Why bother?

December 29, 2008

I had started academic research before the Millennium examining the challenges to District Councils in England, this had confirmed my suspicions that a lack of integration, citizen-focus and partnership working were drawbacks, perhaps as a result of the centrally-imposed targets and laterly  the Priority Service Outcomes that were to be detailed following 2001.

Even more contradictory was the lack of consideration for the Community Planning aspect of the Modernising Government agenda. I had discussed a joint piece of work with a regional university around examining citizens’ views of service delivery arrangements in parallel with views on meeting the electronic targets being attempted, but unfortunately pressures to meet the targets didn’t leave enough time to carry out the research further.

Following the target deadline I breathed a sigh of relief and was left attempting to embed the learning of the last few years with providing services in the manner wanted by the citizen. At this point I attempted again to consider the research and contacted a university that had a history of work in local government, digital inclusion and electronic voting, De Montfort, with a research proposal, which was accepted! Unfortunately or fortunately I was then seriously ill but the period of rest and recuperation gave me time to focus on reading and the the reading distracted me from the gravity of my situation.

The reading indicated that very little academic work had still been done on e-government and that studies by the likes of Gartner Research had revealed some quite complex systems for measuring electronic service delivery that were probably only fit for national governments. What was also revealed was a long running debate as to whether government was dealing with customers or citizens, with most of the votes in favour of calling the people a government deals with citizens, this included the Government of Canada supporting the move. Another long running piece of work review ended up around assessing customer satisfaction, which along with measuring the gap between expectation and delivery, has seen a great number of papers published but no great conclusions made.

The recent favourite approach in business is to employ customer engagement measurement rather than customer relationship management and this I conclude is a viable approach, which is that by pushing for and collating feedback from all customers, which, in the context of government, I prefer to call citizens, across all channels, we can try  to improve issues in end-to-end services by correcting them using the feedback.

We still have a long way to go in channel management and  I think citizen engagement management is a move in the right direction, it will also assist in both avoiding digital exclusion issues along with creating quality services, It was also the approach I took when I created the blog http://greatemancipator.com, in order to discuss these issues and promote them amongst practitioners. Academic research tends to be focused on learn-ed conferences, very wordy and expensive journals, so my approach of sticking the outcomes under the nose of anyone interested and asking for their participation seemed a sensible approach.

In the New Year I intend to have another survey along with starting a series of interviews with particularly appropriate individuals. Any volunteers or suggestions?

Season’s greetings and a prosperous new year to everyone!


Wise words of Oz

December 21, 2008

The latest report from Australia has an interesting comparison with the resent Socitm Customer Access Improvment Service one, if its fair to compare the national versus the local, although the Australian states that it compares “satisfaction with e-government across all tiers of government, compared with the more traditional methods of service delivery.” Interestingly, the’ve also expanded so that: “In 2008 the issues explored in the telephone survey were broadened to include the use of intermediaries to contact government.”

Some of the conclusions to the Australian report are:

“Use of e-government (internet and telephone) channels for government contact has continued to grow. Growth is being driven by increased use of the internet rather than the telephone. The internet is now the most common way people last made contact with government. “

“The level of dissatisfaction varies depending on the service delivery channel used: People who contacted government by internet or in person are less likely to be dissatisfied, whereas telephone or mail users are consistently the most likely to be dissatisfied. “

“There continues to be a need for governments to provide the telephone and in-person channels as well as the internet. “

“Government agencies also need to be aware that community expectations for government service delivery are increasingly being shaped by experience with private sector services and that service delivery standards need to be monitored on an ongoing basis. “

None of which I disagree with! The bizarre one being that Australians are most satisfied with their Internet service than telephone, which is a major contrast with the Socitm finding. Perhaps it would be different across all levels of UK government but I somehow don’t think so?


NI14 – update to the guidance

December 19, 2008

A useful post (bk-ni14-dec-2008) on the ESD-Toolkit forum, that some won’t have access to is a two page document from Bob Kamall of the Cabinet Office. It comes in response to issues raised at the Tower 8.5 event in London that I attended. It does provide a little clarity and may calm a few concerned individuals and authorities, giving them time to get their acts together and do it right.

An additional update is to my list of system suppliers for satisfaction and NI14 recording. Cmetrix advise me that their URL is actually www.cmetrix.co.uk. Version four is here: company-table-v4


News from the USA

December 18, 2008

I have to thank Rachel Flagg of the US Federal Web Managers Group for posting their white paper on the W3C e-government Interest Group. It’s a very interesting expression of their wishes for the future from President-elect Obama’s government IT and as such it is promising. It’s only four pages long, which also makes a change from many documents, public and commercial.

If the Cabinet Office think the U.K. has problems, the report states that: “There are approximately 24,000 U.S. Government websites now online (but no one knows the exact number).”

It also states: “Many agencies focus more on technology and website infrastructure than improving content and service delivery. Technology should not drive our business decisions, but rather help us serve the needs of the American people.” To which I couldn’t agree more!

One of the plans is that citizens will: “Provide feedback and ideas and hear what the government will do with them.” – Which is what this blog is all about!

Importantly it wants government to:

“Ensure the public gets the same answer whether they use the web, phone, email, print, or visit in-person. Agencies should provide multiple ways for people to contact them and ensure that information is consistent across all channels. They should be funded to coordinate all types of content targeted to the general public (web, publications, call center, email, common questions, web chat, etc). Agencies should be rewarded for delivering consistent information, both within agencies and across government.”

In the words of parliamentarians, here, here!

In case anyone wonders there is a Public Sector Web Managers Group in the UK, small and beautifully-formed, which has a lot of Paul Canning in it…


Gartner – right again!

December 17, 2008

I appreciated the work that Andrea Di Maio of Gartner did on comparing e-government metrics, which demonstrated their complexity (reported here).

As a proponent of true e-government metrics (rather than targets) I also liked the chart that signfied that 2008 was to be the year when e-government metrics finally made it.

However, this week’s Google gift was the fact that the Gartner gurus are now blogging and have been doing so for a couple of months! The main thing that grabbed my attention was Andrea commenting on the Italian government’s use of emoticons and describing it as an oversimplification. I couldn’t find the link he mentions but I found a working one here

In this instance, I think Andrea has got it right again. Its probably thinking of them as emoticons which does them no justice, they’re a little more than that if properly employed, but he is right that more than a three icon choice is needed to improve services, constructive feedback is needed, if we are to have a parsimonious way of measuring citizen engagement.

This ties in with another gartner-related quote from Maritz, customer experience specialists:

“The technology “fix” of CRM that promised improvements to the customer experience simply didn’t deliver. Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in technology solutions, a 2006 survey found only that five percent of respondents strongly agreed that technology has improved service quality. In fact, Gartner claims that more than half of all new customer-related technology initiatives fail.”

Page 5 – “Delight or Defection; the Pivotal Role of People inside the Customer Experience” December 2006

If they fail we need to be prepared that a lack of co-production in the design, development or review is probably to blame. However, GovMetric and others are picking up the feedback using iconography as a starter and my current list of suppliers in the UK market is here (company-table-v3).


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.