What's the ROI for Citizen Engagement?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Susan Grow on September 20, 2010 at 11:25am

I think there are two issues (at least) in this debate.

First, does reaching more people translate to contributing to accomplishing the desired outcome(s) for the program/process/agency? IF it does, then applying additional resources should be done to the point where there is a breakeven; that is, if additional resources (whether people or money) are applied and the cost of doing so is favorable (a positive return on the resources applied), then it makes sense to allocate resources to increase feedback/engagement. While there is no easy answer to defining the ROI, there are steps that can be taken which assign value to the "benefit" of the outcome the program/process/agency is trying to achieve. Sometimes this comes in the form of reducing cost to accomplish the desired outcome (probably the case with the Census). Sometimes this comes in the form improving the effectiveness of the resources spent, i.e., having more impact (reaching more, reducing occurrence of XXXX disease, decreasing individuals who smoke, etc.) per resource applied. It would be different for different programs/processes/agencies but I believe there are bright people in each agency who could lead the efforts to arrive at performance measurements that would get at the ROI of the people/funds applied so that we could work toward continuous improvement. I believe that it was Peter Drucker who said something along the lines of "what gets measured gets done" (apologies if I don't have it exactly correct, but you see the point). Sound program management, and sound process management and sound agency management demands sound performance measurement and management. Doing so would be supportive of what the Administration is focused on...avoiding waste.

Second, to me there is the issue of getting people involved and paying attention to what it is that they want in the government that is serving them. It is all too easy for people to point the finger at government (in the macro sense of the word) and decry its failings. But, government serves at the will of the people, so, to me, feedback/engagement to leaders/managers of programs/processes/agencies is critical to improving the government. All of us in government want to create/maintain a system of governing that all Americans can be proud of and, IMHO, feedback/engagement is one approach that contributes to doing that.

Susan Grow

Permalink Reply by Mark Hammer on October 5, 2010 at 2:41pm

The ROI is only partly a function of degree of involvement. It is more importantly a function of the degree to which the feedback you receive "points the way".

I dwell in the world of employee survey work, and am privileged to be the person in our organization who reads the thousands of comments we get accompanying the "checkmark data". All too often, the engagement we solicit from people, no matter how heartfelt, goes off in a million different directions. This is problematic in several ways. First, there is labour involved in soliciting and processing it. Wasting that time and effort for no visible benefit doesn't help anybody. Second, people become engaged when they perceive a sincere invitation extended to them. If the feedback you get does not point the way, i.e., is not concretely actionable, then the likelihood of disappointing a lot of people goes way up, and the likelihood of sustaining their engagement, and faith, goes way down. Solicit the sort of engagement you can leverage, and your visible leveraging will maintain their engagement. Basic Thorndike "Law of Effect" stuff ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_effect ).

So what's the wise thing to do in this case?

First make it clear that you intend to get around to everything, but in service of getting things done and getting them done right, you're going to tackle one or two things at a time. Remind them of this overall approach regularly. Pursue that defined agenda in a manner that shows pragmatic focus, but isn't narrow-minded or ignorant of the broader picture. Make it ring true by following up in the fashion promised. Make it ring true by showing results in a timely manner, even if they are only tentative. Do not give citizens a chance to think you've forgotten them, and make sure you don't forget them. Make your initial message ring true by reminding, yet again, that these results are only one step in the desired direction.

Permalink Reply by Tim Bonnemann on October 5, 2010 at 9:50pm

Measuring the ROI of public participation (engaging citizens on decisions that affect them) has traditionally been a challenge, mostly because some of the positive impacts are indirect and often don't materialize in the short-term.

Things that I've seen mentioned when illustrating the pay-off of applying public participation processes in order to achieve more sustainable decisions:

* Savings in time, money and resources (both with regard to the decision making process itself as well as the implementation phase of the project/program under discussion)
* Less risk of project delay, derailment or complete failure
* Reduced risk of litigation
* Less conflict, community friction
* Increase in social capital
* Better morale and increased willingness to cooperate (citizens, government employees, other stakeholders)
* Image gains (e.g. for the convener, decision maker)

Does that make sense?

Permalink Reply by Mark Hammer on October 6, 2010 at 11:34am

The late Larry Terry, in his short-but-inspiring book "Leadership of Public Bureaucracies: The administrator as conservator" (the google link to the e-readable version is way too long, so I'll just say to look it up), makes the distinction between the authorities and authoritativeness of a public bureaucracy/agency of any kind. The authorities are those powers given to it by law. But it is the perceived authoritativeness of the institution that really greases the wheels. The prevailing sense among all possible stakeholders, be they other agencies, legislators, the private sector, or citizens, that THESE are the folks that best understand and oversee domain X, leads to greater buy-in, easier cooperation and compliance with any regulatory powers, and achieving the mission in consistent fashion.

The real strength of Terry's book is in the manner in which it meticulously pays attention to all the things you have to consider, as leader, to foster that perceived authoritativeness. Some of that is knowledge transfer. Some is your HR and HRM strategy. Some is your communication and messaging, plus a whole whack of other things. But a big chunk is the way one approaches interaction with stakeholders. You can't wander too far afield from your mission and still be seen as THE credible source. That's why Terry employs the term "conservator"; staying on course, and true to the agency's mission and identity.

So, citizen engagement CAN increase the perceived authoritativeness of a bureaucracy if it can create the impression that "These folks have not only been on this file for decades, but they have heard ME and MY concerns as well. That makes them real experts. So whatever they propose, I'm gonna give it serious consideration." But again, following Terry's caveats, your perceived authoritativeness depends on your focus. Engaging citizens willy-nilly about seemingly disconnected things in a tangential way will yield very little useful return. Remember, it is not just the act of consultation and civic engagement; it is the manner in which that engagement is able to filter throughout the organization. If the citizen feels you're connected to them, the returns are high. If they feel they are simply attached to you like some barnacle on the hull, don't expect the returns to be that great. Their willingness to grant you that authoritativeness depends on tangible evidence that they were heard, not just given a chance to speak.

Permalink Reply by Carlos V. Roman on October 7, 2010 at 10:42am

This is a great start of a discussion related to citizen engagement and defining the types of engagement that makes sense to engage citizens and ROI.

I will try to contribute some discussion points related to Citizen Request/311. Most recently there has been a push to have citizens report infrastructure related issues through "a system" using 311, 511, iPhones or web-based work order management systems that are integrated or not with municipalities or emergency management systems. There are so many private companies creating systems out there now leveraging all types of technologies, different pricing, different complexities, political hurdles, etc. These creative private organizations are attempting to connect their data forcing municipalities to address citizen reported issues either through a collaborative public/private partnership or simply reporting and logging the problem for future use and analytics for specialized reports, insurance, media, attorney's, public opinion, etc. I think these companies are trying to create new methodologies to generate revenue and sharing those revenues with the various cash strapped agencies. What are your thoughts on this? How are companies making money and how does it benefit municipalities and their decreasing budgets when so many requests are being reported?

Also, I have seen organizations similar to Waste Management and Power Utility companies offer citizen’s points for recycling their goods or monitoring their power usage. These companies offer citizens access to a web-based account to convert those points to exclusive savings coupons or cashing in their points for goods and services. – I think that is an excellent way to engage a citizen or customer. I would image that the ROI on the point system would increase recycling thus allowing the recycling company to offer more converted materials to manufacturers of products. The follow-up newsletters to keep citizens or customers engage could be interesting from a sales and marketing perspective.

Just this past year, I myself leveraged an idea management system (beta) on my domain http://www.citizenrequest.com to capture ideas by subject, allowing people to rate the most important ideas and those ideas with the highest ratings could be addressed by the agency that’s ultimately responsible. This beta system replaced a work order management system we had so that we can seek out the most important ideas/requests that are important to citizens, measure and assign them appropriately. Some information submitted to the idea management system is also connected to our Twitter account @CitizenRequest – This will help us understand Citizen needs from the perspective of a mobile crowd at a major event. The Twitter account twitter.com/citizenrequest allows users of Twitter the ability to immediately report issues with links, pictures, videos, etc. and reports are relatively available to all immediately. - Essentially a 511, 311, Citizen Engagement and Request System Free and Easy to use. I have no idea how I can generate an ROI on this free use system just yet but I do have some ideas on a list just to keep me employed to pay bills. If you have any suggestions, let me know.

So, I really think there is a lot to learn about engaging citizens and figuring out how an initial request can be converted into a ROI. There are so many categories related to citizen engagement and each category would have to be thoroughly investigated to determine the potentials in a public/private ROI engagement that is why I like the rating system myself.

Lastly, I recommend reading some materials at icma.org related to 311 systems and Citizen Engagement; very useful case studies.

Site Links:
Citizen Request
Twitter Citizen Request
ICMA.org 311

Tags:
Citizen, Citizen Request, Citizen Engagement, 311 Works, Online Marketing, Citizen Rewards, Public Works Agency, IMCA

Permalink Reply by Mark Hammer on October 7, 2010 at 3:46pm

Great post, Carlos!

One of the best aspects of it is that you don't treat citizen engagement in monolithic fashion. Rather, there are specific applications where it can serve well. Monitoring of infrastructure is a fabulous example. I would not expect citizens to substitute for food inspectors. And while I would not rely on citizens to do "deep" inspections of infrastructure, certainly they are able to report, without bias, when there is a clearly discernible problem, in between regular inspections. No government can afford to have armies of inspectors checking everything weekly, so why NOT turn to citizens to fill in the gaps?

Again, the notion is "Is there some value that can be added here, by engaging citizens?". That moves it from mere buzzword, to tactic.

Permalink Reply by Carlos V. Roman on October 11, 2010 at 12:10pm

Hi Mark, I thought citizen engagement in general. There are many types of citizen engagement, I would think that maybe you might be interested in offering news and stories that citizens can relate to with the GovLoop offering for example Government Spend/Watch Dog related materials.

There is a huge conference going on tomorrow that might interest you. I have a ticket if you want to attend for tips.


"FedTalks 2010 will bring the most influential government leaders, technology executives and media giants together to discuss “How technology can change government.” The full agenda and other event details can be found at: www.fedtalks.com. "


Carlos V. Roman
PublicWorksAgency.com

Permalink Reply by David Kuehn on October 7, 2010 at 4:21pm

The government has multiple goals, monetary or fiscal efficiency being only one. As a government employee I have a committment to provide an opportunity for all members of the public to engage in a dialogue about policies, programs, and services. True, there are many cases where effective engagement will increase efficiency in the provision of services or reduce legal or political risk. More important is understanding the difference between government and commerce, the public and customers, as it applies to engagement and dialogue.

Permalink Reply by Aaron E. Silvers on October 14, 2010 at 10:37am

I think this is a good debate. I don't take as a truism that Gov has always wanted feedback or engagement from citizens. Needed? Personally, I believe government needs citizen engagement to be relevant to its constituency (read: stakeholders). You just can't solve a lot of problems for stakeholders without them being part of the conversation.

In the private sector, all companies want to reach more people -- to market to them. There are a few big successes in the private sector that include their customers in company changes. Proctor & Gamble, for example, basically socializes product R&D to their customers with a variety of incentives (extrinsic and intrinsic) with a model that looks a lot like the MIT/DARPA Collective Intelligence winners (the Red Balloon contest from last year?). Socializing their R&D not only engages their customer base, but it saves P&G millions of dollars. That's only one example of how engagement works in a tangible ROI sense.

My sector of government is Applied R&D for learning technologies. I can tell you that we're looking at this kind of engagement model very intently. We have very big problems we'd like to go after and we don't have all the people we need to do it in our own ranks. Considering the history of what's come out of our particular program has impacted the enterprise and academic sectors, in terms of training technologies, bringing in a diverse range of stakeholders is, imho, how we're going to be able to get anything big done and adopted.

Permalink Reply by David Foster on October 14, 2010 at 11:28am

Generally speaking, the gov't needs to view ROI in terms of intangible value, as I see it. Credibility, public perception, and the like. If we're talking monetary ROI, as a private company most often would, we would often be upside down. The true value of any gov't provided service is greatly reduced by the total investment to provide the service.

The current administration seems to be struggling with this very problem. The more the talking heads come out and speak, share information, try to tell a "good news" story, the public seems to not believe the story, as factual evidence reveals many contradictions. The ROI appears to be negative when considering the intangible value being sought.

Permalink Reply by GovLoop on October 14, 2010 at 11:35am

Yep. It's an intangible asset - trust in government.

For direct citizen service like DMV payments, property taxes, etc - there can be a direct line in ROI of costs

Permalink Reply by Carlos V. Roman on October 14, 2010 at 12:04pm

Yes, intangible asset. Trust in government would be good but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

I think if you allow citizens the ability to report, discuss openly and vote what needed to be improved upon, that would be a fair solution; at least most of the people will have their input... like elections.
As long as the communication is transparent and people managing the information are accountable and responsible. From a monetary standpoint, I think citizen contributions to the engagement should be awarded in many ways like points, badges or certificates of appreciation. Organizations contributing to the engagement should have the ability to receive points, badges and certificates as well and opportunities for marketing. The individual or company that provides this type of engagement would have to figure out the potential branched revenue model and ROI. This is not an easy task but do-able...

For GovLoop citizen engagement, I would like to see Gov News for Citizens, Watch Dogs Articles and Alerts, Transparency Updates, Dashboard Analytics for Public Spending and possibly integration of other news like Huffington Post, CNN or FoxNews (a balanced approach to news).

Regards,

Carlos V. Roman
PublicWorksAgency.com
CitizenRequest.com

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page