Should You Ignore Citizens In-Person to Engage Others Online?
Should we ignore citizens in-person to engage others online?
Pew's survey revealed that 6 out of 10 Americans turned to government websites for information over the past 12 months. One of the main questions that government at all levels is asking in relation to this trend is: "How do we staff our online engagement?" Should agencies shift resources from in-person, customer-facing functions to handle the new wave of Web-based customer engagement?
Have your say!
Follow-Up Question:
Tags: Government 2.0, Open Government, Pew Government Online, Pew Research Center
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Patrick Quinn on -
I'm wary of either-or constructs that imply only outlier outcomes are possible. Government shouldn't ignore anyone who attempts engagement and respects the rules, whether in-person, over the phone, by mail, online, carrier pigeon, semaphore, whatever.
Should government devote more resources to online engagement? Yes. But an agency that concludes that every dollar spent on online engagement must be a dollar deleted from in-person engagement is in for a very, very long decade, and one that probably won't end well.
-
Permalink Reply by Meagan L. Prior on -
I agree that we cannot cannot completely eshew "live" support format for online media . As strange as it may seem to me, as someone who has has a computer in her life since kindergarten, there are still taxpaying Americans who do use the internet as a tool in their lives and they deserve access!
But, in terms of resource planning, I definitely think there needs to be resource alignment appropriate to the volume of users in each format.
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Salkeld on -
I fully agree with you. From our polling of citizen's preferences and monitoring of patterns of service use (in Hong Kong) we see clear demand for maintaining a diverse range of ways of accessing information and services from government agencies. We are also seeing increased usage of all channels. Ensuring consistent, clear, helpful and equitable responses whether contact is made by phone, mail, over the counter or by web based or e-mail channel is essential. Improving the clarity of information and efficiency of service provision is the key area for management.
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Whitaker on -
Absolutly not, while we may be able to reach more people online niot everyone is connected to the web. The digital devide must be closed first. Additionally, there are many Americans who do not speak English that our websites may not help. (Although the Census does a fantastic job of making thier site in multiple tounges
-
Permalink Reply by Aaron Smith on -
Chris--you're right on that access issues are still relevant today. Mobile is helping to eliminate some of those gaps but many are still not online in any meaningful way, and that's a huge challenge for public agencies.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Heater on -
I agree with Christopher. One of my main concerns with the trend of gov2.0, open government, etc. is that communities that have been historically underrepresented in government (or systematically ignored) are also those who are less likely to have access to broadband at home, to go online, or to have access to a smart phone or other internet enabled cell phone.
I also agree with Christopher on his second point, that most government websites (including my local city and county government) are only available in English. Those that do offer a second language option usually provide Spanish-language only. While it's true that the population of Spanish-speaking Latinos in the U.S. is growing, there are many Latinos that don't speak Spanish as their native language (and may not even identify as Latino, but indigenous). But what about Asian-Pacific, First Nation, and African communities?
I'm certainly an early adopter and I believe in the power of these technologies to promote democratic participation in urban and public health planning, policy, and shared accountability for health and equity. However, we do not currently have the IT infrastructure to make that participation equitable. Thus, before we put all our eggs in one basket, we need to drastically improve how government currently engages undeserved communities and build upon those successes to address the issue of IT access as one of health and social equity.
-Heather
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Krzmarzick on -
Steve Radick has written a nice post (Government Social Media Use - "In Addition To", Not "In Lieu of") that's relevant here.
Excerpt: "...it’s about more than just identifying non-digital means to reach out those without broadband access – it’s about providing a variety of means, both online and off, for everyone...Government use of social media should be integrated with the communications and public affairs departments. Very few internet users rely solely on government social media sites – in fact, those who use government social media sites are more likely to also use other means, both online and off, to communicate with their government as well."
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda Blount on -
I was going to leave an answer, but after I read your post, I realized I would just be restating something that is important; Don't get rid of one for the other. Use the internet as an additional tool, not a substitute for interaction with the public. :-)
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Sperry on
-
The private sector has already started doing this. Airlines charge higher fees if you book on the phone or in person rather than online. Banks have added fees for live teller service. Almost all customer service functions for the private sector have migrated either on line or to recorded telephone support.
Governments at all levels face severe spending limitations over the next several decades and machines are less expensive than people. Yes the level of service declines, which shows up in customer satisfaction surveys, but so does the cost. Given a choice between paying the taxes to support a fully staffed DMV vs renewing licenses and registrations online, most voters choose the online option.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Krzmarzick on
-
Good point, Peter. It is less expensive to automate processes over people.
But I am actually not talking about replacing people with machines. I am talking about shifting limited human resources from the physical to the virtual. Right now, agencies have a hard time justifying the use of full-time employees for the express purpose of online engagement. The best that most government agencies can do is assign a portion of a person's time to online engagement, but that may not be meeting an agencies engagement needs with a group of citizens that prefer to access and interact with government on the Web.
To build on your private sector example, I'd like to see more agencies have a web-based chat feature similar to my direct access to customer service representatives at Bank of America or a CDC Cares on Twitter similar to @ComcastCares. Make sense?
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Peteritas on -
I'm right there with Patrick. You can't or at least shouldn't ignore any type of engagement. While it's easy to say that government should just throw more resources at engagement especially the online aspect, it can't and probably won't happen if it means more $.
What organizations should do is cross train employees to do all platforms of engagement. It's not like the web is that hard and ignore the fact that it's where interaction is trending will only become more problematic as the number of Americans turning to gov websites grows.
On a broader note cross training and employees becoming a "jack of all trades" just makes a business more effective in the long run anyways.
-
Permalink Reply by Aaron Smith on
-
Andy told me this topic would get everyone's juices flowing, and he wasn't kidding! I think Patrick, Peter and Stephen are right on the money here. One big finding from this research was that people expect government to be available when and where they want them to be--that means online, offline, traditional websites, social media, you name it. One the one hand that's a great opportunity, since we are seeing a ton of interest in what government agencies and officials are doing. On the other, it's a huge challenge in terms of staffing and prioritizing resources.
Tools & Resources
© 2012 Created by GovLoop.
