility for govt online. Information dissemination is a policy tool--if it weakens, govt has to turn to more coercive measures, which no one wants.

Fascinating. I want more.