Monthly Archive for May, 2009

Open Government Dialogue: First Look at Site Activity and User Adoption

Published by Tim on May 31, 2009 in E-participation, Events and Research. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , .

As mentioned a few days ago, the past week saw the first round of the Open Government Dialogue, a three-phased e-participation initiative launched by the White House that aims to gather public input for the crafting of the Open Government Directive. From their May 21 announcement:

Today we are kicking off an unprecedented process for public engagement in policymaking on the White House website. In a sea change from conventional practice, we are not asking for comments on an already-finished set of draft recommendations, but are seeking fresh ideas from you early in the process of creating recommendations. We will carefully consider your comments, suggestions, and proposals.

Here’s how the public engagement process will work. It will take place in 3 phases: Brainstorming, Discussion, and Drafting.

Beginning today, we will have a brainstorming session for suggesting ideas for the open government recommendations. You can vote on suggested ideas or add your own.

Then on June 3rd, the most compelling ideas from the brainstorming will be fleshed out on a weblog in a discussion phase. On June 15th, we will invite you to use a wiki to draft recommendations in collaborative fashion.

These three phases will build upon one another and inform the crafting of recommendations on open government.

The first phase, Open Government Brainstorm, was convened by the National Academy of Public Administration and used IdeaScale, a crowdstorming or idea generation tool for large groups.

Based on my own Open Government Dialogue site activity tracking data from the past ten days, I did the following quick analysis:

1) Activity over time (incl. registered users)

Table: http://www.flickr.com/photos/planspark/3583067924/in/set-72157618585823580/

Open Government Dialogue: activity over time (raw data) 

Graph: http://www.flickr.com/photos/planspark/3582188431/in/set-72157618585823580/

Open Government Dialogue: activity over time

(Note that the “votes” curve uses a different scale in order to make it fit into the graph.)

2) Average user activity over time

Table: http://www.flickr.com/photos/planspark/3583071264/in/set-72157618585823580/

 Open Government Dialogue: activity per user

Graph: http://www.flickr.com/photos/planspark/3583198476/in/set-72157618585823580/

Open Government Dialogue: average activity per user over time

(Note that the “votes per user” curve uses a different scale in order to make it fit into the graph.)

What’s interesting is that up until 05/23 (two days into the initiative, at only several hundred registered users) average user activity was very high but dropped sharply over subsequent days as thousands of new — and much less active — users signed up.

For example, on May 23 at 8.32am (about 36 hours into the project), I measured the highest average activity per user:

  • 2.5 ideas / user
  • 3.0 comments / user
  • 82 votes / user

As of today, May 31 at 12.08pm (almost a full 10 days into the project), average activity per user is much lower:

  • 0.2 ideas / user
  • 0.6 comments / user
  • 11.7 votes / user

I see a real potential here how such user adoption and user activity information could be used in real-time to manage and optimize individual as well as overall participation levels, to distribute attention more evenly (e.g. away from the most highly-rated items) or to encourage collaboration among participants.

Open Government Dialogue: “Create an Open Government Project Directory and Knowledge Base”

Published by Tim on May 28, 2009 in Events and Ideas. 1 Comment Tags: , .

As the first phase of the Open Government Dialogue is almost drawing to a close, here’s Intellitics’ humble contribution (as posted a couple of days ago):

Create an Open Government project directory and knowledge base

The basic idea is to make sure that any important information about past, current or upcoming government projects or programs in the areas of transparency, participation and collaboration is captured and shared in a timely manner and easily accessible to anyone interested in or affected by these projects/programs.

The project directory would contain project briefs, contact information, key performance indicators, lessons learned, media coverage, citizen feedback etc.

The knowledge base could include information on key people and organizations, tools, metrics, case studies etc. as well as checklists, how-tos and other best practices.

This information would benefit everyone involved (citizens, government, research, media, vendors etc.) by helping design better projects/programs as well as increase the likelihood of project/program success.

Why Is This Idea Important?

Because a lot of the work that will be performed in this area is relatively new and fairly experimental, it is important that successes as well as failures (or experiences in general) be captured and shared so as to avoid reinventing the wheel too many times.

The idea has since garnered 73 net supporting votes (74 for, 1 against) and has quickly entered the top 100 highest-rated ideas (out of over 1,000), which — given the short amount of time it’s been up — seems to indicate that tracking is high on many people’s agenda.

National Civic League 2.0

Published by Tim on May 12, 2009 in Events. 0 Comments Tags: .

Back in November 2000, I attended “Wired for Civic Engagement: Using New Technology to Build Community,” the National Civic League’s 106th National Conference on Governance in Washington, D.C. From the press release:

National Civic League Conference to Explore Technology’s Effect on Democracy and Community

DENVER – July 12, 2000 – “Wired for Civic Engagement: Using New Technology to Build Community,” the National Civic League’s 106th National Conference on Governance, takes place November 9 to 11, 2000, in Washington, D.C.

Some of the country’s leading experts in technology and community building will gather with government officials, citizen activists, nonprofit organizations, and business leaders to discuss technology, and its potential to revitalize participation in civic life.

“Today’s technology is allowing all sectors of our society to communicate with each other in ways unheard of just a few years ago. Through technology we have enormous potential to reconnect previously disengaged citizens to civic society,” notes Christopher T. Gates, President of the National Civic League. We’re hoping this conference will deepen the discussion about the possibilities this creates for strengthening democracy, and the potential for building healthier communities.”

Steven Clift, founder of Democracies Online Newsire, and a featured conference speaker, describes “Wired for Civic Engagement” as “one of the first conferences in the Untied States coming from more traditional civil society circles to look closely at civic engagement in the Information Age.”

I really enjoyed the NCL conference (it’s where I first met Steven Clift and heard about AmericaSpeaks and their 21 Century Town Meeting).

It took them a while, but the National Civic League is now present on the social web as well:

For a trip back in time, check out the 2000 conference program (still available on Archive.org). Some of the topics sure sound familiar and are still current almost nine years later.

Intellitics Endorses Core Principles for Public Engagement

Published by Tim on May 6, 2009 in About, Public Participation and Resources. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Back in February, the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD), along with a number of other established associations and organization in the field of dialogue, conflict resolution and public participation, launched a collaborative effort to craft a set of principles for public engagement that would inform the Open Government Directive currently being worked on by the Obama administration.

After two months of insightful discussions, the final version of the Core Principles for Public Engagement Document (PDF, 144 KB) has now been released. It starts:

In a strong representative democracy, citizens and government work together to build a society that protects individual freedom while simultaneously ensuring liberty and justice for all.  Engaging people around the issues that affect their lives and their country is a key component of a strong democratic society.

Public engagement involves convening diverse yet representative groups of people to wrestle with information from a variety of viewpoints all to the end of making better, often more creative decisions. Public engagement aims to provide people with direction for their own community activities, or with public judgments that will be seriously considered by policy-makers and other power-holders.

The more any given public engagement effort takes into consideration the following seven Core Principles, the more it can expect to effectively build mutual understanding, meaningfully affect policy development, and/or inspire collaborative action among citizens and institutions.  These seven interdependent principles serve both as ideals to pursue and as criteria for judging quality.  Rather than promoting partisan agendas, the application of the Core Principles creates the conditions for authentic engagement around public issues.

The core working group did an excellent job boiling down the tried and tested guidelines from over two dozen existing resources into one concise list. So without much further ado, here they are:

The Seven Core Principles

In practice, people emphasize or apply these principles in many different ways, and often embrace additional principles. These seven principles reflect the common beliefs and understandings of those working in the fields of public engagement, conflict resolution, and collaboration.

1. Careful Planning and Preparation

Through adequate and inclusive planning, ensure that the design, organization, and convening of the process serve both a clearly defined purpose and the needs of the participants.

2. Inclusion and Demographic Diversity

Equitably incorporate diverse people, voices, ideas, and information to lay the groundwork for quality outcomes and democratic legitimacy.

3. Collaboration and Shared Purpose

Support and encourage participants, government and community institutions, and others to work together to advance the common good.1

4. Openness and Learning

Help all involved listen to each other, explore new ideas unconstrained by predetermined outcomes, learn and apply information in ways that generate new options, and rigorously evaluate public engagement activities for effectiveness.

5. Transparency and Trust

Be clear and open about the process, and provide a public record of the organizers, sponsors, outcomes, and range of views and ideas expressed.

6. Impact and Action

Ensure each participatory effort has real potential to make a difference, and that participants are aware of that potential.

7. Sustained Engagement and Participatory Culture

Promote a culture of participation with programs and institutions that support ongoing quality public engagement.

————-

1 In addition to reflecting the democratic ideals of liberty, justice, and freedom for all, the term “common good” refers to things that optimize the well-being of all (like a traffic light in a dangerous intersection) or conditions that serve to benefit all involved (as in a consensus agreement focused on cleaning up the water supply).

There’s also an expanded version that goes into more detail:

PEP Expanded Text

Although we are not seeking endorsements for the expanded text under the principles and their one-sentence descriptions, the text under the headers “In high quality engagement” and “What to avoid” was developed alongside the basic seven principle, in a highly collaborative and transparent manner.  The purpose of the expanded text is to illustrate and breathe life into the principles, and should accompany the list of Core Principles whenever possible.  The expanded text can be tweaked or revised for a variety of different audiences.

Intellitics is proud to be among the group of initial organizational endorsers.