Monthly Archive for November, 2009

ParticipateDB: References

Published by Tim on November 28, 2009 in ParticipateDB. 0 Comments

Just a quick weekend update to share the latest ParticipateDB developments:

Today, we launched the site’s third main content bucket: references. Here’s how we define the term in the FAQ:

How do you define “references”?

A reference to us is any kind of related information on the web that can provide more context and detail to any of the tools and projects covered on ParticipateDB. For example, this may include but is not limited to: product brochures, white papers, video tutorials, any kind of research, case studies, or interviews.

Because it is a good read and because it is full with mentions of various e-participation tools and projects, we picked a paper titled “Promising Practices In Online Engagement” by Public Agenda’s Center for the Advances in Public Engagement (CAPE) as our first entry to this new section. Plenty  more resources will have to be added in the future, but hopefully this illustrates how the site is intended to work.

ParticipateDB reference highlight

With the addition of references, the initial data model is pretty much complete and online. The last piece that’s missing now is proper user management before we can move the site into beta (and really start letting more people in).

In case you’re interested, feel free to follow ParticipateDB via the usual social channels: Identi.ca, Twitter, Facebook and GovLoop

IAP2 Kicks Off Global Member Engagement Process

Published by Tim on November 28, 2009 in Community and E-participation. 0 Comments Tags: .

This one should be worth keeping an eye on:

Starting today, the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) will be engaging its entire global membership base of more than 1,000 public participation experts in a three-months long consultation about the future of the organization.

From the president’s announcement email earlier today:

Dear Members,

I am very pleased to invite all IAP2 members to participate in our engagement process on the future organizational structure of our association.

The International Board is proposing that IAP2 move to a federation of affiliates. The Board believes that an organizational change is necessary to direct more focus on two critical functions: developing and advancing our practice at the international level, and extending our membership base and activity at a local level. After examining a number of options the federation of affiliates has emerged as the preferred model.

[...]

The Board is now seeking member input to confirm, or not, whether a federation of affiliates is the best way forward, and if so to assist with the decision making process about how it will function. [...]

All IAP2 members are encouraged to participate in this discussion on the overall structure of the association – those who are direct members of the international body and those who hold their membership with an affiliate, or both. We welcome questions, comments, suggestions and advice.

[...] In addition to the online forum there will be other opportunities for the conversation – in person for some chapters, or via webinar and teleconference.

This is the first time IAP2 has engaged all its members in a conversation of this magnitude. [...]

On behalf of the Board of Directors of IAP2 I look forward to hearing your voice in this vital conversation about our Association’s future.

Best

Dear Members,
I am very pleased to invite all IAP2 members to participate in our engagement process on the future organizational structure of our association.
The International Board is proposing that IAP2 move to a federation of affiliates. The Board believes that an organizational change is necessary to direct more focus on two critical functions: developing and advancing our practice at the international level, and extending our membership base and activity at a local level. After examining a number of options the federation of affiliates has emerged as the preferred model.
[...]
The Board is now seeking member input to confirm, or not, whether a federation of affiliates is the best way forward, and if so to assist with the decision making process about how it will function. [...]
All IAP2 members are encouraged to participate in this discussion on the overall structure of the association – those who are direct members of the international body and those who hold their membership with an affiliate, or both. We welcome questions, comments, suggestions and advice.
[...] In addition to the online forum there will be other opportunities for the conversation – in person for some chapters, or via webinar and teleconference.
This is the first time IAP2 has engaged all its members in a conversation of this magnitude. [...]
On behalf of the Board of Directors of IAP2 I look forward to hearing your voice in this vital conversation about our Association’s future.
Best

The board’s recommendation to adopt this new organizational structure was first presented during the annual general meeting at the 2009 IAP2 Annual Conference in San Diego, CA back in September.  During the meeting, it soon became clear that a fair number or members weren’t quite on board yet and may have even had some reservations about the proposed changes.  Out of these discussions, a broader engagement approach started to emerge.

The project’s main online forum is powered by Bang the Table, an Australian provider of online stakeholder engagement services.

Most if not all of the accompanying materials are publicly available, see for instance the Member Engagement Plan (PDF, 532 KB), which lists the objectives as follows:

Member Engagement Objectives:
(What do members and the Board need from this process?)

  1. All IAP2 members and chapter leaders have the information they need to understand the current challenges, the proposed federation model, and related governance issues.
  2. All IAP2 members worldwide are able to express their opinion on the proposal for a federation of affiliates (positive or negative), be involved in online discussions, provide ideas on how a new model could be implemented effectively in their area (if they are not already in an affiliate structure) and across the world, and offer alternatives if they do not support the federation model.
  3. Chapter leaders in North America are involved in specific online discussions (and possibly face-to-face) to consider how the affiliate model can best be implemented in their area/country, given their current leadership role and the tasks and support needed for implementation.
  4. The Board understands what members and chapter leaders think about the federation of affiliates, draws on member ideas for the details to put in place a federation of affiliates, knows what the members want from both the affiliate level and the International level, and in doing so, has the information it needs to make decisions.

At first glance, the project looks very well thought-out (as can be expected from this organization). It leaves considerable room for participants to self-organize (either face-to-face locally or online along some other line of shared interest), so as a nice side effect I look forward to getting to know a few fellow IAP2 members from around the world over the course of the next few months.

Malmö 2009: Ministerial Declaration on eGovernment

Published by Tim on November 19, 2009 in E-government and Europe. 0 Comments Tags: .

In Europe, the 5th Ministerial eGovernment Conference — titled Teaming up for the eUnion — is happening in Malmö, Sweden today and tomorrow. At a press conference this morning, the long-awaited Ministerial Declaration on eGovernment (212 KB) was presented to the public.

The declaration, which is regarded as “our joint policy priorities until 2015,” addresses a number of issues such as transparency, open government data, collaboration, privacy, open source etc. Here’s what it has to offer in terms of participation:

6. Through this declaration, we will build on past achievements and increase our collaboration on eGovernment. Our public administrations should jointly strive for the following policy priorities, to be achieved by 2015.
Citizens and businesses are empowered by eGovernment services designed around users’ needs and developed in collaboration with third parties, as well as by increased access to public information, strengthened transparency and effective means for involvement of stakeholders in the policy process,
[...]

6. Through this declaration, we will build on past achievements and increase our collaboration on eGovernment. Our public administrations should jointly strive for the following policy priorities, to be achieved by 2015.

  • Citizens and businesses are empowered by eGovernment services designed around users’ needs and developed in collaboration with third parties, as well as by increased access to public information, strengthened transparency and effective means for involvement of stakeholders in the policy process,
  • [...]

[...]
Our Shared Objectives by 2015

Citizens and businesses are empowered by eGovernment services designed around users needs and developed in collaboration with third parties, as well as by increased access to public information, strengthened transparency and effective means for involvement of stakeholders in the policy process.

[...]

13. Involve stakeholders in public policy processes. We will actively develop and promote effective, useful and better ways for businesses and citizens to participate in the policy processes. Increased public engagement through more effective methods at all levels enhances government’s efficiency and effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions and services.

As a complement to this official declaration, the Open Declaration on European Public Services will be presented tomorrow. Here’s its take on participation, one of three “core principles for European public services”:

2. Participation: government should pro-actively seek citizen input in all its activities from user involvement in shaping services to public participation in policy-making. This input should be public for other citizens to view and government should publicly respond to it. The capacity to collaborate with citizens should become a core competence of government.

Last-minute endorsements of the Open Declaration are still being accepted.

FCC Seeking Input: How Broadband Can Help Advance Democracy

Published by Tim on November 18, 2009 in E-participation, Radar and Research. 2 Comments Tags: , , .

Steven Clift points to this public notice by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Comment Sought On Moving Toward A Digital Democracy (PDF, 172 KB)

From the introduction (emphasis mine):

In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), Congress directed the Commission, in its development of a National Broadband Plan, to include “a plan for the use of broadband infrastructure and services in advancing …civic participation.” While civic participation takes many forms, two processes provide the most direct and regular interaction opportunities between government and citizens: 1.  the election process, and 2.  public hearings and town hall meetings.  The election process and voting are essential to maintaining a functioning democracy and are also the civic processes in which the most Americans participate.  Public hearings and town hall meetings allow citizens to provide government representatives direct input on specific concerns and provide government representatives a direct means to gauge citizen sentiment.  Accordingly, we seek tailored comment on how broadband can help to bring democratic processes—including elections, public hearings and town hall meetings—into the digital age, thereby encouraging and facilitating citizen opportunities  to engage and participate in their democracy.

Item #4 is particularly interesting:

Online Government Hearings and Online Town Hall Meetings.  The proliferation of Internet-based tools and high speed technologies that enable high quality video, have enabled new venues for civic participation.  Where Congressional committee hearings and city council meetings across America were limited by the size of a room and the citizen’s resources to travel to the meeting location, broadband-enabled technologies now hold the potential to eliminate these barriers for millions of Americans. We seek to better understand the power of these tools and technologies to increase civic engagement and empower citizens to engage their government.
a. What are the technological models across cities, states, the nation and the globe for citizen participation in government meetings and online town halls?
b. What are the barriers to the integration of these technologies?
c. Do online town halls or online public hearings have a noticeable impact upon the quantity or quality of civic participation?
d. Do online town halls or online public hearings bring new citizens into the process of government?
e. Would Internet-based technologies make it easier for those who have to travel long distances (such as people in rural and Tribal areas) or people who have difficulty traveling (such as some elderly or disabled Americans) to engage in the process of self-government?
f. What is the history and current state of play of the relevant technologies with respect to online town halls or online public hearings?
  1. Online Government Hearings and Online Town Hall Meetings. The proliferation of Internet-based tools and high speed technologies that enable high quality video, have enabled new venues for civic participation.  Where Congressional committee hearings and city council meetings across America were limited by the size of a room and the citizen’s resources to travel to the meeting location, broadband-enabled technologies now hold the potential to eliminate these barriers for millions of Americans. We seek to better understand the power of these tools and technologies to increase civic engagement and empower citizens to engage their government.
    1. What are the technological models across cities, states, the nation and the globe for citizen participation in government meetings and online town halls?
    2. What are the barriers to the integration of these technologies?
    3. Do online town halls or online public hearings have a noticeable impact upon the quantity or quality of civic participation?
    4. Do online town halls or online public hearings bring new citizens into the process of government?
    5. Would Internet-based technologies make it easier for those who have to travel long distances (such as people in rural and Tribal areas) or people who have difficulty traveling (such as some elderly or disabled Americans) to engage in the process of self-government?
    6. What is the history and current state of play of the relevant technologies with respect to online town halls or online public hearings?

In addition to filing paper copies, comments may be submitted using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or the Federal Government’s eRulemaking Portal and must be in by December 10 (if I read the instructions correctly).

Ascentum Checklist: “Open Policy Making 101″

Published by Tim on November 13, 2009 in E-participation and ParticipateDB. 0 Comments

Over on the recently re-launched Ascentum blog, Joseph Peters (Partner at Ascentum) and Joe Goldman (Vice President of Citizen Engagement at AmericaSpeaks) just published a neat list of ten key questions to consider before launching an online public consultation: Open Policy Making 101: 10 Questions To Ask Before Launching Your Online Public Consultation

1. What do you want to know?
2. What is your commitment to participants?
3. Who needs to participate?
4. How hot is the issue?
5. What type of contribution are you looking for?
6. What type of data will you collect and analyze?
7. What are your timelines?
8. What resources are available to support the
process?
9. How can participants stay involved?
10. Which online tools should you use?
Joe Goldman is the Vice President of Citizen
Engagement at AmericaSpeaks.
Joseph Peters is a Partner at Ascentum.
Introducing Government Agencies to Web 2.0
  1. What do you want to know?
  2. What is your commitment to participants?
  3. Who needs to participate?
  4. How hot is the issue?
  5. What type of contribution are you looking for?
  6. What type of data will you collect and analyze?
  7. What are your timelines?
  8. What resources are available to support the process?
  9. How can participants stay involved?
  10. Which online tools should you use?

The document (PDF, 916 KB) lays out these principles in good details. Once again, the recommendations are concerned about good process first and tools second.

Their take on timelines is fairly specific, and I would like to hear if others in this field can either confirm or add to it:

Generally speaking, a process that is open to the general public should be live for four to six weeks to ensure adequate participation.

Finally, here’s their item number ten:

10.  Which online tools should you use?

This question is intentionally left until last in this list. Many organizations choose a shiny new tool and decide to use it before carefully considering their overall approach.  This ends up having the software drive the process and not the objectives. There are many tools and solutions to choose from, each with unique strengths and weaknesses. The options are endless, but you need to match the tool to your strategy based on the questions you have already answered from the list above.

Exactly. And supporting that mapping process of finding the right tools for the job is something we’d like to see ParticipateDB grow into over time.

Web-Based Dialogue: What is The Next Frontier?

Published by Tim on November 8, 2009 in Dialogue, E-participation and Research. 0 Comments Tags: .

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may well be one of the leading government agencies in the world when it comes to public participation. Their public engagement site offers a plethora of useful information including tools, definitions, case studies and much more. Their Public Involvement Network News electronic newsletter is another great resource.

A feature article in the Fall 2009 edition (PDF, 1.3 MB) provides a nice summary of a recent online dialogue with a group of ”twenty individuals with experience hosting, developing, facilitating, and/or researching web-based public engagement” that aimed to discover “what works, unanswered questions, and promising new strategies” with regard to web-based engagement: Web-Based Dialogue: What is The Next Frontier?

From the article:

What Are Best Practices for Online Dialogues?

There is enough experience with online dialogues that a body of “best practices” is beginning to emerge. This section describes key lessons identified by practitioners—starting with up-front planning, moving into dialogue facilitation, and finally describing how dialogue content affects policy.

It then goes on to list the following eight best practices in considerable detail:

  • Establish a clear purpose––and design the dialogue to accomplish it
  • Actively market the dialogue and recruit people to participate
  • Develop a compelling and constructive agenda
  • Use effective facilitation techniques to help people participate and keep the dialogue focused
  • Make it easy for people to get started and stay focused on the topic
  • Ensure worthy content with lasting value
  • Ensure an active and constructive role for dialogue “hosts”
  • Make sure participants are being heard—and that they know it

Note that these recommendations are, for the most part, completely independent of any underlying technology — something that’s at the core of our proposed session at SXSW next year.

Towards the end, the article lists a number of remaining challenges. If you’re working in e-participation today, this is pretty much the work that’s cut out for you, which is why I’m quoting this section in its entirety:

What Are Key Remaining Challenges and Questions About Online Dialogues?

Although much has been learned about how to make online dialogues effective, there are still remaining challenges to be addressed through refinements to dialogue design, facilitation, and other techniques. Key challenges include:

  • Different levels of engagement—while some people are reluctant to post, some are “chomping at the bit” to get discussions going and can deluge other participants with overwhelming numbers of messages.
  • Promoting effective interactions when dealing with participant populations having significantly different levels of expertise, experience, and expectation. When dialogues are open and inclusive, diversity can result in a much more interesting dialogue that produces a rich and varied knowledge product. However, in other instances, a great disparity in threshold knowledge, experience, and expectation can result in a dialogue that is less effective and also more frustrating to participants. Those with a greater threshold knowledge who hope to focus on tangible outcomes may become frustrated with those having a more casual interest (and the casual participants may feel intimated by those with more knowledge and experience).
  • Involving people with limited Internet access or other cultural, social, or psychological constraints on participating. (In one dialogue the hosts heard that someone had no access to a computer, and they arranged to receive his faxes, post them, and get the related responses to him for several days.)
  • Sorting and organizing the wealth of contributions in an efficient way so that participants and sponsors can find and participate in the parts of the dialogue that are most relevant to them. In some cases, the “noise” of irrelevant postings can eclipse the “signal” of on-topic content.
  • Balancing the need to keep conversations focused while also not limiting insightful conversations or unique ideas that are “outside of the box.”
  • Helping participants stay current with the evolving dialogue conversations that can run over hundreds of messages posted each day.
  • Overcoming some well-intentioned, but limiting government rules, such as the Paperwork Reduction Act’s limits on asking questions of participants or asking them to take surveys as part of the dialogue process.

The web dialogue was hosted by WestEd and the archive can still be viewed online.

Network News is an electronic newsletter for public involvement and collaborative problem solving practitioners. The purpose is to assist EPA’s staff and any other interested individuals to improve the quality and consistency of involvement/collaboration processes and activities.
First distributed in the summer of 2005, Network News has regularly carried news of upcoming conferences, new publications and emerging tools and techniques. Each issue also has a few feature articles, sometimes fitting under a single theme, sometimes not.
Network News issues are archived at this site.  You may access them at the following links: links