Social Networking and The Public Sector: Issues, Barriers and Opportunities

1. Social Networking and The Public Sector: • Issues, Barriers and Opportunities • Session: Web 2.0 and Government • Georgia Digital Government Summit • Tuesday, September 29 • Atlanta, GA 30303 • Paul M.A. Baker, Ph.D, • Center for Advanced Communications Policy (CACP) • Georgia Institute of technology

2. Social Media and the Public Sector • Increased participation/engagement/openness/transparency made possible by information and communication technologies (ICT) • Ranges from 2D interactive Web sites to fully immersive 3D platforms (e.g. Second Life) • Scalable horizontally (e.g. citizen:citizen, citizen:government, unit:unit) or vertically (between levels of government) • Increased accessibility to governmental process, especially important for the more than 54 million Americans with disabilities • New opportunities for communication between constituents rather than just constituents to government • Most efficacious if implemented within an overall communication/services plan, proactively

3. Background • Top 10 Small Digital Cities1 • (30,000 – 74,999 population) 1Center for Digital Government and Digital Communities magazine 2Manchester was omitted from search because of number of non-related results during search

4. Search Results Avg. 29.6 Avg. 14.9

5. Results

6. Opportunities • Information capability of ICT allows for innovative practices • Innovative activities (Web 2.0) signals concern of government for outreach and interest in participation • Metrics of engagement - small “N” but large impact • Civic “multiplier” effect (engage the “engagers”) • Increased potential for accessibility for people with disabilities (e.g. reduces transportation “load”) • Additional channel for critical communications • Organization/business services (economic development) • Potential human capital impacts

7. Barriers and Considerations • Increased connectivity and accessibility of ICTs not universal • Rationale: Who is the target audience?/What is the message? • Sensitivity of data (especially in “cloud computing” context) • Sustainability of effort (management/editorial) • Resources (ICT/staff) • Legal issues/accountability (e.g. Santa Monica)

8. Design/Implementation Approach • Technology ahead of carefully defined need and supporting policy structures can lead to problems (i.e. “lock-in”) • Importance of stakeholder participation • Initial design analysis should address key issues including: • Functionality • Organizational and sustainability • Legal • Technology and design • Management of content/process • Outcome measurement

9. Functional Considerations • Typical Key Areas (Municipal) • Community networking • Civic engagement • Economic development • Education • Services • Determination of technical parameters • Align with city needs and goals • Cost-effective/sustainability objectives • Accessibility

10. Organizational Considerations • Organizational and operational plan issues • Relevance/responsiveness to municipal goals • Pertinent legal issues • Sustainability of: • Funding • Content • Community • Platform

11. Legal/Policy Considerations • Advanced Web 2.0 applications generates new and unique legal issues: • Identity/representation/verification • Ownership/access of information • Accessibility for marginalized populations • Interaction of previously separated groups • Regulation of unwanted content/speech

12. Technological Considerations • To briefly mention, in as much as they have policy aspects: • Hardware • Network infrastructure • Assumed baseline computer capability • Mobile device support • Software (Engines) • 2D vs. 3D • Point of view • Delivery: web browser vs. standalone • Database integration • Content (Functions implemented)

13. Example Stakeholder Analysis

14. Policy Implications • While challenging, the engagement of a wide range of stakeholder group can enhance the probability of success • Alternative provision for access (library, etc.) • Balance between participation, appropriateness and responsiveness • Dog/car problem: you’ve got the participation, now what are you going to do with it? • Who runs this thing? Collaboration and management, horizontally and vertically • Technological issues (data protection, privacy) • Legal issues (citizens vs. non citizens, minors, censorship, accountability, geography, responsiveness)

15. Final Thoughts • The “Devil is in the Details” – implementation for the sake of implementation is counterproductive at best and potentially risky • Match potential audience to mode of communication (Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn, etc.) • Establish goals and objectives to avoid mission creep • Formative evaluation – be willing to tweak efforts as needed • Sustainability – don’t start something you can’t keep up • Web 2.0 is already used by broad swaths of the public, is generally cost effective, and is inherent sustainable as a medium already embedded into peoples' communication routines

16. Wrap-up Further information: • CACP: www.cacp.gatech.edu The authors wish to acknowledge the research and editorial assistance of Nathan W. Moon, and the support provided by the University of Central Florida, Center for Advanced Communications Policy (CACP), Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI), and the Wireless Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC), sponsored by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. Department of Education under grant number H133E060061. The opinions contained in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. DOE or NIDRR.

17. Policy Caveat Die ich rief, die Geister werd ich nun nicht los From the spirits I have called I now cannot rid myself Goethe: "The Sorcerer's Apprentice"