Article Review #2

From E-Government to M-Government: Emerging Practices in the Use of Mobile Technology by State Governments
by Jae Moon
IBM Center for the Business of Government (November 2004)
(link to PDF of article)

————-

This article builds on the concept of electronic government by considering the increased usage of mobile information technology. Moon defines “m-government” as “government’s efforts to provide information and services to public employees, citizens, businesses, and nonprofit organizations through wireless communication networks and mobile devices such as pagers, PDAs, cellular phones, and their supporting systems.” I thought that this was an interesting angle to consider, since most of the technologies that we’d played with in class required a desktop computer with an Internet connection. As cellphone technology continues to evolve at breakneck speed, people seem to become increasingly reliant on them to access and exchange information (perhaps tapping on keys more than actually talking on the phone). It seemed logical to consider how to link a public’s fascination with convenient mobile technology and a need to request and receive information and services from their local governments. The article presents a series of m-government best practices and surveys to convey its potential for improving the delivery of public services.

For the most part, Moon’s best m-government practices revolve around fieldwork, such as fire and natural disaster management, public safety, and security concerns. Mobile technology such as Geographic Information Systems, Global Positioning Systems, and basic e-mail exchange all play a part in helping services successfully coordinate effective and efficient responses during time-critical situations. It seems that the investment in m-government is driven by the notion of immediacy as necessity, and not luxury.

The use of m-government is not without its concerns. Moon’s surveys explain that while mobile technology is recognized by governments as providing numerous advantages (portability, convenience, etc.), it also creates issues with standardization and interoperability. Different agencies (or even different departments within the same agency) employ different business practices, including technology applications. It becomes challenging to ensure that systems are able to easily connect with minimal disruption. Establishing a robust technology infrastructure (cellular towers, transmitters, receivers, wireless networks, and the costs involved) is perceived by the surveyed agencies as a major barrier to a full transition to m-government. There are also concerns with the security of data transmitted across mobile networks. How to ensure that data isn’t delayed or intercepted? These are significant concerns for government agencies, and an inherent barrier to expanding m-government offerings that ask the general public to submit private data via a portable device.

That said, government agencies recognize the benefits of m-technology and are moving toward improving its use. Moon’s survey lists the reported affects of mobile technology usage, both positive (e.g., improved efficiency, reduced time and stress demands, and reduced costs) and negative (e.g., increased time and stress, and increased costs). To me, it didn’t seem like that much of a stretch from technology as applied to traditional e-government. Success in technology implementation requires a careful study of the business processes involved, and the open-minded willingness to adapt that process in order to improve it. Unfortunately, this is far easier said than done.

Moon’s conclusions were helpful to articulate, but (at the risk of sounding arrogant) struck me as blindingly obvious:

1) State governments should develop strategic m-government plans, which include enterprise architecture.

2) The strategic m-government plans should include a strong business case.

3) Adequate financial resources will be required to implement m-government in the states.

4) Strong, sustained political leadership will also be required to implement m-government in the states.

5) Implementation of m-government in the states will require intergovernmental, interagency, and intersectoral collaboration.

Okay, but it seemed like that these were general guidelines for implementing any new wide-scale process approach. You could swap out the term “m-government” and replace it with just about anything.

I think that the idea of m-government has an inherent appeal to tech geeks in this age of instant and portable access to information, but a long way to go before it’s of remote interest or practical usage to the general public.

 

Hyper-local websites

Apparently, my town of Maplewood is gaining a bit of attention for an unusual surge in “hyper-local websites.” There are now four websites relying on citizen input to provide coverage of local news, events, and politics for a population of 23,000…is that overkill? What is the motivation, and why Maplewood in particular?

I spend quite a bit of time browsing Maplewood Online:

http://www.maplewoodonline.com

But within the last month or so, three more have popped up (one by a resident acting on his own, the others by larger corporate entities):

http://www.maplewoodian.com
http://maplewood.blogs.nytimes.com/
http://maplewood.patch.com/

Here’s a blog post that provides a bit of background on the various sites:
http://kirkpete.blogspot.com/2009/03/maplewood-nj-pop-23000-now-has-three.html

Brian Lehrer is doing a show about this trend today, which will be posted as a podcast later this afternoon:
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2009/03/03/segments/125247

EDIT 3/5/09:
It’s getting crazier.

Maplewood Online steps up their game by creating their own news feed:
http://www.maplewooddispatch.com/

Meanwhile, some people try to pick a fight with Patch, who laughs it off: http://maplewood.patch.com/articles/editors-notebook-ive-seen-ghostbusters

EDIT 3/6/09:
Brian Lehrer continues the conversation:
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2009/03/06/segments/125641

 

Article Review #1

Digital Governance Worldwide: A Longitudinal Assessment of Municipal Web Sites
by Tony Carrizales, Marc Holzer, Seang-Tae Kim, Chan-Gon Kim
International Journal of Electronic Government Research (Vol 2, Issue 4, 2006)
(link to PDF of article)

————-

This article presents highlights from a 2005 survey of municipal websites around the world. The research was essentially a replication of a 2003 effort that was recognized as “one of the most exhaustive studies of municipal e-government ever conducted.” The 2005 survey was a collaborative effort that involved researchers from the original project, and assessed the impact and change resulting over the interim two years.

The survey selected 100 cities, of which only 81 had official websites (defined as including information on city administrations, services, information on local councils, mayors, the executive branch, etc.). The sites were evaluated on a wide range of criteria that addressed security and privacy; usability; content; services; and citizen participation, and ranked as follows:

E-governance scale:
0: Information about a given topic does not exist on the Web site
1: Information about a given topic exists on the Web site (including links to other information and e-mail addresses)
2: Downloadable items are available on the Web site (forms, audio, video, and other one-way transactions, popup boxes)
3: Services, transactions, or interactions can take place completely online (credit card transactions, applications for permits, searchable databases, use of cookies, digital signatures, restricted access)

The authors describe how governments in general have stumbled as they work to take full advantage of an online presence. Many sites began by facilitating a minimum interaction between government and citizens. Citizens could log on to a city’s website in order to obtain basic information and submit messages to the government. However, this initial model of interaction could hardly be described as “transforming government” (i.e., improving service delivery and online democratic practices).

The authors also address the need for effective design, citing Virginia’s MyGov as a site that overestimated the average user’s needs. MyGov allowed users to customize the state website according to their preferences (highlighting or hiding meeting announcements, public school information, lottery numbers, press releases, etc.) In this instance, Virginia had assumed that including every single bell and whistle on their site (i.e., “the very best software”) automatically equaled meeting the needs of its citizens. Instead, the technical and financial effort that went into implementing the system only led to its being underused. Nobody cared.

People accessing a government site generally want a specific piece of information – they’re not necessarily going there often enough to require a personalized web experience. This was a lesson that many dot-com companies (including the one that I’d worked for) learned the hard way. For what it’s worth, Virginia seems to have dropped the MyGov portal feature since this paper was originally published.

According to the authors, successful e-governance enhances the degree and quality of public participation in government. A system that allows for greater transparency should ostensibly lead to better informed citizens. The Obama administration has fully embraced this concept since the campaign. More than a grassroots movement, the Obama campaign was a netroots movement. Barackobama.com was a community hub for supporters to share thoughts, exchange ideas amongst each other and with the campaign itself, connect with their neighbors, get organized for local campaign events, and get informed on issue positions and the latest developments.

This momentum was maintained with the post-election launch of change.gov, a site that expanded on the above offerings during the transition phase, and carries on today in the radically overhauled whitehouse.gov. It’s interesting to note that while change.gov has been retired, Obama’s eponymous website remains active.

I’m not sure how these ideas (which require a lot of citizen enthusiasm in order to work) can translate down to the state and municipal level. My town has an unusually active online community, with conversations ranging from casual topics like movie and restaurant reviews to serious conversations on local, state, national, and even global politics. My news diet keeps me generally informed on bigger stories, but I’ve generally been naïve when it comes to what’s going on with our town’s budget issues. However, our online community has changed that, with an active user base that’s very keen on keeping the town as a nice place to live. Depending on the topic, town officials have dropped in and voiced their thoughts (or clarified misunderstandings) from time to time. Not only have I learned about seemingly mundane issues such as, “Should we replace the grass in a local park with artificial turf?”, but I’m able to appreciate why they’re important, and vote on them intelligently. To me, that’s a reassuring sign that successful e-democracy isn’t impossible.

As for the actual survey results addressed in this paper, they mainly underscored the idea that cities in developed countries have put together more effective websites than cities in less developed countries, and are doing so at a much faster rate. This highlights the need for policy to close the digital gap for less developed nations.

The bulk of the article was a summary of the statistical breakdown, making it valuable as an important contribution to a growing base of research literature, even if there weren’t any standout examples on an individual level.

On a side note, I’ve actually participated in gathering data for a recent iteration of this research project. Last year, I was part of a volunteer group that evaluated state websites using the E-Governance scale for the 2008 E-Governance Survey. Since I only reviewed one state (Vermont), I don’t really have much that I could say about the overall project. To my knowledge, the analytical results of that research haven’t been published yet.

Here’s the trailer for Startup.com, a great film that documented the rise and fall of GovWorks, one of the first websites that attempted to bridge the digital gap between governments and citizens:

 

The President’s Blackberry

From NPR’s On The Media, an interesting story about President Obama’s Blackberry, and the conflict between the need for presidential security, a transition to greater government transparency, and a personal preference for a technological convenience:

OTM: Blackberry Jungle (1/23/09)

 

More Twitterings

Twitter came up during our first class, and I’d cited a NYT David Pogue column in which he’d described his initial experience with it:

NYT (1/15/09): “Twittering Tips for Beginners”

Earlier today, he posted a follow-up column in which he talks about experimenting with the service’s usefulness. I wasn’t really that impressed.

NYT (1/29/09): “The Twitter Experiment”

I have yet to try Twitter, but Pogue’s experience seemed to confirm my suspicion that I’d find it more annoying than helpful. It would be cool if I had access to a dedicated Twitter group of professional researchers, but at this stage, I feel that it would be faster running my own Internet queries instead of having to filter through the noise of people ignoring my request and treating it instead like Open Mic Night.

 

Wikipedia Changes

Interesting:

NYT: Wikipedia May Restrict Public’s Ability to Change Entries (1/23/09)

 

Too Much Information

“Too much information, running through my brain
Too much information, driving me insane..”
– The Police (1981)

In today’s information economy, competing content providers make me feel like a kid in a candy store. So many options are appealing, and even though I couldn’t possibly consume it all, my instinct is to acquire as much of it as I can, and as quickly as possible. I want it simply because it’s there to have.

So, I try to be efficient and use a content aggregator to pull stuff together for me (I used to use Bloglines, but have since moved to Google Reader). However,  it still generates a considerable backlog of material, and I end up scanning more articles than reading them closely.

Is it a bad tradeoff to exchange in-depth understanding of one topic for a broad understanding of many?

An extension of this idea is the growing “microblogging” trend, with Twitter and Facebook status updates being most prominent on my radar. I realize that I’m venturing into Cranky Old Man territory, but to me, this “drive-by” method of posting content has only succeeded in creating even more noise on the Internet. As a reader, I’m personally more appreciative and interested when someone takes the time to organize and expand their thoughts on a particular topic instead of just broadcasting a one-line update to tell their social and professional networks that they can’t decide between the chicken or roast beef sandwich for lunch.

Then again, I’m being hypocritical in complaining about it, since as I’d mentioned, I’m not making time to read closely anyway. This leads to a bigger concern: Has the Internet affected my cognitive skills?  Maybe Nicholas Carr is onto something.

Article:

“Is Google Making Us Stupid?”
by Nicholas Carr, The Atlantic, July/August 2008

How to use Google Reader:

 

Me and My Tech

Our first assignment – a log of a week’s worth of my personal technology use:

http://psma6008.pbwiki.com/Me-and-My-Tech-(Brian)