Edits: “bettered” areas with cr*ppy writing. I should re-read 3x before clicking “Publish”.
Has it been a week already since my last post? Whoa. And I was even doing well there for a while eh? I even had 3 posts in one week…
Yes, yes it has. And I’m glad to be writing a post that is very directly related to the crux of this blog: supporting my academic studies in Public Administration which of late looks into Web 2.0 & the Government of Canada. This blog helps me stimulate discussion, debate, and get valuable input I while share my own views and insight.
Time has been going by fast for me – I’m completing my masters (at least I think I am!). Just in the past month I have completed reading over 500 pages of academic (studies, reports, journals), and spent at least 2 couch-crashed weekends and early-to-late visits to cafés. Not fun, heavy on the mind, and not easy to balance with full-time work. I’m happy about the overlap I have however, and the possibility to apply insights from work to academics and from academics to work. You can say I’m engaged to my studies & work.
Finishing the studies will be bittersweet. But I’m ready to close this chapter of my life (3 years of part-time graduate studies) and I’m ready for the next one: From Academia & theory, to Practice & application. This won’t change my work direction, but it will change my (ardent) approach. To one that is more practical and less advisement. No more will be discussed on that. Well, not much.
For now I’ll give you a glimpse of what I’m working on – a diagram I made to segment the types of Web 2.0 & Government engagements into 4 categories. Maybe there’s more, but these 4 categories logically split them up…
This will help you to compare apples and oranges, if you are a:
- Communications expert;
- A manager considering tools for their employees to use;
- An analyst asking which social networks are the best for research;
- An IM/IT employee discussing the latest and greatest Web 2.0 tools
The following will help you
- when you research Web 2.0 tools for use in government;
- to compare Web 2.0 tools for use in government;
- to discuss Web 2.0 – how it can help you and how it’s used by others.
Here you go, the types of Government-Public Web 2.0 relations:
(If you cannot see the image above, it’s because you can’t see PNG graphics…uh oh! Email me and I’ll email it to you. I swear.)
They are:
- Use by the Public of Web 2.0
This relates to government through social media monitoring; tracking the public’s engagement on certain issues, pervasive topics of interest to Canadians, and Crisis situation monitoring, Public use of Social networks, etc.
- Public providing information of value to Government using Web 2.0
This one’s a tricky one to explain, as it includes how Government reaches out for involvement by the public. Key here is the direction of key information using social means. This one also includes how Government engages the public to share information (which can be opinions, feedback, etc.). Admittedly, this engagement is scarce, but it does include E-consultation, online forums (like Obama’s Google Moderator town hall, not the information providing part, but the question receiving part). - Government providing information of value to the Public using Web 2.0
This one is pretty clear cut, as Governments (especially the Canadian government) has been quite active in modernising service delivery with the public. This part includes e-government developments (I know, they’re not all Web 2.0, but there’s promise here, and Web 2.0 categorisation isn’t black & white), and Web 2.0-like functionality to service and information delivery, like the Privacy Commissioner’s Information site. - Internal use of Web 2.0 in the government
Use of Web 2.0 tools within the government, for improved quality and efficiency work.
This is what I am studying.
Certainly there are some initiatives and projects that cross these – and there should be. An opportunity to engage the public would be more effective by providing information to the public as well. Consulting with the public on ways to improve Service Canada for example. Same with internal use of Web 2.0 in government – these tools (or similar ones) are used in the public (and used for monitoring). For example, the public use Wikipedia, and the same engine that runs Wikipedia runs GCPEDIA.
Personally, I’m mostly interested in those tools that improve the efficiency of Government (area #4). But I’m interested in the other ones too, of course.
But it is important to understand these categorisations. It helps lots when situating yourself with the Web 2.0 tools you hear about with government. “In which direction is the information going?” is a helpful question. Then you can align the objectives of the offerings in your assessment, research. But sometimes I screw up with my differentiation (once was at a meeting at the Privy Council Office! Ha!), but I think very good analysts (senior ones too) are very good at distinguishing categories of tools in ways like this.
Next post will actually go into the history of Web 2.0 and government, with insight on the Public Administration issues around it and leading up to it.
I have it written. It’s a great post. I assure you. Stay tuned!


6 Comments to 'Types of Web 2.0 & Government'
April 24, 2009
Doug,
i like the analysis and think the four categories work but my one question is does it reflect well enough the exchange of information and knowledge that is taking place on social media.
For instance, gathering information from citizens or providing information to them seem to me to be part of an interactive and ongoing relationship. If this is to help me as a manager i would need to understand that when i provide info through web 20 i am also open to recieving info and ideas. So when you say ‘there are certain intiatives that cross these (categories) and there should be’ i would say that it is the rare case that they do NOT cross these categories or else they are not web20. Look forward to your next blog post
April 24, 2009
Hi Douglas
You might find this interesting:
“WTF? Military Web 2.0 Report Actually Making Sense”
See: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/04/wtf-military-we.html
They similarly split in four functions: Inward Sharing (sharing information within agencies), Outward Sharing (sharing internal agency information with entities beyond the agency’s boundaries), Inbound Sharing (obtain input from citizens and other persons outside the government more easily), Outbound Sharing (communicate with and/or empower people outside the government).
April 24, 2009
Salut Patrick!
Would you believe I broke the release of the report on Twitter? http://twitter.com/dbast/status/1546387011
It was heavily hyped leading up to the release – before it was out yet.
I think you’d be interested in this one as well:
US Military launches video about how they use Web 2.0 + Social media. Seriously. http://bit.ly/XlfRi
I might have been influenced from them. My previous categories (I elaborated internally to government last year) were actually along the lines of “Internal + External” and “Inside + Outside”. 2×2=4 categories, Internal + Inside, Internal + Outside, External + Inside, External + Outside…but the semantics aren’t distinct enough. I think just being clear that there are 4 logical ones. Can’t go wrong.
April 24, 2009
The popular Mr.Cowan! Nice to have your comment.
You’re right, it doesn’t capture enough the information exchanged on social media. That’s a tough one to tackle to reveal, because it has to do with official exchange vs. individual exchange. I don’t see much information being exchanged by the government on social networks. I see much going on by individuals who are in government, and I see this as different. I suppose the former could be a measure to capture, but it’s troublesome. Is David Eaves exchanging government information? Yes and no. Simply, he’s not government and not exchanging on behalf of government.
Also, neither am I, and neither is this blog, and, as I consider it, neither are you. I don’t see much initiatives simultaneously in more than one category, but I also think it’s difficult for an effective Government Web 2.0 engagement not to.
P.S. thanks for your comment. I don’t want to raise expectations too much on my next post. Please email me (via GC email) if you want a preview (would love your pre-comments!) and for my solution to come after that!
May 23, 2009
A nice chart and useful, although Peter has a good point. I was thinking that the Government to Public description (“E-government Service delivery”) doesn’t quite capture the marketing and communications that seems to be the predominant use of Web 2.0 and social media in that space.
Something else that might be worth considering is where the NGOs fit in the model. I think one of the impacts of Gov 2.0 is likely to be the government working more and more with the NGOs in a sort of civil society ecosystem. Especially in these early days, working through a third party can be a way for government to mitigate some of the risks that come with these open, participatory technologies.
July 8, 2009
It just don’t make sense to me, plain damn weird…
Leave a comment