Last month I was lucky enough to attend the International Conference of IT Administrators where I met Steve Ressler the founder of GovLoop.
GovLoop is a “non-government” government social networking site. To elaborate, it is not run by a government organisation (though Steve does work for Homeland Security, GovLoop is extracurricular), but is designed for government employees. This is the epitome of social media/Web 2.0: if you don’t build it, they will (and even if you do, they still might too).
Here in God’s Own, we suffer from many dispersed networks/communities/fora on many platforms:
I have selected only a few examples (and I would estimate there are hundreds) but my point is we would never know how many there are, as we have no complete catalogue. Perhaps the worst part is these new easy-to-set-up websites are not “biodegradable” (long after a Google Group has ceased to be useful, its online corpse will often remain, adding to the noise). For someone coming into a government agency (and people who have been here for years) it is confusing, and looks to only get more noisy in the future.
So my question is, what do we (New Zealand government employees) want/need? Would a central platform, for individuals to network on and to navigate the plethora of communities, explicitly for New Zealand government-related stuff, be of value? Would it be better off being independently run?
Do we want:
There are pros and cons with all options. If the social network is exclusive (to public servants), it is handicapped from the start; it would be like only having email to .govt.nz addresses. Equally, opening it up to everyone could limit the frankness of discussion. If the site was launched by an agency, I wouldn’t expect it soon, and if it did turn up, bureaucratic process may strangle it.
Would a NZ GovLoop solve problems, or simply add to the noise?
28 Comments
the PSI screams creepy treehouse. someone needs to invest time in a NZGovtLoop.
i’d call it “the bach”, since it’s what all public servants dream of escaping wellington to.
[/2c]
Good post Matt. As founder of GovLoop, I vote for New Zealanders colonizes GovLoop. There are many international gov’t employees on the site that add a great perspective. Now I just need to get rid of my American flag banner up top.
I purposely didn’t restrict GovLoop to .gov domains as I wanted more than U.S. federal employees. I wanted U.S. state and local government employees, international employees, as well as professors/academics/thought leaders in gov’t.
I agree- there are a lot of networking groups, sites, listservs, etc. I think it is good to have new platforms to network and share information between gov’t employees. In the end, choices are good and the customer (gov’t employees) will decide in the same way citizens have centralized on a few major social networking platforms (facebook, linkedin, bebo, hi5, etc).
It’s interesting seeing how Virgin and British Airways employees set up their own pages on Facebook saying naughty things about customers, and then the employers coming down on them like a tonne of bricks. And yet, I bet there are support groups for government employees that could be ranting about the same thing, and are just waiting to be exposed.
With the watercooler talk going online, what does this do for the concept of free and frank discussion between co-workers? If everything is being recorded and scrutinised, does this mean employees will never be free and frank in online social networking because of the political ramifications of saying something that is contrary to their agency or project’s point of view?
I’m certainly very weary of saying anything online that could bring the public service into disrepute, but this limits my freedom to talk openly and honestly about the things I do, and ways to improve them. With these barriers, I find it easier to not speak.
Interested in the “creepy treehouse” comment - anything in particular that screams it? In the “social software in education” context it’s an issue with people who aren’t/shouldn’t be part of the “club” trying too hard to get in.
Hi Steve,
In my view, if there is a web 2.0 tool that serves your purpose, and anyone is free to use it, then colonisation is a smart option (no point in building stuff for the sake of it). So the question is does GovLoop serve our purpose? What do we need?
One other funny thing about social networking is you are dependant on your peers to make the same choice. GovLoop may be the right tool for the job, but at least most people must also agree (imagine using Facebook with no other users! Who would I zombie bite then?).
Waylon,
My simple rule of thumb (which all flight attendants and civil servants should follow) is never write anything online which you wouldn’t want your boss or Grandma to read. Pretty sure I didn’t invent that, and it isn’t rocket science, as my boss and Grandma constantly do read stuff I’ve put online.
What kind of stuff do you guys talk about around the water cooler at the Ministry of Education? I’m intrigued.
Hey, there is a NZ Public Servants group on Govloop!
We really could do with something like that in NZ. Then we could put it on the GSN and limit the access to it, so people would still feel “safe”. It would be so much easier to monitor what groups are out there and how to support them.
Plus networking is healthy. And communication.
I also like what the UK are doing, they have better infrastructure so they can actually host the online communities - I realise we do too, but we know from experience that the shared workspaces just struggle. The UK govt have a “portal” (if you want to call it that) of communities of practice and groups etc. And from there you can see events across the space.
Ooh, another comment from me:
“I wanted U.S. state and local government employees” <– I like that. I think we need to involve all levels of Govt in what we do too. We’re all dealing with similar issues, and it’s apparent they want in (with the GWC group anyway).
Hi Michelle,
Just to clarify, I created the group on GovLoop (minutes after publishing the post). I have no personal or professional preference how we solve the coordination problem, but know that we need to all make the same decision.
As I wrote in the post, I worry that “limiting” access may handicap us from the start (as an open version of whatever we create may eclipse the closed one). Your second comment supports this: (generally) the more open the better.
@sara re: education setting. yes, that’s exactly the feeling. PSI is a good resource, but i couldn’t imagine public servants talking about ’stuff’ on there. it’s just too close to home, and too “big brother”.
but this is merely my most humble of opinions.
am about to check out the nzl pages on gov.loop though.
I esp like the idea of stuff with our international equivs. Tho would the idea be affected by the old sovereignty of info question? ie, hosting NZ docs etc on American servers? Watercooler talk may be one thing, but formal or informal advice & colab on policy docs etc might be seen as quite another, even between NZers … would this be a matter of just providing advice on use? I’d hope so
The Government of Canada has just launched a whole of government wiki–accessible to Federal Government employees only–called GCPedia. So that’s one thing.
There’s also plans for a ‘facebook for government’ application too within the GoC.
I think the ’safety’ question is a really interesting one, and is pretty central to how you make your choice about whether to colonize or build. What I recognize is that for people to feel okay about interacting, networking, etc, they’ve got to feel confident participating isn’t going to hurt them somehow. And I think their sense of this is probably directly proportional to their approach to how they work. If people are encouraged and trusted to network and share, and they know they’ll be rewarded for that even if they make some mistakes at first, then they’ll be inclined to go for it. If they get the sense that they’re not trusted to network and share, then they’ll likely want to keep things locked down pretty tightly.
Whether people are trusted and therefore confident is the key, it seems to me. But those are some pretty rough thoughts. Keen to know what other people think!
I don’t really buy the idea that government employees will trust or discuss things more frankly in an environment restricted to other government employees - there are many thousands of us. Why is that safe? It’s partly generational. If you’re comfortable with social networking in the wild so to speak, you won’t have a problem where it happens - if not, you probably won’t use it anyway.
I think the answer is to follow the crowd - where do people interested in government hang out now - set up there. Interest is the important thing, not who you work for in my view. So it might be Govloop or Facebook now and it might change over time. Why is government so concerned with the virtual equivalent of bricks and mortar?
Hi David,
Great to hear from you.
Even though most of this stuff is open source and free/cheap to implement, the curmudgeon in me says we should be cautious of building stuff for the sake of being seen to build it. Do we need a government Delicious? Thus I say, if in doubt, colonise. I would like to hear more about both the Federal wiki and the ‘facebook for government’. What are their measurable objectives? I have written about our government wiki here: http://blog.e.govt.nz/index.php/2008/11/06/sharing-lessons-learnt-on-government-ict-projects-and-the-use-of-web-20/
With regards to trust, I would say discontent with existing systems may be a sufficient alternative to cause change. I am not saying this is desirable just possible (/more likely to happen first). Or maybe I’m just projecting.
I like the idea of an NZ GovLink, but also the idea of sharing with local government and international colleagues. Don’t be too paranoid about safety - Matt’s universal truths for being careful what you write are good ones. This should be a chance to share good practice, chat about things that need a solution, but not a session for moaners or a chance to bad mouth somebody. Let’s be positive
Do I have to login (sign up) to Govloop to see the NZ group?
Also, while I don’t know if I agree with Che, I still don’t “get” the PSI. I’m not sure what it’s for or what it does.
For example it has a photo gallery, but no information about whether or not I’m allowed to use the images or if they are copyrighted. It said I could share files (a good idea if someone wants to send me a large PPS for example) but again no details. Even the CIO Network page that Matt Linked to needs updating (Leanne is at Education now).
So it’s not a “creepy treehouse”, it’s more of an “dodgy foodcourt”, you’re not sure whether you should eat there or not.
Interesting Haydn, thanks. Yes you are right about the photos - that needs to be clearer. They are in fact shareable, but no, it doesn’t say that - point taken. Re. “sharing a document” I’m reading between the lines that you have understood that to mean sharing between two people by some unexplained mechanism? In fact, it’s meant more generically, ie an agency can make a resource e.g. ppt available on the PSI for anyone to access. This is a key tenet of the PSI - create once, share many. Further comment most welcome.
and what’s more, I have only addressed your specific points, rather than the bigger question of how you know that the PSI is a place for you, or not…
@Sara, thanks for the clarification.
It does look like a good beginning and a place that wouldn’t need too much to turn it from a “dodgy foodcourt” to “martin bosley’s”
Lots of moderately good ideas done badly in the initial list. As is the way with current communities on the net just keep throwing out low cost, low risk options that pay attention to detail and learn learn learn.
Good to see this thread but i dont agree with a softly softly approach “cautious of building stuff for the sake of being seen to build it”
Build it, be seen building it and make it clear that the excercise is one of learning and development. Good content is just a side effect of good people working with good processes and the whole process should be open and collaborative as thats what we are trying to learn how to do properly aren’t we?
Perpetual beta team!
Why not encourage people over onto govloop and see what happens? Just get them there are then ask this question again. Then again and again ad infinitum.
In terms of noise and fragmented and dispersed initiatives that’s where people are key. If you have informed and engaged people working in these systems they will do the work of ordering, directing, linking together, commenting and making meaning from these systems. That’s the nature of 2.0’s self organising aspects. It’s not about the platforms but the people and helping them free-construct from the miscellaneous.
I understand the position of those people erring on the side of caution and advocating a “softly softly” approach, as I would have said the same thing 6 months ago.
Now I’m more inclined to agree with Hugh, but would like to see more investment in the “What do we need question” and maybe one of the existing formats can help us with this, having said that, without having some sort of prototype to build on it’s a bit hard to figure out what’s good, and what’s no so good.
Anyone who wants to join GovLoop is absolutely free to do so at their leisure, and as mentioned there is a group there for New Zealand public servants (http://www.govloop.com/group/newzealandpublicservants).
To clarify, I am only pro “softly softly” when action consume significant resource. If a pilot/beta/test/experiment costs next to nothing (”next to nothing” will vary place to place) in both time and money, then I say go nuts.
As I sign-up for GovLoop I wonder: why does it need to know my age? What age-appropriate content lies behind the front page?
I’m returning to Matt’s initial question - what government social networking do we (New Zealand government employees) want/need? - and picking up on the comments about the Public Sector Intranet.
That we need a government social networking space is a no-brainer for everyone in this conversation. That we needed a space to bring together commonly used government information and resources was also a no-brainer 4 or so years ago when the PSI was developed. And we have that space now - and many many of us are using and benefiting from it. And its functionality is always being extended - yes, I know - within the constraints of the system.
And we all also know that this is not providing the social networking environment we all expect.
But don’t dismiss what was achieved. It gives many stuff they can’t find anywhere else.
I believe that there is a role for both PSI (formal) and GovLoop (informal) and yes, someone needs to do it, so the someones may as well be us (in the wider sense).
Most people working in Government are aware of the need to do the ‘if my boss saw it’ test. However, in a wider sense, some comments that I’d make to the boss are private and wouldn’t pass the ‘front page of the newspaper’ test.
The horse has already bolted - if someone wants to make comments - they already can in a myriad of ways. The only feature of this site is that it may have a higher proportion of bosses reading. Excellent - roll on two-way communication.
My brain caught up! Sorry for being slow - but I started on this thread and realise, that as an overview person I have absolutely no overview to fall back on. What is the vision that we want? (which of course was Matt’s first question)
This leads me to ask “What is the thread for?” and “Why would anyone other than those with a technical interest so much as visit it?”.
I have no fear of either my boss, or any other manager in my organisation reading it at all - it’s way too geeky. So moving on - we know that many of our managers want to get into Web 2.0 - the challenge is seeing how to help them do it with wisdom.
This comes in two parts
- wise communications within real communities
- wise use of technology
The challenge for my organisation is the concept of community and wise connection with them.
I know we have at least one (new teachers), and I know that this group is highly web literate. The organisational challenge is not deploying a technology, so much as deploying a savvy communicator using a place that people will visit.
All the hallmarks of classic marketing appear - we can only communicate with people who want to be there. Is GovLoop the place? Ultimately, I have to bet on somewhere to target the marketing effort.