October 29, 2010 at 1:07 am #113867
Attia NasarParticipantA recent poll from GWU looks at Digital Media Patterns and found that gov 2.0 efforts connect with only about one-fifth of voters with video and 13% with social media.“The poll suggest that similar to our experience with the developing of websites, the adoption of Web 2.0 remains a slower process than advocates of the adoption might have hoped, but it would appear that maturation of the voting populace is on their side.”
Read the full article here. What do you think about that?
October 29, 2010 at 3:11 am #113879
The numbers are reported without any context at all. Facebook was a private app until just a few years ago and Twitter essentially just came into existence. If you’re a business and you were able to get 20 percent and 13 percent of the “market share” in two years, you would be a success. Adoption has been the driving force in Gov 2.0. Now we are shifting to creative content, real strategy and integration. If you really consider the numbers, (15 percent of say 220 million people 18+) 33 million people have engaged the government in social media. We should be proud.
October 29, 2010 at 3:41 am #113877
If Government 2.0 isn’t working, Govloop wouldn’t exist.
October 29, 2010 at 12:14 pm #113875
I think this line is interesting:
Governmental websites, which emerged in the mid-1990s and have become ubiquitous at all levels, have become a significant communication channel between citizens and their local, state and federal governments. Almost a fifth of voters said many times they have used government websites to get information, fill out forms and access other services. Four in ten said they occasionally access government website, and just over a third (35 percent) said they had never used a government website.
So it has taken 15 years to get here which I think is a success.
Give Gov 2.0 a little time.
October 29, 2010 at 2:48 pm #113873
@Attita – Let me turn the question around: what was working before we had Gov 2.0? What was the state of citizen engagement and government’s delivery of services back before 1995? What was it like in 2000?
The problem with the article is that it falls into the same conceptual trap that many critics do when they are talking about innovation. They assume a linear trend when a lot of innovation is two step forward and one step back. Or ten steps to the right and then five steps back until it hits another innovation and jumps twenty steps ahead.
To truly understand how innovation works, one should watch Burke’s Connections series.
October 29, 2010 at 2:53 pm #113871
I have to agree with GovLoop in saying give it some more time. I think this is going to be something that has to grow and evolve and we’ll see results over time.
One thing that I’ve seen suggested on other blogs and I would have to agree with would be the consolidation of some of the websites. Too many times it becomes difficult to find things and people end up going from one govt website to another…when it would be far simpler to do a big umbrella-type website and group alot of the websites under one, with links to many others. I’m not an IT person, so maybe this is not a do-able thing but it would make it easier for users.
November 21, 2010 at 4:18 am #113869
There needs to be a focus on the outcomes and performance objectives, as I see the current Gov 2.0 push as simply technologically enabled. Technology is simply is tool, but it is the strategy of desired openness, transparency, and accountability that we are ultimately after. More time is necessary to make these desired changes, as the current Government culture we are trying to change is inherently risk and change averse. The Government needs to see the potential and the real capabilities that can be achieved, which objective measures of performance to implement. We are simply not there yet.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.