I am trying to find out "What makes you click" - that is to say why people choose to drop in or out of e-government, when they clearly are reaping the benefits of e-services in the private sector far more often.
The CLG are promoting take-up, they sponsored a huge campaign "Connect to your council" last year: http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/efficiencybetter/localegovernment/connectyour/
The title of the campaign, albeit being focused mainly on the take-up of local e-servies, is tantalising. Being "connected to you council" is about something much more subtle than just paying your council tax online or applying for a school place for your kid, or even casting your vote online (the e-democracy thing hasn't really kicked off yet, but I wouldn't worry too much about that. E-voting is fairly minor in my books anyway, voting is not what active citizenship is about on a daily and weekly basis, there's much much more we can/should be able to do in our communities).
Being connected to your council (via electronic means) is about the place-shaping agenda [Lyons Review site is archived at: http://www.webarchive.org.uk/pan/15454/20070428/www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/index.html, LG White Paper can be accessed here: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/strongprosperous] It's about knowing what's happening in your area, what the Council is doing and could do there - by the click of a finger, or two. It's about the awareness and competencies of local residents, and the Council's role and duty to be transparent, open and (inter)active in neighbourhoods. It's not about gimmicks and tricks, more about building a local presence and hopefully some kind of mutual trust in the long run.
This is why take-up is important, but we must not reduce the meaning of take-up into mere volumetrics and channel cost calculations, as important as these are for the Varney stuff. There is a higher agenda that could be served via locally facing web services.
Wednesday 13 February 2008
Tuesday 12 February 2008
current pilots in t-gov/take-up/channel management
Esd toolkit (IDeA) are a brilliant lot, they are the e/t gov community of local authorities and they are keen to find out answers to the real problems that councils experience trying to implement "transformational government".
Not only did they spearhead the take-up campaign and undertook an extensive study of take-up of online services, they have piloted with 13 councils on "customer profiling" against the LGSL (local government services list) to understand demand issues, take-up, channel migration etc. The first report ought to be out but I haven't been able to locate it yet. More about the pilot on: http://www.esd.org.uk/esdtoolkit/News/NewsDetail.aspx?Item=368
The LAs included in the pilot are: Chorley, Ealing, East Northamptonshire, Enfield, Havering, Lancashire, Lewisham, Luton, Mendip, North East Derbyshire, Redbridge, Waltham Forest, & Wokingham.
The backdrop to this pilot matches the policy environment of my research 100%: LG White Paper, Lyons "place-shaping", Varney/transformation, CSR07 etc.
Note: I need to get my hands on it!
On the new performance framework, NI 14 - reducing avoidable contact (http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/543055)
Since the CLG are sponsoring this study on customer profiling, they seem to accept that there is an interest in trying to understand channel migration issues. It doesn't take an economist to figure out that the web is a far more cost effective delivery channel - indeed some parts of the CLG seem to be thinking in these lines. It is therefore bizarre why the NI 14 "reducing avoidable contact" (part of the 198 indicators in the new performance management framework for LAs) is solely focusing on "getting it right first time" and reducing "failure demand". SOCITIM rightly point out in their response to the draft handbook of the NIs that every contact where an alternative web (self) service option exists should be an avoidable contact, and the indicator should therefore include an element of channel management (which is doesn't). Anyone who has read the "Transformational Government - enabled by technology" strategy would agree that maximising the use of the web channel should be at the heart of LAs efforts to be more efficient.
If there was just a tad more "joined up" thinking inside the department, we'd be better off with more coherent targets...
Not only did they spearhead the take-up campaign and undertook an extensive study of take-up of online services, they have piloted with 13 councils on "customer profiling" against the LGSL (local government services list) to understand demand issues, take-up, channel migration etc. The first report ought to be out but I haven't been able to locate it yet. More about the pilot on: http://www.esd.org.uk/esdtoolkit/News/NewsDetail.aspx?Item=368
The LAs included in the pilot are: Chorley, Ealing, East Northamptonshire, Enfield, Havering, Lancashire, Lewisham, Luton, Mendip, North East Derbyshire, Redbridge, Waltham Forest, & Wokingham.
The backdrop to this pilot matches the policy environment of my research 100%: LG White Paper, Lyons "place-shaping", Varney/transformation, CSR07 etc.
Note: I need to get my hands on it!
On the new performance framework, NI 14 - reducing avoidable contact (http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/543055)
Since the CLG are sponsoring this study on customer profiling, they seem to accept that there is an interest in trying to understand channel migration issues. It doesn't take an economist to figure out that the web is a far more cost effective delivery channel - indeed some parts of the CLG seem to be thinking in these lines. It is therefore bizarre why the NI 14 "reducing avoidable contact" (part of the 198 indicators in the new performance management framework for LAs) is solely focusing on "getting it right first time" and reducing "failure demand". SOCITIM rightly point out in their response to the draft handbook of the NIs that every contact where an alternative web (self) service option exists should be an avoidable contact, and the indicator should therefore include an element of channel management (which is doesn't). Anyone who has read the "Transformational Government - enabled by technology" strategy would agree that maximising the use of the web channel should be at the heart of LAs efforts to be more efficient.
If there was just a tad more "joined up" thinking inside the department, we'd be better off with more coherent targets...
Thursday 7 February 2008
Active citizens in well off areas vs "deprived" neighbourhoods
"What makes you click?"
The decisions about the sampling framework in my study revolve around whether I want to compare an average/well-off area with a regeneration/deprived area, OR as conceived thus far: a comparison of two relatively disadvantaged neighbourhoods with a different trajectory in LA intervention and approach to digital development. This research design has fundamental implications to what sort of conclusions and recommendations can be made. If I broaden the citizen base and select two economically varied areas I could potentially generalise more and also test the assumption that take-up is higher in economically better performing areas. However, comparing two deprived neighbourhoods the playground will be the regeneration context and the comparison will focus on the benefits of different types of LA approach and how that is affecting take-up, trust, citizen perceptions etc.
The question of take-up "What makes you click?" ofcourse needs to be resolved in both (all) kinds of areas to overcome the problem of high investment costs and thus far meagre benefits/return on investment. Demographically a different set of circumstances are at play, e.g. in Levenhsulme and in Didsbury.
The "digital divide" demonstrably goes hand in hand with economic disadvantage - therefore the question of LA intervention as part of regeneration activity is a valid one.
There is merit in focusing on this, and also testing assumptions of citizens' readiness (in less well off areas) to adopt new technology, and exploit the "networks of opportunity" opened up by computer mediated access to the "network society".
We also know that some people in higher socio-economic groups choose not to have technology, but there is little point in trying to lead these ones to the water and make them drink. Again, to build a cohesive society where all members should have equal access to "networks of opportunity" the main policy question is how to help those who want access but for some reason or other don't have it.
Under the Varney agenda, for government transformation to succeed, authorities should take measures to boost take-up and citizen competencies in exploiting technology in order to secure their own efficiency gains through increased use of electronic services (as opposed to via traditional channels). From the LA's perspective, the "low hanging fruit" of course would be to make the middle classes migrate to e-channels, they are likelier to have the required skills and technology at their disposal. However they are not the heaviest users of LA services, and their migration to e-channels would only have a mild-to-moderate impact on the overall efficiencies. The bigger impact will undoubtedly come from more frequent users of public services.
The third research concept that influences the sampling framework is that of citizenship. "Active citizens" play a central role in New Labour policy. Active citizens supposedly become active agents in the "place-shaping" agenda (Lyons, Local Gov White Paper etc) and take part in the governance of their neighbourhoods. How exactly that happens below the level of the Town Hall is a mystery, and presumably there is a myriad of experimentations under way in different LAs. (Salford, I hear, have a well-established and developed neighbourhood approach.) Harnessing citizens into some form of organised effort to take part in governance really is not an easy task, which I can say as a neighbourhood activist myself. The logic of the "contact surface" between active citizens, e-government take-up and "double devolution" has something to do with the fact that hypothetically, active citizens might also be more networked than their less active neighbours. Hypothetically they have access to the "information superhighway" and know how to use it, otherwise it is difficult to be "active". Because they are "active" they are the ones who report flytipping, ASB, broken streetlights etc. They are more frequent users/partners of the LA than those who only come into contact with the LA to pay their Council Tax.
If the study focuses on "active citizens" to unveil what makes them click, valid and potentially useful conclusions can be drawn but no universal truths.
The decisions about the sampling framework in my study revolve around whether I want to compare an average/well-off area with a regeneration/deprived area, OR as conceived thus far: a comparison of two relatively disadvantaged neighbourhoods with a different trajectory in LA intervention and approach to digital development. This research design has fundamental implications to what sort of conclusions and recommendations can be made. If I broaden the citizen base and select two economically varied areas I could potentially generalise more and also test the assumption that take-up is higher in economically better performing areas. However, comparing two deprived neighbourhoods the playground will be the regeneration context and the comparison will focus on the benefits of different types of LA approach and how that is affecting take-up, trust, citizen perceptions etc.
The question of take-up "What makes you click?" ofcourse needs to be resolved in both (all) kinds of areas to overcome the problem of high investment costs and thus far meagre benefits/return on investment. Demographically a different set of circumstances are at play, e.g. in Levenhsulme and in Didsbury.
The "digital divide" demonstrably goes hand in hand with economic disadvantage - therefore the question of LA intervention as part of regeneration activity is a valid one.
There is merit in focusing on this, and also testing assumptions of citizens' readiness (in less well off areas) to adopt new technology, and exploit the "networks of opportunity" opened up by computer mediated access to the "network society".
We also know that some people in higher socio-economic groups choose not to have technology, but there is little point in trying to lead these ones to the water and make them drink. Again, to build a cohesive society where all members should have equal access to "networks of opportunity" the main policy question is how to help those who want access but for some reason or other don't have it.
Under the Varney agenda, for government transformation to succeed, authorities should take measures to boost take-up and citizen competencies in exploiting technology in order to secure their own efficiency gains through increased use of electronic services (as opposed to via traditional channels). From the LA's perspective, the "low hanging fruit" of course would be to make the middle classes migrate to e-channels, they are likelier to have the required skills and technology at their disposal. However they are not the heaviest users of LA services, and their migration to e-channels would only have a mild-to-moderate impact on the overall efficiencies. The bigger impact will undoubtedly come from more frequent users of public services.
The third research concept that influences the sampling framework is that of citizenship. "Active citizens" play a central role in New Labour policy. Active citizens supposedly become active agents in the "place-shaping" agenda (Lyons, Local Gov White Paper etc) and take part in the governance of their neighbourhoods. How exactly that happens below the level of the Town Hall is a mystery, and presumably there is a myriad of experimentations under way in different LAs. (Salford, I hear, have a well-established and developed neighbourhood approach.) Harnessing citizens into some form of organised effort to take part in governance really is not an easy task, which I can say as a neighbourhood activist myself. The logic of the "contact surface" between active citizens, e-government take-up and "double devolution" has something to do with the fact that hypothetically, active citizens might also be more networked than their less active neighbours. Hypothetically they have access to the "information superhighway" and know how to use it, otherwise it is difficult to be "active". Because they are "active" they are the ones who report flytipping, ASB, broken streetlights etc. They are more frequent users/partners of the LA than those who only come into contact with the LA to pay their Council Tax.
If the study focuses on "active citizens" to unveil what makes them click, valid and potentially useful conclusions can be drawn but no universal truths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)