OPM and Facebook…
February 9, 2011 at 3:05 pm #122650
Last night I received an “official” email from the Office of Personnel Management’s Federal Classification List Serve that said:
“Good evening –
If you haven’t already done so, I recommend that you “like” Hiring Reform on Facebook at http://www.Facebook.com/HiringReform. The OPM Hiring Reform Facebook page is a great place to catch up on the latest articles and participate in discussions about hiring reform.”
Isn’t this great? A web site dedicated to Hiring Reform on the world’s most successful social network. And the best part? It won’t cost the tax payer a single penny.
Oh wait, but doesn’t OPM already have a web site dedicated to hiring reform? Why yes, yes they do, and I wrote about it 3 months ago in Part 3 of my 6 Part Series on Hiring Reform (I’ve only posted 4 parts to date – number 5 is coming soon). You can find all of my writings on LinkedIn and GovLoop.
OPM spent considerable time, money and resources designing, developing, hosting and maintaining the “official” site on Hiring Reform. It’s even pretty easy to find at http://www.opm.gov/HiringReform.
On that site, you’ll find that OPM hasn’t updated news on Hiring Reform since June 14 of last year. It still only has a single post in the HR to HR section, which btw continues to go down in the ratings every time I mention it. It even has a link that goes to a blank page. How ironic is it that Applicant Notification page (http://www.opm.gov/HiringReform/HiringReformRequirements/NotifyingApplicants/index.aspx) has nothing? I’m sure those applicants in the standing register fiasco can relate.
It’s that attention to detail that tells me Hiring Reform will be a smashing success, or at least I can guarantee you that OPM will tell us it’s a success no matter what the truth is.
But who’s complaining? The OPM site is live and it gets the message out in a single and easy to use format, and because it’s government it’s free! Uh, except for all that money spent on design, development, hosting, maintaining the site. Move along folks, nothing to see, move along. You know someone’s booking time to it.
What’s funny is that OPM sends out an “official” email using “official” resources directing us to go to their Facebook page and not their “official” site on Hiring Reform.
Granted Facebook is free, but someone needs to manage the content, respond to inquiries, surf their friends, etc. That has to take some time and therefore money. I’m sure someone bills their “official” time to answer the questions; otherwise the Facebook page will become just as unsustainable as the “official” site on Hiring Reform apparently is. Oops.
The best part is that no agency blocks access to Facebook; so it’s easily accessible by all…err, but alas several agencies block access to sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, etc. Details, details; I digress. Besides, most people read/update Facebook at home and not at work ( 😉 wink).
Believe me, I can go on and on, but OPM should simply stop wasting time and money trying to maintain 2 sites where it’s obvious that OPM can’t effectively maintain a single site. I believe that OPM should make a choice between the 2 sites. Either stick with the government site that everyone has access to even though it’s a little more tedious to keep up to date, or junk it and save us some money by using Facebook knowing that not everyone has an account on Facebook or access during work hours. OPM shouldn’t try to do both since it’s obvious that OPM can’t keep both sites reasonably in sync and up to date, or put another way walk and chew gum at the same time.
For me, there are 2 positive outcomes. First, OPM will either spin its wheels trying to maintain the 2 sites or capitulate and kill one of them; either way it will prove that I was heard since there is no way OPM would continue down the current path, right?
Second, I will now post my writings on Facebook too (yay!), or will OPM try to silence me?
February 9, 2011 at 3:24 pm #122652
Interesting argument Bryan. What, in your opinion, can be done about this?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.