Leveraging Web 2.0 In Government E Go V Ernment/tec Hnology Series
Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government
hnology Series
ec
Ai-Mei Chang
Professor of Systems Management
University of Maryland University College
P. K. Kannan
Director, Center for Excellence in Service, and
v
ernment/T
Harvey Sanders Associate Professor of Marketing
The Robert H. Smith School of Business
University of Maryland
E-Go
2 0 0 8
E - G ov E R n M E n T / T E C H n o l o G y S E R i E S
Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government
Ai-Mei Chang
Professor of Systems Management
University of Maryland University College
P. K. Kannan
Director, Center for Excellence in Service, and
Harvey Sanders Associate Professor of Marketing
The Robert H. Smith School of Business
University of Maryland
T A B l E o F C o n T E n T S
Foreword ..............................................................................................4
Executive Summary ..............................................................................6
Introduction .........................................................................................9
Era of Web 2.0.............................................................................10
issues of Focus .............................................................................10
Understanding the Impact of Web 2.0 ...............................................13
value Creation in online Communities .......................................14
The impact of Web 2.0 ................................................................16
implications of Web 2.0 for Government Agencies ......................18
A Framework for Using Web 2.0 in Government ..............................19
Communication-Focused Uses ....................................................20
interaction-Focused Uses .............................................................21
Service-Focused Uses ..................................................................22
Citizen Perceptions of the Potential Uses of
Web 2.0 in Government ...................................................................26
Focus Group Findings ..................................................................26
implications for Government Use of Web 2.0 .............................28
Measuring Engagement and Effectiveness ..........................................29
Measuring Engagement ................................................................29
Measuring Effectiveness ...............................................................30
Findings and Recommendations .........................................................31
Findings .......................................................................................31
Recommendations .......................................................................33
References .........................................................................................35
About the Authors ..............................................................................37
Key Contact Information ....................................................................39
3
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
F o R E W o R D
on behalf of the iBM Center for The Business of Government, we are
pleased to present this report, “leveraging Web 2.0 in Government,”
by Ai-Mei Chang and P. K. Kannan.
in the past year, there has been enormous hype in the media about the
growth of Web 2.0 and the use of social networking by the millennial
generation. There has also been much publicity about the use of
Web 2.0 in business and government. This report deconstructs the
hype and presents the potential uses of social computing in government,
discusses the barriers to Web 2.0, and presents what citizens think
about Web 2.0. interestingly, citizens in different age groups are open
Albert Morales
to new government initiatives to deliver services over the internet using
the interactive capabilities available in Web 2.0.
The authors’ key findings will likely be discomforting to many govern-
ment executives. Citizens, according to the focus group convened by
the authors, trust government with their private data but do not see
government as an effective deliverer of services. They trust the nonprofit
and private sectors to deliver services more effectively. As a conse-
quence, the authors believe government will be increasingly pressured
to allow its services to be delivered by trusted intermediaries over the
internet rather than attempting to deliver them via their own websites.
The increased use of intermediaries has major implications for how
government designs and delivers its services, as well as how govern-
Mark Cleverley
ment communicates and interacts with its employees and with citizens.
it also has strong implications for how government agencies and pro-
grams are designed, organized, and administered. The authors maintain
that government will increasingly be pressured to reduce its control by
disaggregating its services and allowing more peer-to-peer interactions
both among employees and citizens.
4
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
These trends pose big policy concerns around privacy, security, authen-
ticity, and access that need to be addressed. Government faces cultural
challenges as well, including agency hierarchy and accountability
issues that need attention. nevertheless, the authors offer a framework
for government executives for how to begin sorting out these issues and
how to begin leveraging Web 2.0 capabilities, starting with “just do it!”
Albert Morales
Mark Cleverley
Managing Partner
Director of Strategy
iBM Center for The Business of Government
iBM Public Sector Government Transformation
albert.morales@us.ibm.com
mark.cleverley@us.ibm.com
www.businessofgovernment.org
5
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
E x E C U T i v E S U M M A R y
With the advent of second-generation internet tech-
Findings
nologies, the Web 2.0 environment is fast emerging
Government needs to meet citizens where they are
as the communication, interaction, and service provi-
online. Social computing renders the online envi-
sion platform for all sectors. Both businesses and gov-
ronment individual-user-centric. younger citizens are
ernment organizations are recognizing the significant
increasingly engaging each other, interacting with
potential of the Web 2.0 environment in building
businesses, and building an online cultural and
relationships with customers, employees, and citi-
commercial environment, all of which clearly call
zens, and in co-creating content and services that
for government initiatives targeting citizens online.
will benefit all players interacting in the environment. Governments will have to engage citizens at sites
With the adoption of social computing and social
where they are rather than expect them to approach
media by citizens under the age of 25 already
government portals. Citizens view this as “keeping
exceeding 75 percent, government organizations now up with the times,” indicating the inevitability of
need to plan and implement initiatives to engage and such initiatives.
service the citizens of today and tomorrow. Given the
focus within government organizations at all levels to Citizens are willing to interact with government
engage and increase the civic involvement of citi-
agencies online. in general, citizens have positive
zens, the excitement about the Web 2.0 environment
attitudes toward potential Web 2.0 initiatives. The
and ways to leverage it for government uses is under-
more relevant the uses are for citizens, the more
standable. So is the motivation for this report.
willing they are to interact with the government on
the specific uses. Appropriately designed initiatives
This study has four important objectives with regard
to engage citizens in their own settings will also
to understanding how to leverage Web 2.0 for
enhance the trust citizens have in their government
government-citizen and government-employee
and help government build citizen loyalty. Such ini-
interactions:
tiatives have the potential to increase the transpar-
ency of government agencies, which could lead to
• Understanding social computing as a phenome-
greater trust in them. it could also lead to greater
non and the implications for harnessing its
citizen influence on government policies and
potential for government use
actions.
• Developing a framework for harnessing the
power of Web 2.0 in government and identify-
The role of intermediaries will increase. Many busi-
ing the critical issues in such uses
nesses are being aided by third-party firms acting as
intermediaries in providing content and service in
• Understanding the perceptions of citizens in inter-
the Web 2.0 environment. it is inevitable that, in
acting with government for service provision and
order to engage citizens effectively in their social
civic engagement in the Web 2.0 environment
computing setting, governments will have to employ
• identifying the ways in which social computing
and leverage intermediaries to increase their cover-
engagement and effectiveness can be measured
age and reach to deliver content and “mashable”
in Web 2.0 initiatives
6
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
services. Governments will also be able to provide
Given the specific nature of trust, governments can
customized services to citizens at a potentially
leverage reputed third-party service providers by
lower cost with the help of intermediaries. The
teaming up with them to provide “mashable” ser-
increased coverage and reach will come at the cost
vices to citizens. it is imperative that government
of decreased control, which means governments
have appropriate control over private information in
have to relinquish some control over how the con-
such joint ventures to realize the overall benefits.
tent and service is reconfigured and distributed.
Government will need to measure the effectiveness
Government will need to rethink content and ser-
of its Web 2.0 initiatives. Surveys of current mea-
vice design. Web 2.0 applications will necessitate
surement techniques in the Web 2.0 environment in
governments rethinking how they design their con-
the private sector show that they are focused on two
tent and services. Content has to be addressable in
dimensions:
a very granular form so that intermediaries can pick
the appropriate content and application they need
• Measurement of the levels of engagement
to fulfill their service task. Privacy of citizen content
• Measurement of the effectiveness of the
and information has to be defined at a granular level
application
for the same reason. Similarly, security consider-
ations may dictate the design of the content and
Both dimensions are necessary to calibrate the
transportability of content to intermediaries as well
impact of the initiatives and justify a business case for
as citizens in their online environment.
their use. While measures of levels of engagement
are useful for initial evaluation of government initia-
Government will have to find ways to embed author-
tives, the ultimate focus should always be on measur-
ity in its web-based services. A survey of government ing the value generated for citizens.
initiatives and pilots in the Web 2.0 environment
shows that they mainly span communication- and
interaction-focused uses to date. Many citizens have
Recommendations
been exposed to the Web 2.0 environment in an
entertainment and/or social context. There is a level
Recommendation 1: Just do it. Government
of informality in such uses that is likely to be associ-
should embark on pilot projects to understand
ated with the more formal uses that governments may and experiment with social computing in the
plan. Thus, imparting the appropriate level of author-
Web 2.0 environment.
ity to government initiatives is critically important to
gain citizen trust in such uses.
Recommendation 2: Develop a government-wide
inventory of common Web 2.0 issues. An inventory
Some citizens are concerned about equal access.
of common Web 2.0-related policy issues should
The focus group studies indicated that many of the
be developed, and agencies need to address
non-users of Web 2.0 technologies were concerned
these issues collectively rather than having each
that they might be disenfranchised if similar oppor-
agency individually develop their own solutions.
tunities were not provided in other more conven-
This could be done from inside government—for
tional channels. Equally important is the issue of
example, out of the office of Management and
access for those who do not have online access.
Budget’s Administrator for E-Government and
Thus, there is a danger of some citizens becoming
information Technology—or via an external hon-
“second-class” citizens based on their abilities and
est broker such as the Collaboration Project,
access.
sponsored by the national Academy of Public
Administration (www.collaborationproject.org).
Citizens trust the government with personal data
but not for service efficiency. Studies revealed that
Recommendation 3: Strategically rethink how to
citizens trusted government more than businesses
deliver on your mission. individual agencies or
with regard to their personal data and privacy.
major programs should strategically develop ser-
However, in terms of service efficiency, citizens
vice-focused uses that may involve using Web 2.0
tended to trust the private sector to do a better job.
approaches to reconfigure their business models or
www.businessofgovernment.org
7
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
services in order to more effectively deliver on their in the context of fast-paced developments in the
own core missions or outcomes that require collab-
Web 2.0 environment and the increasing trend in
oration with other agencies. This rethinking should
citizen adoption of the environment, it is imperative
be a part of their required agency-wide strategic
that government organizations start implementing
planning process and not just within their technol-
pilot projects with a view to learning and leveraging
ogy offices.
the new environment. However, such initiatives
should be undertaken with a full understanding of
Recommendation 4: Reconfigure your Internet
the evolving environment, its implications for appli-
information and services to be more component-
cations, and citizens’ perception of such applica-
based. As agencies redesign their websites, they
tions. We hope that this study will assist government
need to focus on making their services and informa-
executives in gaining a quick appreciation of these
tion more granular, or component-based, and give
critical issues prior to planning their own initiatives.
users the ability to use government information in
“mashups” with other information sources. Along
with the trend in service-oriented architecture (SoA)
and the need for reusable service modules in the
context of intermediaries extending the reach of
government, government agencies need to develop
policies to support the handling of such information
and service modules. Given the increased role of
reputed intermediaries in the Web 2.0 environment,
government agencies might well consider leveraging
intermediaries for Web 2.0 initiatives.
Recommendation 5: Ensure authenticity of govern-
ment information and services. Agencies need to
develop strategies and policies whereby they (or
their customers) can ensure the authenticity of gov-
ernment-generated information and services. This is
important as government begins to “meet” citizens
where they are online and as intermediaries begin
to “mash up” government data and services. Users
need to be assured that government-provided infor-
mation is clearly labeled so they can better judge
the authenticity of the information or service they
are accessing. Developing such an approach may be
a government-wide initiative, possibly led by the
national institute of Standards and Technology.
Recommendation 6: Learn and keep an open mind.
it is important for government agency executives to
recognize that social computing is evolving even as
the Web 2.0 platform morphs into Web 3.0 and
beyond; it is in a perpetual beta state. This calls for
executives to have a learning attitude toward the ini-
tiatives they launch in the social computing environ-
ment. Government agencies should start measuring
the levels of engagement of Web 2.0 uses from day
one and measure the effectiveness of uses through
direct feedback from citizens on a regular basis.
8
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
Introduction
With the increased penetration of the internet and
implications for both businesses and governments
wireless broadband services, and with the increas-
as they seek out useful interactions with their cus-
ing technology readiness of citizens, in the past five
tomers and citizens.
years the breadth of activities that an average citizen
performs online has been steadily increasing (see
Cognizant of these trends, businesses and govern-
Pew internet and American life Project at www.
ments are already taking a very close look at Web
pewinternet.org). The types of activities range from
2.0 and online communities in order to leverage
sending or reading e-mail (92 percent of internet
them for designing and marketing products and ser-
users in 2007 engaged in this activity), buying a
vices and for providing customer and citizen service.
product (66 percent), downloading games or videos
This is reflected in the astronomical sums paid for,
(42 percent), to categorizing or tagging online con-
or contemplated for, social network sites such as
tent (28 percent) and blogging (22 percent).
MySpace and Facebook, highlighting their value-
creation potential for both businesses and customers.
The United States and other developed countries
A recent McKinsey global survey of business execu-
have seen a full integration of technology into citi-
tives (McKinsey 2007) found that more than 75 per-
zens’ lives—an integration that goes beyond the
cent of the executives plan to maintain or increase
internet, through wireless and mobile connectivity
their investments in Web 2.0 technologies including
to virtual realms and virtual worlds. over the past
peer-to-peer networking, social networking, and
five years alone, the percentage of U.S. citizens
web services. Many businesses are also using these
involved in social networking and virtual commu-
technologies to communicate externally with cus-
nity activities (broadly defined as networking in sites
tomers and business partners, as well as internally
such as MySpace, Friendster, linkedin, and other
to increase collaborative efforts among employees.
special interest sites; reading/creating blogs; instant
messaging; and using Web 2.0 applications) has
Similar efforts are already ongoing in many govern-
doubled to over 30 percent in the general popula-
ment organizations, highlighting the fact that gov-
tion (nTRS 2008). For those in their teens and 20s,
ernments are not far behind in understanding the
this percentage is much higher (64 percent of the
importance of technology and citizen usage trends.
online teens create content online in such sites),
The Web 2.0 initiatives—podcasts and virtual
indicating an ever-increasing trend in the use of the
worlds—of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),
online environment for social networking, exchang-
nASA’s internal social networks and virtual worlds,
ing information, creating and building up content,
and the U.S. intelligence community’s intellipedia
and conducting transactions.
are just a few of the recent efforts launched within
the federal government. Many examples have
Given these trends, it is expected that tomorrow’s
already emerged from the United Kingdom and
adult citizens are going to spend a significant amount Japan at other levels of the government. While
of time online for social, commercial, and business
efforts can be viewed as experimental or leveraging
activities, displacing many of the activities and the
the low-hanging fruit, it is very important to identify
time that is now spent offline. This has tremendous
and understand the nature of Web 2.0 technologies
www.businessofgovernment.org
9
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
and their suitability for various enterprise-level
the notion of the co-creation of services and gover-
applications, the ways in which government can
nance issues would have to deal with (1) the shift in
leverage these technologies for strengthening the
control to users and (2) users and external organiza-
government-citizen relationship and for intra- and
tions acting as intermediaries to service other users.
inter-government use, and the perceptions that citi-
The design and delivery of content and services will
zens have regarding the use of these technologies
have to be transformed. The framework and pro-
for interacting with governments. Without such an
cesses to create citizen relationships, to strengthen
understanding, there is the potential danger of ignor-
citizen trust and loyalties, and to enhance civic
ing social trends among citizens and thus rendering
engagements will have to be thought through and
governments somewhat irrelevant and reducing
designed carefully.
civic engagement with such citizen groups. This
report aims to fill this gap by researching certain
Issues of Focus
specific issues, which we outline in the remainder
of this section.
This report has four important objectives with
regard to understanding how government agencies
Era of Web 2.0
can leverage Web 2.0 for government-citizen and
government-employee interactions:
The era of Web 2.0 is upon us. The Web 2.0 platform
is a networked world supporting individual users cre-
• Understanding social computing as a phenome-
ating content individually and collectively, sharing
non and the implications for harnessing its
and updating information and knowledge using
potential for government use
sophisticated, diverse sharing devices and tools, and
remixing and improving on content created by each
• Developing a framework for harnessing the
other. it is a network platform that allows high levels
power of Web 2.0 in government and identify-
of user interactions, resulting in content and updates
ing the critical issues in such uses
that are in the “permanent beta” stage, which in turn • Understanding the perceptions of citizens in
enables rich user experiences that go much beyond
interacting with government for service provi-
the Web 1.0 era. Many technologies populate the
sion and civic engagement in the Web 2.0
platform—blogs, mashups, peer-to-peer computing,
environment
RSS, social networks and online communities, pod-
casts, wikis, tagging and bookmarking, to name a
• identifying the ways in which social computing
few—leading to an environment of “collective intel-
engagement and effectiveness can be measured
ligence” (o’Reilly 2005) that all users and firms can
in Web 2.0 initiatives
harness. (See page 11 for a glossary of Web 2.0
terms.) These applications share some common
The first objective of the study is understanding the
characteristics. They have the potential to deliver
basic concept of Web 2.0, its characteristics, and
enhanced customer service experiences, to allow
the technology and tools that underlie it. We will
high levels of interactions and the co-creation of ser-
focus on how the potential embedded in Web 2.0
vices, and to deliver self-service through a variety of
can be harnessed for enterprise and government
devices, both wired and wireless.
applications. This understanding also provides the
lay of the land in terms of potential applications,
The challenge to businesses and governments in this especially from the government viewpoint. We
era of Web 2.0 is how to effectively harness this
will also examine some applications in the private
potential and the collective intelligence that is con-
sector that highlight this potential.
stantly evolving in this environment. This challenge
is not confined to the technology arena alone. it
The second objective of the study is to provide,
involves the organizational and social structures as
based on the understanding of the concept and its
well, and results in transformations in both areas.
potential, a framework for applying social comput-
This is because the era of Web 2.0 is one of “social
ing in the public sector. This will include intra-
computing” that is characterized by a rapid shift of
governmental applications as well as interactions
control from the firms and institutions to the users.
with external constituents. Recent well-publicized
Thus, from the government institutional perspective,
initiatives in the government will also be high-
10
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
A Glossary of Web 2.0 Terminology
Blogs: A frequently updated, chronologically ordered publication of personal thoughts and opinions with perma-
nent links to other sources, creating a historical archive. This can be published on personal websites or institu-
tional websites as communication tools.
Mashup: A web application that combines data from more than one source into a single integrated tool. For
example, the use of cartographic data from Google Maps to add location information to real-estate data from
Craigslist, thereby creating a new and distinct web service that was not originally provided by either source.
Open-source software: Software developed in the public domain by multiple developers that is available for
sharing, enhancing, and various other uses. linux and Pearl are good examples.
Peer-2-peer (P2P) computing: Allows direct sharing of files from one user PC to another user’s PC using the web
as the platform. Examples of P2P computing include BitTorrent, Gnutella, and Freenet. Such P2P connections
between users can form large networks that can also be used to distribute telephony in real time.
Perpetual beta: A term used to describe software or a system that never leaves the development stage of beta.
Perpetual beta has come to be associated with the development and release of a service in which constant updates
are the foundation for the habitability/usability of a service, as is common with many Web 2.0 applications.
Podcasts and vlogs: online audio and video blogs that can be downloaded to devices such as PCs or handheld
devices (wireless phones, mp3 players, iPods). These can be subscription based or free, single-use or repeated-
use content.
RSS (Really Simple Syndication): A family of web-feed formats used to push frequently updated content such as
blog entries, news headlines, or podcasts to users’ PCs or devices. An RSS document, which is called a “feed,”
“web feed,” or “channel,” contains either a summary of content from an associated website or the full text. RSS
makes it possible for people to keep up with their favorite websites in an automated manner that’s easier than
checking them manually.
Search engines: These include the ubiquitous search engine tools such as Google, yahoo, Ask Jeeves, etc., as well
as blog search tools such as Technorati, Bloglines, etc., in addition to specialized search tools at institutional web-
sites.
Social networking sites: online networking platforms that allow registered users to interact with other users for
social or professional purposes. Examples include MySpace, Facebook, and linkedin.
Tagging and social bookmarking: Methods that help internet users to store, organize, search, and manage
bookmarks of webpages. These applications allow users to create tags or descriptions of the webpages using
their own keywords, thus creating metadata (that is, data about data). These tags and bookmarks can be shared
among users.
Virtual worlds: A computer-based simulated environment intended for its users to inhabit and interact via ava-
tars. This habitation usually is represented in the form of two- or three-dimensional graphical representations of
humanoids (or other graphical or text-based avatars). Most, but not all, virtual worlds allow for multiple users.
The world being computer-simulated typically appears similar to the real world, including features such as grav-
ity, topography, locomotion, real-time actions, and communication. Communication has, until recently, been
in the form of text, but now real-time voice communication using voiP is available. This type of virtual world is
now most common in massively multiplayer online games. Examples include Active Worlds, vioS, There, Second
life—although not games per se but more like virtual environments that can include gaming—Entropia Universe,
The Sims online, Red light Center, Kaneva). Particularly massively multiplayer online role-playing games include
EverQuest, Ultima online, lineage, World of Warcraft, RuneScape, AdventureQuest, and Guild Wars.
Wikis: Collaborative publishing technology that allows multiple users to work on and publish documents online
with appropriate version control. Wikis allow hypertext links to content in any form, enhancing user experience
and interactions.
www.businessofgovernment.org
11
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
lighted. Finally, critical factors that need to be con-
sidered in such applications will be examined.
The third objective of the study is to examine the
perceptions of citizens regarding the use of Web 2.0
applications for government-citizen interactions as
well as intra-governmental applications. Based on
feedback from citizen groups both in focus groups
and survey settings, we specifically focus on the
practicality of the applications and citizens’ enthusi-
asm for such applications. We also examine their
views on the impact of such applications on
enhancing their trust in government, their relation-
ships with government, and the level of their civic
engagement.
The fourth objective is to examine how to measure
the levels of engagement in Web 2.0, as well as the
effectiveness of such applications from the perspec-
tives of service and governance objectives.
Finally, in the last section of the report we summa-
rize the key findings based on the above four
components of the study and provide practical rec-
ommendations for government executives for imple-
menting Web 2.0, which will inevitably be
demanded in the immediate future.
12
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
Understanding the Impact of Web 2.0
The origins of the social computing phenomenon,
consumer needs being met (Armstrong and Hagel
the centerpiece of the Web 2.0 platform, started
1995; 1996). The four types are:
much before businesses were beginning to discover
the uses of the internet for transaction purposes in
• Transaction-oriented communities
the Web 1.0 era. However, the seeds of today’s appli-
• interest-oriented communities
cation started around the same time as users began
congregating in online or virtual communities. in
• Fantasy-oriented communities
their narrowest form, virtual communities can be
• Relationship-oriented communities
defined using the earliest (and still valid) definition:
Many of them exist today in their earlier forms,
social aggregations of a critical mass of
although many of them have morphed into
people on the internet who engage in pub-
Web 2.0 forms.
lic discussions, interactions in chat rooms,
and information exchanges with sufficient
Transaction-oriented communities. online commu-
human feeling on matters of common inter-
nities that evolved during the Web 1.0 era were lim-
est to form webs of personal relationships
ited to textual interaction among community users,
(Rheingold 1993).
with the community organizer (mainly businesses
and third-party firms) focused on providing content
The common bond is strengthened by personal rela-
to users and controlling the interactions, and inter-
tionships that ensure some degree of loyalty of the
ested in extracting information from community
members to the community. However, commercial
members. For example, the transaction-oriented
interests are a part of the individual-level needs, and
communities primarily facilitated the buying and
it is not uncommon to find communities for business
selling of products and services and delivered infor-
transactions focused on individual and organizational mation that was related to fulfilling those transac-
needs—communities of buyers and sellers, such as
tions. These communities did not address the
eBay, uBid, or Aucnet. These individual- and business- members’ social needs in any manner, and the focus
oriented communities consist of a critical mass of
was on interaction between members either to trans-
members whose needs are mainly commercial in
act business or to provide informational leads or
nature and who use the communities mainly for net-
consultations about other possible participants in
working and/or building business relationships. While transactions. Examples of such communities of
these communities may lack the human feeling ele-
transaction include:
ment and the social interaction, they involve such
significant informational exchange, consumer evalua-
• BestBuy.com or CircuitCity.com, where consum-
tion of other users, and communication that we con-
ers get information and tips from the vendor and
sider these communities as virtual communities.
buy products at the website
in the era of Web 1.0, four types of virtual commu-
• Amazon.com, where visitors can get reviews of
nities started to evolve depending on the types of
books from other readers
www.businessofgovernment.org
13
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
• Business communities such as DigitalMedianet.
commands and messages (often referred to as “mas-
com, which meet members’ transactional and/or sively multiplayer online role-playing games”). Early
informational needs.
examples of such communities include oberin and
Runescape.com.
one motive of the organizers of such communities
was to increase the “stickiness” of the websites so
Relationship-oriented communities. The fourth type
community members would stay longer and spend
of community was the community of relationship
more money. Although communities of transactions
built around certain life experiences that are usually
could be organized by anyone, the organizers were
intense and lead to personal bonding between
usually the vendors themselves.
members. Examples include the Cancer Forum,
a community for cancer patients and their close
Interest-oriented communities. The second type of
friends and family, as well as communities that focus
community that evolved during the early years of the on religion, divorce, and other topics.
internet was the community of interest. in such com-
munities, members had significantly higher degrees
All four of these types of communities of the Web 1.0
of interaction than in a community of transactions,
era were either meta-communities or “community
and the interactions were usually on topics of com-
portals” that organized several smaller, focused, vir-
mon interest. Motley Fool, a community for financial tual communities centered on common interests and
investors; the Well, one of the oldest communities;
relationships. Similarly, in the business-to-business
and BioMednet, a professional community for physi-
realm, vertical mega-portals organized a number of
cians are good examples. These communities usually tightly focused virtual communities in vertical indus-
had chat rooms, message boards, and discussion
tries. in this sense, the concept of a virtual commu-
groups for extensive member interaction, which was/
nity was still evolving in the Web 1.0 era.
is mainly textual in nature, with the user-generated
content organized by directories.
Value Creation in Online
Fantasy-oriented communities. The third type of
Communities
community was a fantasy-oriented community
Even with the earliest forms of online communities,
where users role-played. For example, some online
it is quite clear that there is significant value-
applications created fantasy environments in which
creation potential for users, businesses, and gov-
groups of users could interact by typing special
ernments (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Online Communities in the Web 1.0 Era
Website is the boundary
of interaction
Comments, feedback,
attitudes, and beliefs
Content
Internet
Businesses
publishing
Online
users
and
Community
Governments
Website
Community
Product/Service
members
information
Demographics
Psychographics
Subscription
14
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
The types of value creation include the following:
have specific needs for information and allow
businesses to learn from each other in such
• Value in content creation: Members’ input to
communities.
the community consists of information content • Value in understanding the needs of consumers
in the form of comments, feedback, elaborat-
and citizens. in addition to business transactions
ing their attitudes and beliefs, and informa-
and ad revenues, there are other opportunities for
tional needs. Members may provide such
value creation. These arise from the marketing
content unsolicited, or in response to queries
information that is generated within communi-
by other members or the organizer of the com-
ties, which the environment (marketers and
munity (be it a business such as BestBuy.com
advertisers, among others) would find valuable.
or a government agency such as the Social
Such information includes demographics and
Security Administration). Thus, members pro-
psychographics of members; their attitudes and
vide useful information that is retrieved and
beliefs about products, services, and issues; their
used by other members of the community.
behavior data with regard to business transac-
The community organizers may also put in
tions within communities; and information on
their own content, which members may find
their interactions and interaction dynamics.
very valuable. For example, the organizers of
BioMednet provide content in the form of
• Value in product/service creation and ideation.
information on the latest medical research
Research communities working on software
and techniques, which physician members
projects such as linux oS kernel, Apache server
would find very useful.
software, and Perl also add value by designing
and creating new software products and exten-
• Value in subscription revenues. in many com-
sions. Although none of these communities are
munities, the members would also be willing
formed with for-profit motives, members derive
to pay subscription fees to become members of
value from each other’s contributions and work
the community since they may highly value the
toward the common good of the researcher and
information they receive from the community.
user communities.
People pay subscription fees to become mem-
bers of communities such as America online.
The manner in which value is created in virtual
Such subscription fees may be viewed as a
communities also depends on who organizes the
charge that members bear to be part of an
community and who owns it. Transaction-oriented
exclusive community or for accessing the con-
communities are generally organized, controlled,
tent in the communities that they value.
and run by marketers. in such virtual communities,
• Value in targeting the right segment. Another
value is created mainly though transactions rather
possibility for value creation in online commu-
than through ad revenues. The marketing informa-
nities arises from the fact that a community
tion generated in the communities may also reside
brings together consumers of specific demo-
with the marketers, who may or may not sell such
graphics and interest. This presents opportuni-
information. in many cases, marketers who own vir-
ties for transacting business and communicating tual communities can use such information to derive
messages about products and services that are
synergies for other related business functions, such
of interest to consumers and which marketers
as better customer service, mass customization in
and advertisers value and are consequently
service and delivery, marketing research feedback,
willing to pay for. in as much as business
and so on. if the community is controlled and
transactions take place in communities, value
owned by the members themselves, the main focus
is created. in addition, virtual communities
is to derive sole benefits for the members, and value
can attract ad revenues from advertisers eager
is created in content exchange and/or through sub-
to communicate their messages to community
scription fees. if the community organizers and
members (currently a significant source of rev-
those who run it are not marketers, advertisers, or
enue for virtual communities). Similarly, in the members but unrelated third parties, such communi-
case of state governmental agencies, virtual
ties are in a better position to leverage the full range
communities could target businesses that
of possibilities of value creation. This intermediary
www.businessofgovernment.org
15
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
role of online communities plays a key role in value The Web 2.0 platform has had a tremendous impact
generation potential, which has increased exponen-
on content creation, ownership, and distribution in
tially with the advent of Web 2.0.
the online setting. in addition, the notion of a com-
munity has also undergone a transformation, espe-
The Impact of Web 2.0
cially with respect to defining its boundaries and
ownership. The Web 2.0 environment focuses on
The evolution of the Web 2.0 platform based on
the individual users and their networks. instead of
the network among internet users has changed the
the previous focus on personal websites, individuals
internet environment significantly. The nature of this
now create personal blogs, podcasts, and vlogs
transformation can be illustrated as shown in Figure 2. (video blogs) that they link and stream to other
instead of the content being published and con-
users, creating a network of related content—some
trolled by a website administrator as in Web 1.0,
created on their own, some downloaded or residing
content is created and controlled in a peer-to-peer
in other websites or blogs, personal or commer-
setting by internet users. Rather than users being
cial—organizing and searching the content using
just consumers of information, they also become
their own keywords (“folksonomy” or social book-
the producers of content. in contrast to community
marking), and distributing this information to others
websites creating directories, users create their own
in their network (see Figure 3). They connect to each
tags and organize the information in their own way.
other’s PCs and other devices, and transfer content
one of the most significant transformations is that
and files of audios and videos. They collaborate on
users can use their own applications to create new
creating products and services online in the open;
information based on the information they come
they download content and applications from other
across at websites. This provides users of the internet websites, personal or commercial, and create
and the community members greater control of con-
“mashups” that combine data and applications in
tent and freedom to express their views and needs.
creative ways to provide new services and informa-
tion hitherto not seen or thought of. For example,
Figure 2: Transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0
Web 1.0
Web 2.0
Content publishing by website
owner (business to consumer,
Content creation by members
government to citizen)
(peer to peer)
Data extraction by website owner
Blogging, vlogging, and interaction
by members
Content management
Wikis—members, consumers,
systems—producer
and producers
Portals
Search engines
Directories and taxonomy
Tagging and “folksonomy”
People and data
People, data, and application
“mashups”
Stickiness
Syndication
Syntax
Semantics
16
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
they may download content from the internal
beta” applications that are constantly evolving as
Revenue Service website, add their own comments
they provide service to users. Mashups can be cre-
or applications on how to compute a special
ated by individual users or by businesses and institu-
deduction, and transmit it to their friends to use.
tions with public and commercial interests. They
individuals may choose to congregate in popular
network with users online and provide service to
social networking sites, participate in role-playing
communities of users.
games in virtual worlds, contribute content and
interact with other users on youTube, or network
in essence, open communities along with the walled-
with others from wherever they are online.
garden communities have emerged as important
intermediaries that can create value for businesses
The notion of a “walled-garden community” is
and governments through content, product, and
quickly disappearing. While social network sites
service creation and dissemination to other users
such as Flickr, youTube, MySpace, and FaceBook
in the Web 2.0 environment. Communities such
are still run by commercial enterprises with profit
as MySpace, liveJournal, youTube, and FaceBook,
motives, one could envision similar communities
which are rapidly emerging as communities for
existing alongside in the open Web 2.0 environ-
social interactions, allow members to share content
ment, totally self-regulated, without the overt over-
and interact through blogging and chats. These virtual
sight of any entity and without any profit motive.
communities overlap several of the different orien-
tations of Web 1.0 communities. For example, com-
The clear lines of ownership of the content and
munities such as MySpace, FaceBook, and others
ownership of the platform used for social computing have allocated “concept spaces” where members
are also undergoing transformation. Boundaries of
with similar interests can create websites, transact
online communities can now include content resid-
business with each other, play out their fantasies,
ing in proprietary sites or the use of such informa-
and build relationships through interactions.
tion to create mashups that reside elsewhere. These
mashups are in constant flux; they are “perpetual
Figure 3: Social Computing in the Web 2.0 Era
Whole network is the
backbone of interactions
No boundary
Websites
MySpace
Vlogs
Tagging
Open-Source
Collaboration
Blogs
Websites
YouTube
Peer-2-Peer
Applications
“Mashups”
Websites
Internet
BestBuy
Users
Social
Networks
www.businessofgovernment.org
17
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
Implications of Web 2.0 for
Government interactions with citizens will also
Government Agencies
become less formal in such settings, which may have
a negative impact on the power of the government to
The Web 2.0 platform renders the online environ-
wield authority. This may also lead to loss of control
ment individual-user-centric. From the government
and bypassing hierarchical structures. in addition,
and business viewpoint, this means institutions
there is potential for conflicts with intermediaries
will have to engage citizens and customers at sites
and among intermediaries in how content is pre-
where they are (in social network sites and online
sented and customized to citizen constituents.
communities) rather than create portals and all-
purpose websites and expect citizens and customers
The most important implication for governments
to approach them. This has implications for how ser-
and businesses as a result of the loss of control,
vice provision and uses of Web 2.0 are designed—
informality of interaction, use of intermediaries,
pointing to the need to move away from portals to
and the need for customization to citizens/customers
citizen-centric Web 2.0 applications such as “mash-
is that the content and service have to be designed
ups” to deliver products and services to users’ devices.
in an entirely different way from how they are
now designed.
Reaching citizens where they are—in their commu-
nities—will also enable governments to harness the
• Content has to be addressable in a very granular
collective intelligence of citizens, such as feedback
form so that intermediaries can pick the appro-
on services, ways to improve the design of content
priate content and application they need to fulfill
and services, and ways to distribute content and ser-
their service task.
vices efficiently to various citizen groups. in addi-
tion, such an engagement with citizens in their own
• Privacy of citizen content and information has
settings will enhance the trust citizens have in their
to be defined at a granular level for the same
government and help government to build citizen
reason.
loyalty.
• Security considerations may dictate the design
of the content and transportability of content to
To engage citizens and customers in their online
citizens in their online communities.
communities, governments and businesses need to
increase their coverage and reach to deliver content
Finally, evolving Web 2.0/3.0 applications will
and services. To do this in a cost-effective way, insti-
demand a new environment of collaborative culture
tutions will have to rely on emerging intermediaries, within government agencies and organizations,
who could be individual citizens themselves or
which will also necessitate newer ways of designing
other businesses and firms who will create and
jobs and managing human resources within the
enhance content and create “mashups” and applica-
agencies.
tions to distribute services to citizens. Use of inter-
mediaries will also enable governments to provide
These implications will be revisited in the next sec-
enhanced, customized services to their citizens at
tion as we focus on a framework for governmental
much lower costs than the current centralized provi-
applications that leverage Web 2.0.
sion of service.
Governments and businesses have to necessarily
relinquish control in distributing service to citizens
and customers through the intermediaries. This is
because the intermediaries will need to access con-
tent and services from the government in a way that
is most suitable for providing the appropriate ser-
vice to the citizen constituents they focus on. This
has clear implications for the content and service
quality that citizens obtain through the new distri-
bution outlets.
18
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
A Framework for Using Web 2.0
in Government
it is important for government executives interested
the communication-focused uses, which form the
in leveraging Web 2.0 to have an appreciation of
foundation for the higher-level engagements of inter-
the framework for using Web 2.0. The Web 2.0 envi-
action- and service-focused uses, are also the low-
ronment can span three distinct types of uses—those hanging fruit that governments can start taking
that are communication-focused, those that are
advantage of immediately. in a similar manner, the
interaction-focused, and those that are service-
internal uses (within government) are somewhat eas-
focused, as shown in Figure 4.
ier than the externally focused uses. in what fol-
lows, we discuss the characteristics of each level of
As depicted in Figure 4, the level of engagement
use, with highlights of some ongoing government
with the citizens and constituents increases as the
applications.
focus shifts from one of pure communication to one
of service delivery and fulfillment. in some sense,
Figure 4: A Framework for Government’s Use of Web 2.0
High
• Mashups of service and content through intermediaries, web service
• Service provision at citizens’ location
Internally focused
• Virtual world experimentation
(employee and other
• Citizen/business engagement to enhance trust and loyalty
agencies) vs. externally
focused (citizens and
businesses)
• Social network sites and blogs
• Employee and constituent feedback on information
and service—forums
GEMENT
• Tagging and social bookmarking of government content
• Wikis to support interaction, civic engagement
ENGA
• Virtual world interactions
• Institutional vs. externally oriented blogs; RSS
LEVEL OF
• Enterprise social networks
• Wikis
• Podcasts and vlogs
• Privacy/security considerations of
Low
internal and external applications
www.businessofgovernment.org
19
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
Communication-Focused Uses
• The blogging efforts of the library of Congress
to allow their experts to share their knowledge
The primary objective of communication-focused
with a broad audience with regard to the
uses is to disseminate government information that
content they have and create a high level of
is relevant to citizens as far and wide as possible so
awareness. in addition, the library of Congress
that:
provides RSS feeds and syndicated feeds, and
also provides downloadable content in different
• Citizen groups gain an increased awareness of
formats (novak and Springer 2007).
the content.
• The efforts of the national Academies Press
• Citizens have easy access to the information
(publishing wing of the national Academies)
wherever they are.
in disseminating content in different forms
• Governments can promote citizen-focused
(print, PDF and PDF chapters), marketing
informational campaigns, all in a cost-effective
their titles using podcasts, and providing wid-
manner.
gets that can be placed in blogs is in a similar
vein to the initiatives of the library of Congress
The focus of these uses is to increase the reach of
(Kannan, Pope, and Jain 2008).
government content using social computing tools,
• The European Commission has launched its
such as blogs, podcasts and vlogs, RSS, wikis, and
own channel to promote its audio and video on
enterprise social networks. They can also be effec-
youTube, called the EuTube. This is an example
tively used within government organizations focused
of providing content to citizens where they
on government employees and other government
congregate in the social networking sites.
agencies. Tools such as widgets can be made avail-
able to bloggers to embed them in their blogs so
• Many government organizations have followed
that a direct link is provided to the relevant informa-
the private sector in using online communities
tion within government websites. if the content is
to spread the word about job openings and
addressable in a granular fashion, then it makes
opportunities within government organizations
direct links to the specific portions of the content
and to actively recruit at these sites. For exam-
easier.
ple, the Central intelligence Agency has been
using Facebook.com to recruit potential employ-
The viral nature of these tools makes the distribu-
ees to its national Clandestine Service (Bruce
tion of content easier and faster. These uses also
2007). While such efforts can be viewed mainly
have minimal risks, especially if the content
as advertising focusing on the target market, the
is designed in such a way that modifications are
viral nature of these sites may provide cost-
difficult. Some well-publicized example applica-
effective tools for communication.
tions follow.
• Many elected officials in the government use
blogging as a way to communicate with their
• The initiatives undertaken by the Centers for
constituencies (see Wyld 2007). in addition to
Disease Control (CDC), which assign a high
blogging, politicians are looking into leveraging
priority to educating the public, fall within this
many of the social networking sites to commu-
realm. They have been undertaking pilot proj-
nicate with supporters and raise funds.
ects such as eCards, which citizens can send
to their family members and thereby distribute
• Japan’s Ministry of internal Affairs and Commu-
health-related CDC messages virally; podcasts
nications (MiC) has been experimenting with
of health-related information; setting up a pres-
the social networking platform as a disaster
ence on social network sites such as MySpace,
information and management tool in the city of
eons.com (a community for citizens over age
nagaoka (lazer 2006). The city of Kobe, Japan,
50), and sermo.com (a physician-community
has deployed a network of citizens connected
site) and distributing widgets linking content
by wireless networks to act as emergency
in the CDC websites; and targeting influential
workers and coordinators in the event of
bloggers in the health care field for its content
earthquakes.
from CDC experts (Kash 2007).
20
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
Commercial businesses have invested significantly
Interaction-Focused Uses
in using many of the social computing tools for mar-
The primary objectives of interaction-focused uses are:
keting communication purposes. Efforts are under
way to identify influential bloggers and opinion
• To interact with citizens (and employees) to get
leaders in social network sites such as MySpace,
their feedback on policies, issues, services, and
Facebook, and linkedin so that marketing through
plans of the government
word-of-mouth can be achieved effectively.
Additionally, many organizations are experimenting
• To get feedback on service design and
with blogging and social networks within their orga-
new ideas
nizations and across the supply chain to make their
• To benefit from the “wisdom of the crowd”
processes more efficient (van den Bulte and Wuyts
through creation of new content, extending the
2007). Such efforts, which are already being under-
content/information provided by the government
taken by elected officials and politicians, can be
useful in the government realm, too.
• To make users intermediaries in creating mash-
ups of content and application that can benefit
Communication-focused uses are the low-hanging
other citizens
fruit. Agencies should start experimenting with
these first before planning any other application.
The fulfillment of these objectives is further facilitated
However, there is an important issue to consider
by the benefits of network scale effects and reach.
before implementing these uses. While communica-
Businesses are fast leveraging such benefits through
tion-focused uses are the easiest to implement
creative use of social computing tools. For example,
among the three levels of use, the challenge is to
Cisco Systems uses a network of academics residing
impart to the uses (such as blogs, wikis, etc.) an
all over the world for e-learning; many businesses are
authoritative quality that comes with the government using online community chat feedback for new prod-
domain. it is important to rise above the informality
uct/service development (Wall Street Journal 2007);
of the use, which, while necessary for building rela-
and some firms now routinely use online recommen-
tionships with users, may make issues seem less seri-
dation data generated by community members to
ous. The identity of bloggers and contributors has to
redesign their products/services. Some efforts in the
be established clearly so that the invisible boundar-
government domain are as follows:
ies of self-restraint and civility are not crossed.
• The U.S. intelligence community’s intellipedia
if blogging and wikis with the government organiza-
program is an internally focused knowledge
tion are encouraged, clear rules for participation
management program using social computing
and commenting have to be established so that lines
tools that allow employees to post information,
of authority are not violated. The key is to impart
tag information and data, and collaborate with
authority to the conversation in a setting where
each other at the intellipedia site on different
some of the control for such activity does not exist.
programs. The program supports 37,000
users—20,000 working on top-secret projects
The Web 2.0 platform also allows third parties to
and another 10,000 on classified projects—
download and extract content from government
and has been very popular with potential users
sources and disseminate the information widely to
(Kash 2007).
citizens. For example, an independent website
• nASA’s Ames Research Colab started out as
called GovTrack (www.govtrack.us) collects data
a physical collaboration facility, but soon mor-
from government websites through automated pro-
phed into a three-dimensional virtual online
cesses and daily downloads. The intent of the web-
center that allows researchers from all over the
site is to make information widely available to
world to build relationships with nASA scientists
citizens and also make government operations more
in a social network setting. The virtual center
transparent. While this helps government agencies to
enables contributors from around the world to
use outside resources to help in dissemination, it is
participate in conferences and briefings on a
also a challenge to ensure the authenticity of govern-
more regular basis and facilitates enhanced
ment information provided at third-party websites.
research collaboration (Kash 2007).
www.businessofgovernment.org
21
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
• The library of Congress is in the process of
bloggers used their networking power to stop
implementing several pilot projects that would
the passage of a piece of legislation. in the con-
allow users of its information to tag the content
text of Canada’s copyright protection efforts,
and provide metadata information (social
Canadian government officials had indicated
bookmarking). The pilots have three specific
their intentions to introduce legislation that
goals: (1) to provide the library’s public domain
was rumored to be ratifying specific World
content in user community environments,
intellectual Property organization (WiPo)
(2) to encourage user-generated tagging to
treaties. “However the bill’s specifics were not
help users as well as the library, and (3) to
shared with those concerned and, naturally, the
create folksonomy to supplement expert-
lack of information led stakeholders to draw
generated taxonomy. The library plans to expose
their own conclusions on what it would or
such user-generated content on its website for
wouldn’t entail. Through a number of social
other users to take advantage of after verifica-
media outlets, the ringleaders against potential
tion procedures to ensure the integrity of the
copyright measures were able to quickly gener-
content (novak and Springer 2007).
ate a flood of negative press and even mobilize
a protest at the office of the government Minister
• Spartanburg County, South Carolina, and the
who is responsible for copyright. The coverage
town of Cary, north Carolina, have undertaken
forced the government to withhold the tabling of
social networking initiatives at the local govern-
legislation and rethink its strategy” (Cisco High
ment level that clearly highlight the potential of
Tech Policy Blog). This is another indication of
social computing to enhance constituent and citi-
how social computing can play a highly interac-
zen engagement. Using neighborhood America’s
tive role in participatory governance.
enterprise social networking system and the pub-
lic comment system, the local governments have
• The U.S. Patent and Trademark office (USPTo)
been able to foster high levels of citizen engage-
is enlisting the public’s help in reviewing patent
ment and feedback in designing local community
applications by allowing the public to examine
projects. officials use such tools to interact with
patent applications and provide input of prior
citizens, share information, and thus facilitate
examples. launched in 2007, this initiative—
improved decision making (Bevarly and Ulma
Peer-to-Patent: Community Patent Review Pilot—
2007). This is an example of how social comput-
allows the USPTo to reduce its backlog of
ing can complement offline local community
reviews through community involvement in the
efforts given the advantages of online communi-
patent examination process, and is an excellent
ties—asynchronous interaction from one’s own
example of how community networks can help
home and during one’s free time.
government agencies be more efficient and
• The Centers for Disease Control has initiated a
effective (Deloitte 2008).
successful pilot project by opening a virtual flu
clinic on Whyville.net focused on children. The
interaction-focused uses are more challenging to
virtual clinic has led to a 15 percent vaccination implement compared to communication-focused
rate among the visitors in a six-week period. The uses—the challenge being to authenticate the con-
CDC is also initiating virtual health workshops
tent created by users before it is mashed up into
in Second life (Kash 2007).
new content. For example, in the library of
Congress application, the librarians have to ensure
• The United Kingdom’s Department for Work
that new tags created by users using social book-
and Pensions is piloting a social network site for marking are, in fact, correct before letting other
UK senior citizens with the aim of encouraging
users view the new content. Such authentication
social networking among the targeted commu-
processes can require significant time and effort.
nity to interact on issues related to all areas of
life beyond work and pensions (Marketing
Week 2007).
Service-Focused Uses
• Cisco High Tech Policy Blog (December 13,
The service-focused uses are the holy grail of social
2007) reports of an incident in Canada in which
computing, possibly the most difficult to implement
successfully but most impactful if successful. These
22
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
uses involve marrying the network effects of social
diaries, and to trust and give authority to intermedi-
computing with the intermediary role of network
aries to design customized services and thus provide
members. They require government organizations
value to citizens, while reducing the overall cost of
to give up significant control over the content and
service provision. in the coming years, such applica-
applications and how they are used by intermediar-
tions will help governments realize the value of
ies using mashup applications to provide value to
social computing.
downstream users. By the same token, the potential
for superior, efficient, customized service is great.
However, in service-focused uses, while the use of
The use of virtual worlds to experiment with service
intermediaries can provide wider reach and custom-
designs and to obtain citizen/user feedback also falls ized service at lower costs, the issue of uniformity in
into this category of application. There are not many service quality for all citizens can be problematic.
government exemplars in this realm, but there have
What if one constituent is not well serviced by a
been many reports recently outlining potential uses,
specific intermediary while another constituent gets
some of which are presented below:
superior service from another entity? This could raise
issues of equity in service quality.
• in the area of content provided by a government
agency, intermediaries could integrate govern-
in addition to the above challenges, all of the uses
ment content with non-government content and have issues concerning the protection of the privacy
create new information products that enhance
of citizen data in government control, the security of
the value of the information provided by gov-
such data when it is transferred, and the legality of
ernment sources. For example, a user may
the content and service provision that might com-
download information from the library of
promise the privacy of citizens. These issues call for
Congress and add content from other sources in innovative designs of content unbundling and con-
the same content area, thereby enhancing the
tent protection so that the government can safely
value of the original content for other users.
guarantee privacy, security, and legality of the data.
Restaurant inspection data can be combined
with food critic reviews and customer online
All of these challenges indicate that there are seri-
recommendations to create enhanced value for
ous issues that need consideration before rolling out
the community (ec3org.com 2007).
social computing on a large scale. However, at the
same time, they should not stop pilot initiatives and
• Banks could help their customers file taxes by
experimentation, which are the key ways to learn
combining information from government with
about potential problems and tackle the challenges.
the information they have on their customers
internally to make the process more efficient for
citizens (Di Maio 2007).
• An online travel agent could integrate its ser-
vices with government immigration and health
systems to provide “mashable” services to its
customers (Di Maio 2007).
• The British Columbia Ministry of Transportation
in Canada combines Mapquest data with real-
time traffic data to create a “mashup” of current
driving conditions and advice to drivers and
commuters. Such information to citizens allows
them to avoid congested routes while regulating
the traffic load on main arteries (Deloitte 2008).
The possibilities are many. They require government
agencies to provide information in a fine-grained
form that is addressable and accessible by interme-
www.businessofgovernment.org
23
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
Identifying and Developing Strategies to Respond to
Barriers to Using Web 2.0 Tools in Government
By John Kamensky
The social networking tools that are increasingly common in the private sector and in people’s personal
lives are not as common in government. There are a number of barriers to this increased usage for govern-
ment, because using these tools can create challenges to the way government organizations and employ-
ees work. older public sector executives tend to view the internet as a way to improve productivity and
customer service. others see it as a way to up-end old business models based on hierarchy and positional
authority.
Citizens and businesses will increasingly demand that government increase its use of Web 2.0 tools as a
way of doing business. Therefore, government executives will need to systematically identify the barriers
to the adoption of Web 2.0 and develop strategies to respond. Following is a beginning of what some have
identified as potential barriers.
Barriers Stemming from Demographics
younger government employees say they want to be able to use in the office the capabilities they have at
home and in their non-work life. The Millennial Generation has grown up with ubiquitous access to Web
2.0 tools and has integrated them into how they work, learn, and play. They tend to be far more interac-
tive over the internet, which is different from how older generations use the internet and how they get their
work done. This clash in work styles sometimes contributes to issues related to both access to and accep-
tance of Web 2.0 social networking tools in some government agencies.
Barriers Stemming from the Availability of Current Technology
Some agencies have outdated hardware or software that is not capable of accessing or using Web 2.0 tools.
Some agencies still have limited access to the internet or have limited bandwidth that cannot handle graph-
ics-rich applications. others have outdated software that is not capable of running these applications.
Institutional Barriers
Those on the cutting edge of the use of Web 2.0 tools in government are beginning to develop a list of insti-
tutional barriers to the adoption of these tools and approaches. These come from a variety of places in
agencies. Following are some of the more prominent:
• Offices of General Counsel. The risk-averse legal culture is often a first barrier to the adoption of Web
2.0 technologies in a number of agencies. They raise legitimate concerns, such as the inadvertent loss
of intellectual property, rules governing the retention of government records, rules of engagement/
propriety, and the fear of making a commitment or a violation of information sharing. While legitimate,
solutions have been developed in private industry and some agencies, but these are typically not widely
shared and the result oftentimes is that agency legal officers prohibit action rather than find a solution.
in some cases, there is a legitimate need to update statutory provisions that were written before the
internet was envisioned. For example, what constitutes an “official” record? How does an agency
ensure 508 disability compliance if its website contents are reused by a private entity? How are
indemnity issues resolved if government uses commercially run platforms (e.g., Google, youTube)?
• Offices of Public Affairs. Public affairs officers are traditionally an agency’s gatekeeper for what informa-
tion is shared, both externally and internally. This ensures legitimacy and confidence in who can speak
on behalf of the agency and helps keep the agency “on message.” The immediacy of Web 2.0 tools
raises concerns about information not being cleared through traditional channels and vetted in advance.
Finding ways to manage this tension in a public environment becomes an important challenge.
24
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
• Chief Information Officers. Cios have a legitimate concern about the security of their networks if
employees operate outside firewalls. Some also independently decide which websites to block employ-
ees from accessing because of a fear that employees are “playing” on social networks. Some try to
manage access because of a fear of overloading servers or compromising network bandwidth.
Another key issue Cios face: How do you ensure the integrity and authenticity of government data
when it can be used by others in “mashups” to provide insights or services that the government does
not provide itself? Ultimately, Cios may be encouraged to shift their thinking from data being “owned”
by government agencies to being a common resource to be shared by all.
• Privacy Officers. in some agencies, privacy officers are raising concerns about possible violations of pri-
vacy for both employees and citizens as a result of access to Web 2.0 social networks or related soft-
ware applications.
• Program Line Managers. Traditional managers are often uncomfortable with their loss of control over the
flow of information and unsanctioned/spontaneous cross-organizational collaboration. in a Web 2.0
world, where the younger generation values peer-to-peer relationships, this begins to shift authority and
power from the position held or credentials to a judgment based on capability and contributions.
The Collaboration Project, sponsored by the national Academy of Public Administration, is developing a
catalog of barriers identified by “early adopters” in federal agencies and is sharing solutions that individuals
have developed to adapt a tool or approach within their own agencies. The Academy hopes that by sharing
both problems and solutions across agencies that broader policy fixes will be easier to devise.
John Kamensky is Senior Fellow, IBM Center for The Business of Government, and Associate Partner, IBM
Global Business Services.
www.businessofgovernment.org
25
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
Citizen Perceptions of the
Potential Uses of Web 2.0
in Government
it is no secret that social computing is a rapidly
scenarios describing potential uses of Web 2.0 by
increasing trend among citizens in the U.S. Based
government. These spanned all of the three levels
on the 2007 national Technology Readiness Survey
of uses that we had identified in the previous sec-
(nTRS 2008), which measures citizens’ awareness
tion. See the sidebar for descriptions of each of the
and use of technological advancements and devices, six scenarios.
30 percent of U.S. citizens have a personal website,
blog, or social networking page on a site like MySpace Focus Group Findings
or FaceBook. it is more telling when the responses
are broken down by age category: 77 percent in the
The following are the major findings from the focus
18-to-34 age group, 30 percent in the more-than-34
groups:
and less-than-45 age group, and 26 percent in the
45 and above age group.
Attitude toward government initiatives. in general,
the use of Web 2.0 by government was seen posi-
While the trend may be increasing, would citizens
tively by the citizen groups regardless of age.
want to communicate and interact with the govern-
Comments such as “keeping up with the times” and
ment in such settings? What is their attitude toward
“forward-looking” were frequently used. Citizens
government initiatives in reaching out to them in
were already having similar experiences with many
these settings? Would they welcome potential gov-
private sector firms and, therefore, had similar
ernment use of Web 2.0? How would it impact their expectations with regard to government initiatives.
civic engagement, relationship with government,
Willingness to interact with government agencies.
trust in government, and, ultimately, citizen loyalty?
in general, the more relevant the issues are for the
We explored these issues with citizens in focus
citizen groups, the more they were willing to inter-
groups to develop some understanding of their per-
act with the government on specific uses. For exam-
spective. We reiterate that these findings are explor-
ple, the younger groups (Groups 1 and 2) thought
atory in nature and could be starting hypotheses that the disaster management and tips to avoid influenza
could be examined in pilot projects.
applications were appropriate and welcomed such
initiatives. However, the teen safe-sex application
We conducted four focus groups in early January
was considered “too intrusive” and elicited com-
2008: Groups 1 and 2 included U.S. citizens in the
ments such as “it should not appear in my network
age group 18 to 25; Groups 3 and 4 included U.S.
unless i give explicit permission.” Some less relevant
citizens in their late 30s and 40s. Participants in
applications were perceived as “intrusions,” “tacky,”
Groups 1, 2, and 3 were all members of some type
“turn-off,” etc. on the other hand, the older groups
of online social network community—MySpace,
(Groups 3 and 4) found the interaction-oriented
Facebook, linkedin, or other such network. Group 4
applications very relevant and useful.
participants were aware of such social network sites,
but none of them were members of any such site.
Perceptions concerning government initiatives. The
To provide an appropriate context for exploring the
communication-focused applications were seen as
issues, each group was provided with three or more
quite useful and trustworthy. Some concerns were
26
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
Focus Group Scenarios
Communication-focused uses
Scenario 1: Safe-sex practices and information targeted at teens and those in their early 20s are provided in social
networking sites with blogs and podcasts from expert health professionals. The primary aim of the application is to
provide relevant information to teens and to direct them to appropriate sources if they need more information.
Scenario 2: Tips to avoid influenza and common communicable diseases are provided in blogs and podcasts
from health experts and government sources such as the Centers for Disease Control, targeting the users of popu-
lar networking sites. The primary aim is to educate the target audience in the social networking sites in preven-
tion methods.
Scenario 3: Disaster management applications focusing on informing citizens how to respond to a campus
shooting incident, terrorism-related events, or natural disaster events such as tornadoes, and what actions to take
to protect themselves. Such applications provide local campus or local government information on evacuation,
actions, and related recommendations through social network sites, handheld wireless devices, and instant
messaging applications.
Interaction-focused uses
Scenario 4: Enterprise social networking tools are provided to citizens on local government websites to interact
with local government leaders and other concerned citizens with regard to issues such as neighborhood school
closings and school redistricting due to budget cuts, etc. Such forums replicate public forums and hearings in an
online environment.
Scenario 5: Governments interact with citizens in social network sites and virtual worlds such as Second life
about how to redesign a government-sponsored student loan program.
Service-focused uses
Scenario 6: “your favorite bank has teamed up with the federal government to help you with customized tax fil-
ing. The government will provide all specific information regarding your filing status and data to the bank, and
the bank will use its information on you to provide ‘mashed-up’ services.”
For the younger citizen groups, Group 1 was provided with Scenarios 1, 3, 4, and 5, while Group 2 was given
Scenarios 2, 3, 4, and 5. For the older citizen groups, Group 3 was provided with Scenarios 1, 3, 4, and 6, while
Group 4 was provided with Scenarios 1, 4, and 6.
expressed regarding the authoritative nature of these Impact on civic engagement. in general, the more
communications (“How would i know that the mes-
relevant the use was for the citizen group, the more
sages are actually posted by government sources?”
likely they were to have higher levels of engagement
“Could it be a prank by my friend regarding a terror-
with the application. The local government uses
ist attack?” “is it just a rumor?”).
(Scenario 4) elicited the highest level of enthusiasm
by the older citizen groups (Groups 3 and 4) and
Privacy issues. The service-focused use raised
the least by the younger group (Groups 1 and 2).
many questions regarding the privacy of citizen
The more frequent the interaction, the more the
data and local businesses getting hold of that
desire to participate and change the world, the more
data. in fact, groups tended to trust the govern-
likely they were to participate in the social comput-
ment more with their private data than they
ing engagements. Many felt that capturing the voice
trusted local businesses, who, they felt, could be
of citizens in local matters was very important, and
swayed by “profit motives.” Regardless, many
it becomes easier with convenient online access
agreed that the mashed-up services could be very
and virtual town hall meetings. Such uses could
useful and convenient.
provide a structured discussion, clear reasoning,
www.businessofgovernment.org
27
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
and asynchronous mode of interaction, and could
Matching applications to the appropriate target
lead to better-informed decision making. Respon-
group. The findings from focus groups highlighted
dents also felt that they would have “more say” in
the importance of targeting the applications. in gen-
decision making and thus have more influence in
eral, the more relevant the applications were for the
their government’s policies and actions.
target group, the more receptive the groups were to
the applications. Those applications that were more
Concerns about equal access. Group 4 participants
local and demanded more frequent interactions
(those who were not members of any social network-
elicited much higher interest for participation and
ing sites) specifically raised the issue of equal access
higher levels of engagement.
in online forums (Scenario 4). online forums are not
accessed by all, and poorer, less-educated citizens
Being sensitive to privacy considerations.
often do not have access to such sites. Given this,
Participants generally considered some applications
participants felt that care should be taken by the
(e.g., teen safe-sex initiatives) as too intrusive while
local government that all voices are heard in making similar initiatives on preventing communicable dis-
their ultimate decisions lest any stakeholder’s voice is eases were generally found more acceptable. This
ignored. Similar thoughts were also expressed by
indicates that there is a fine line between what is
younger groups (Groups 1 and 2) with regard to the
considered private and intrusive and what is consid-
use of Second life for designing loan programs
ered an acceptable topic.
(Scenario 5). Some participants expressed the view
that such sites are “just fun” and “opinions and
Communicating the authoritativeness of the content.
expressions should not be taken too seriously.”
The findings also suggest that government uses should
clearly communicate the authority and authenticity of
Trust in government and relationship with govern-
their content. There is a clear need to be careful in
ment. The communication-focused uses were seen
framing the content and signals of authenticity while
as advertisements and public-oriented messages and communicating to citizens using these tools.
were described as “the government doing its job.”
While these applications increased the positive
Ensuring equal access. it is important to communi-
image of the government (when they were seen
cate to citizens and ensure that within agencies
as “useful” rather than “intrusive”), trust was not
Web 2.0 is but one channel through which commu-
mentioned very often by the participants. When
nication, interaction, and service provision are pro-
specifically queried about trust in the context of
vided by government agencies. other equivalent
these applications, some participants indicated that
channels must be provided to ensure equal access
the trust they had in their banks to do the job right
for all citizens.
might “rub off” on the government, and thus govern-
ment might benefit by teaming up with businesses
Building citizen trust. The findings suggest that
in providing such service. At the same time, busi-
carefully designed co-branded service opportunities
nesses were trusted less than the government when
with reputable third-party businesses can be useful
it came to safeguarding personal data, as businesses to enhance the reputation of government service
have a profit motive. There was also consensus
provision. it is important that citizens are aware that
among the focus-group participants that service-
the government maintains control of and safeguards
focused uses can help make the inner working
their private information in such applications rather
of government agencies more transparent to citi-
than totally outsourcing it to the third party. in addi-
zens. This could lead to increased citizen trust
tion, government can design Web 2.0 initiatives in
of government.
such a way as to increase its transparency to citi-
zens. This can lead to increased citizen trust.
Implications for Government Use of in summary, the overall take-away from the focus
Web 2.0
groups was that Web 2.0, if designed right, has signif-
The focus group findings have several significant
icant potential to provide value to citizens, increase
implications for governments when considering the
their civic engagement, and increase their trust in
use of Web 2.0:
government and government service provision.
28
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
Measuring Engagement
and Effectiveness
Measuring the effectiveness of Web 2.0 is a critical
application. For communication-focused applica-
task in successful implementation. That said, the
tions, the focus will be on measuring the reach
applications and technology are evolving so fast that (for example, who among the targeted segment
measurement tasks are somewhat lagging behind
downloaded the podcasts), the extent to which a
even with private sector applications, and there is a
communication piece was transmitted virally, the
lack of standard measures (Peterson 2007). Whether
session length at a virtual-world application, and
governments are initiating only small-scale pilot
so on. Many applications such as blogs can be
projects or contemplating a larger roll-out, it is
measured using tools provided by firms such as
essential that measurement issues are considered
MeasureMap and BlogBeat. For example, these
right at the beginning of the project and appropriate
tools can provide:
plans made in conjunction with a clear statement of
objectives for the initiatives.
• The number of visitors to a blog per day
• The number of links from other blogs that have
The measurement tasks can be categorized into two
been used on a given day
levels: (1) measuring engagement and (2) measuring
application effectiveness. Engagement measures
• The number of comments posted in response to
focus on reach and impact of the communication-
the blog
focused, interaction-focused, and service-focused
• The number of links in posts that linked readers
applications. Effectiveness measures go beyond
to other content
these initial measures and focus on how successful
the measures have been in meeting the ultimate
RSS reach can be measured using tools from
objectives from the viewpoint of effecting change in
Feedburner (Google). Firms such as Web Analytics
citizen attitudes and behavior; providing service at
and Google Analytics provide many options to mea-
the appropriate quality level; creating new content,
sure direct engagement of citizens in terms of their
applications, and social intelligence (knowledge);
session lengths, comments, uploads, invitations to
increasing citizen satisfaction; increasing trust in
others, and so on.
government; and creating lasting citizen-government
relationships. (When the uses are internally focused
Measuring engagement using the measures outlined
within the government organizations, the focus is on above is the first step in measuring the impact of a
employees). Engagement metrics are pre-requisites
pilot project and making a business case for further
for effectiveness measures and thus are common for
investments in Web 2.0 projects. While these mea-
all applications.
sures are sufficient to understand the effectiveness of
communication-focused applications in creating
Measuring Engagement
awareness of the issue in question, it is necessary to
These measures focus on two main aspects of any
benchmark the cost/reach of social computing tools
social computing: (1) usability of the application,
and compare them to the costs of alternative chan-
and (2) the extent of engagement as a result of the
nels of communication.
www.businessofgovernment.org
29
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
Measuring Effectiveness
The ultimate success of Web 2.0 initiatives in gov-
ernment has to be measured on the basis of their
effectiveness in meeting the overall objectives of
the specific application. For example, if the internal
Revenue Service were to measure the success of its
“mashable” services with banks acting as intermedi-
aries, then the measurement has to focus on the
process and outcome variables—ease of use, reduc-
tion in mistakes in filing, reduction in overall effort,
increase in citizen satisfaction with the process,
and overall cost incurred by iRS per tax filing.
These measures would then be compared against
the benchmarks to make an overall assessment of
success. Similarly, if a local government were to
evaluate its enterprise social networking tool, the
measures of effectiveness have to go beyond the
number of citizens participating, posting comments,
and interacting to the quality of decision making,
citizen satisfaction with the process, increase in
citizen trust and loyalty, and so on. While measures
of engagement will be useful, they cannot be substi-
tutes for measures of effectiveness.
When a use is internally focused, as in the case of
applications for the intelligence community, the
measures of effectiveness should focus on:
• Creation of new relevant knowledge
• increased effectiveness of the intelligence
community in solving cases
• increased effectiveness in collaboration
The ultimate focus of measurement should always
be on measuring the value generated from the social
computing application regardless of the type of
application initiated.
30
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
Findings and Recommendations
We started out the report with four specific objec-
governments may become increasingly remote to
tives with regard to leveraging the Web 2.0 environ-
the citizens of tomorrow, with much reduced
ment for government uses:
engagement levels, if steps are not taken to engage
citizens where they are.
• To understand “social computing” as a phenom-
enon and the implications for harnessing its
Citizens are willing to interact with government
potential for government use
agencies online. our focus group studies reveal that,
in general, citizens have positive attitudes toward
• To develop a framework for harnessing the power potential Web 2.0 initiatives. The more relevant the
of Web 2.0 in government and identify the criti-
uses are for citizens, the more willing they are to
cal issues in such uses
interact with the government on the specific uses.
• To understand perceptions of citizens in interact-
These uses also tended to be more local, thus
ing with government for service provision and
demanding more frequent interactions with citizens
civic engagement in the Web 2.0 environment
and leading to higher levels of engagement. At the
same time, initiatives should not be seen as too
• To identify ways in which social computing
intrusive or compromising citizens’ privacy.
engagement and effectiveness can be measured
Appropriately designed initiatives to engage citizens
in Web 2.0 initiatives
in their own settings will also enhance the trust citi-
zens have in their government and help government
While the report details many findings in each of the
build citizen loyalty. Citizens feel that such initia-
sections, the key findings are summarized below.
tives have the potential to increase the transparency
This is followed by recommendations for government of government agencies, which could lead to greater
agencies contemplating Web 2.0 initiatives.
trust in them. it could also lead to greater citizen
influence on government policies and actions.
Findings
Government needs to meet citizens where they are
The role of intermediaries will increase. our sec-
online. our secondary research into the nature of
ondary research also finds that in the Web 2.0
social computing reveals that it renders the online
environment many businesses are being aided by
environment individual-user-centric. younger citi-
third-party firms acting as intermediaries in provid-
zens are increasingly engaging each other, interact-
ing content and service. While some of these inter-
ing with businesses, and building an online cultural
mediaries are new firms and businesses, many are
and commercial environment—all of which clearly
established firms taking advantage of the opportuni-
call for government initiatives targeting citizens
ties that the online environment has provided to
online. Governments will have to engage citizens
them. it is inevitable that, in order to engage citizens
at sites where they are rather than expect them to
effectively in their social computing setting, govern-
approach government portals. Citizens view this as
ments will have to employ and leverage intermedi-
“keeping up with the times,” indicating the inevita-
aries to increase their coverage and reach to deliver
bility of such initiatives. There is a clear danger that
content and “mashable” services. Governments will
www.businessofgovernment.org
31
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
also be able to provide customized services to citi-
non-users of Web 2.0 technologies were concerned
zens at a potentially lower cost with the help of
that they might be disenfranchised if similar oppor-
intermediaries.
tunities were not provided in other more conven-
tional channels. Equally important is the issue of
The increased coverage and reach will come at the
access for those who do not have online access.
cost of decreased control, which means govern-
Thus, there is a danger of some citizens becoming
ments have to relinquish some control over how the second-class citizens based on their abilities and
content and service is reconfigured and distributed.
access.
it also implies that data security and privacy issues
have to be carefully considered in such uses.
This issue is particularly challenging in the govern-
ment environment, where agencies cannot pick and
Government will need to rethink content and ser-
choose their constituents. However, this only high-
vice design. our secondary research reveals that
lights the importance of proper communication and
Web 2.0 applications will necessitate governments
expectation setting for online and Web 2.0 uses.
rethinking how they design their content and ser-
vices. Content has to be addressable in a very gran-
leveraging the Web 2.0 environment within a multi-
ular form so that intermediaries can pick the
channel setting, where citizens have the option of
appropriate content and application they need to
choosing their channel of interaction, can provide
fulfill their service task. Privacy of citizen content
government agencies options to experiment with
and information has to be defined at a granular level newer forms of channels that can lead to improve-
for the same reason. Similarly, security consider-
ments in efficiency and effectiveness in service
ations may dictate the design of the content and
delivery. But it can also lead to increased costs in
transportability of content to intermediaries as well
the short run.
as citizens in their online environment.
Citizens trust the government with personal data
Government will have to find ways to embed author-
but not for service efficiency. Focus group studies
ity in its web-based services. A survey of government revealed that citizens trusted government more than
initiatives and pilots in the Web 2.0 environment
businesses with regard to their personal data and
shows that they mainly span communication- and
privacy. Given their profit motives, businesses are
interaction-focused uses to date. While they are also
seen as more likely to misuse citizens’ personal data
the easier uses to implement, the challenge is to
to gain competitive advantage. Governments, on the
impart to the uses an authoritative quality that over-
other hand, have a responsibility to protect their citi-
comes the informality of the social computing setting. zens’ data and thus are viewed as being more
Many citizens have been exposed to the Web 2.0
responsible with personal data.
environment in an entertainment and/or social con-
text. There is a level of informality in such uses that is However, in terms of service efficiency, citizens
likely to be associated with the more formal uses that tended to trust the private sector to do a better job.
governments may plan. Thus, imparting the appropri-
Citizens have a choice when it comes to businesses,
ate level of authority to government initiatives is criti-
and poorly performing businesses are weeded out in
cally important to gain citizen trust in such uses.
competitive environments. Given the specific nature
of trust, governments can leverage reputed third-
Content that is mashed up by intermediaries also
party service providers by teaming up with them to
needs to be authenticated by the government to
provide “mashable” services to citizens. it is impera-
safeguard its quality for the ultimate consumers—the tive that government have appropriate control over
citizens. Citizen perceptions that government has
private information in such joint ventures to realize
the appropriate level of control in services provided
the overall benefits.
by intermediary channels might be critical for the
eventual success of such services.
Government will need to measure the effectiveness
of its Web 2.0 initiatives. Measurement initiatives
Some citizens are concerned about equal access.
and measurement standards are somewhat lagging
The focus group studies indicated that many of the
behind, even in the private sector initiatives. This is
32
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
understandable given that many Web 2.0 initiatives
and Budget’s Administrator for E-Government and
are in an experimental phase. Surveys of current
information Technology—or via an external honest
measurement techniques in the Web 2.0 environ-
broker such as the Collaboration Project, sponsored
ment in the private sector show that they are
by the national Academy for Public Administration
focused on two dimensions: measurement of the
(www.collaborationproject.org). The issues could
levels of engagement and measurement of the effec-
range from technology, legacy systems, cultural
tiveness of the application. Both dimensions are
barriers, employee job description changes, and
necessary to calibrate the impact of the initiatives
employee training to security, privacy, and measure-
and justify a business case for their use. While mea-
ment issues. This report has outlined these issues in
sures of levels of engagement are useful for initial
the preceding sections.
evaluation of government initiatives, the ultimate
focus should always be on measuring the value
Recommendation 3: Strategically rethink how to
generated for citizens.
deliver on your mission. individual agencies or
major programs should strategically develop service-
Recommendations
focused uses that may involve using Web 2.0
approaches to reconfigure their business models or
it is clear from our findings that the Web 2.0 plat-
services in order to more effectively deliver on their
form (and beyond) is the interaction environment of
own core missions or outcomes that require collab-
the future. We may not know all about how this
oration with other agencies.
environment is going to unfold as time goes on
(Web 2.0 evolving into Web 3.0 and beyond), but
This rethinking should be a part of their required
government agencies have to invest time and effort
agency-wide strategic planning process and not just
right now to understand the environment and gain
within their technology offices. For example the U.S.
relevant experience working in it to plan for the
Army’s recruiting service introduced an online inter-
interaction media and service delivery channel of
active game, “Today’s Army,” as a recruiting device,
the future. The following recommendations are
which has become an effective way to recruit new
made with this objective as the central focus and
soldiers (www.todaysmilitary.com). Such a specific
government agencies as the target.
effort could be preceded by focused market research
to appropriately design any such use for the citizen
Recommendation 1: Just do it. Government agen-
segment and identify the Web 2.0 environment
cies should embark on pilot projects to understand
where citizens could be targeted.
and experiment with social computing in the Web
2.0 environment. Communication-focused uses are
Recommendation 4: Reconfigure your Internet
good starting points, ones that will allow agencies to information and services to be more component-
ramp up slowly based on the experience gained. By
based. As agencies redesign their websites, they
the same token, internally focused uses are low-
need to focus on making their services and informa-
hanging fruit. Regardless of the focus, social com-
tion more granular, or component-based, and give
puting engagements can be time- and effort-
users the ability to use government information in
intensive. Agencies should not embark on these
“mashups” with other information sources. For
pilots if resources are very limited.
example, the national Weather Service allows its
weather information to be reconfigured and used by
Recommendation 2: Develop a government-wide
commercial entities (www.nws.noaa.gov). Along
inventory of common Web 2.0 issues. An inventory
with the trend in service-oriented architecture (SoA)
of common Web 2.0-related policy issues should be
and need for reusable service modules in the con-
developed, and agencies need to address these
text of intermediaries extending the reach of govern-
issues collectively rather than having each agency
ment, government agencies need to develop policies
individually develop their own solutions. These
to support the handling of such information and ser-
issues will likely be related to communications-
vice modules. Given the increased role of reputed
focused and interaction-focused uses.
intermediaries in the Web 2.0 environment, govern-
ment agencies might well consider leveraging inter-
This inventory could be done from either inside gov-
mediaries for Web 2.0 initiatives.
ernment—for example, in the office of Management
www.businessofgovernment.org
33
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
Recommendation 5: Ensure authenticity of govern-
ment information and services. Agencies need to
develop strategies and policies whereby they (or
their customers) can ensure the authenticity of gov-
ernment-generated information and services. This is
important as government begins to “meet” citizens
where they are online and as intermediaries begin to
“mash up” government data and services. Users
need to be assured that government-provided infor-
mation is clearly labeled so they can better judge
the authenticity of the information or service they
are accessing. Developing such an approach may be
a government-wide initiative, possibly led by the
national institute of Standards and Technology.
Recommendation 6: Learn and keep an open mind.
it is important for government agency executives to
recognize that social computing is evolving even as
the Web 2.0 platform morphs into Web 3.0 and
beyond; it is in a perpetual beta state. This calls for
executives to have a learning attitude toward the ini-
tiatives they launch in the social computing environ-
ment. Government agencies should start measuring
the levels of engagement of Web 2.0 uses from day
one and measure the effectiveness of uses through
direct feedback from citizens on a regular basis.
Measures should focus on usefulness, satisfaction,
and trust. Refinements should be implemented
based on these measures. As the environment
evolves, these initiatives will have to change with it.
in conclusion, it is fair to say that the time is now for
government agencies to start the above learning pro-
cess. The Web 2.0 environment and its newer, evolv-
ing forms are providing opportunities for government
agencies to have flexible, collaborative, low-cost
operations; provide citizens more personalized ser-
vice through multiple channels; and make govern-
ment agencies more transparent and accountable to
their citizens. it also has the immense potential to
render democratic governments truly participatory.
Such initiatives also have the power to attract
younger, talented workers to government agencies.
it is time for government agencies to rise to the chal-
lenge and avail themselves of the opportunities in
the Web 2.0 environment.
34
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
References
Armstrong, A., and J. Hagel. (1995). Real profits
Paper, national Electronic Commerce Coordinating
from virtual communities. The McKinsey Quarterly,
Council, presented at the 2007 eC3 Annual
3, 127–141.
Conference, December 3-5, Austin, Texas.
Armstrong, A., and J. Hagel. (1996). The real value
Gibler, Paul (2006). “Social Computing in the Web
of online communities. Harvard Business Review,
2.0 Era,” WisTechnology.Com, July 2.
74, 134–140.
Kannan, P. K., A. Chang, and A. B. Whinston.
Bevarly, Dan, and Jeffery G. Ulma (2007). “Citizen
(1998). Marketing information on the i-way.
involvement in the Digital Age,” The Public
Communications of the ACM, 41, 35–43.
Manager, Winter 2007-08, vol. 36, no. 4, p. 3–7.
Kannan, P. K., Barbara Kline Pope, and Sanjay Jain
Bruce, Chaddus (2007). “CiA Gets in your
(2008). “Pricing Digital Content Product line: A
Face(book),” Wired.com, available at http://
Model and Application for national Academies
www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/01/72545.
Press,” Marketing Science (forthcoming).
Cisco High Tech Policy Blog (2007). “The Power of
Kash, Wyatt (2007). “Agencies Advance Use of
Web 2.0 on Government legislation” December 13, online Social networking Tools,” Government
http://blogs.cisco.com/gov/2007/12/the_power_of_
Computer News, november.
web_20_on_governm.html.
lazer, David (2006). “Government Social Software—
Delaney, K., R. Buckman, and R. Guth. (2006).
SnS in Japan,” Complexity and Social network Blogs
“Social Whirl: Facebook, riding a web trend, flirts
of institute for Quantitative Social Science and the
with a big-money deal; as big companies pursue
Program on networked Governance, Harvard Univer-
networking Sites,” The Wall Street Journal,
sity, accessed at www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/netgov/
September 21, p. 1.
2006/12/government_social_software_sns.html.
Deloitte Report (2008). “Change your world or the
Marketing Week (2007). “Government introduces
world will change you: The future of collaborative
Social network for older Generation,” Marketing
government and Web 2.0,” Canada.
Week, london, november 1, p. 13.
Di Maio, Andrea (2007). “What Does Web 2.0
McKinsey (2007). “How Businesses are using Web
Mean to Government?” Gartner Publication iD
2.0: A McKinsey Global Survey,” The McKinsey
number: G00146261, March 8.
Quarterly.
ec3org.com (2007). “Government in the Age of
youTube: The implications of internet Social
networks to Government,” eC3 Symposium White
www.businessofgovernment.org
35
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
national Technology Readiness Survey (nTRS)
(2008). Report, Working Paper, The Robert H. Smith
School of Business, University of Maryland, College
Park, MD.
novak, Kevin, and Michelle Springer (2007).
“Government as a Participant in Social networks:
Adding Authority to Conversation,” paper presented
at the Toward More Transparent Government
Workshop on eGovernment and the Web
Conference, 18-19 June, United States national
Academy of Sciences, Washington DC.
o’Reilly, Tim (2005). “What is Web 2.0: Design
Patterns and Business Models for the next
Generation of Software,” published on www.oreilly.
com, September 30.
Peterson, Eric T (2007). “on the Difficulties of
Web 2.0 Measurements,” available at http://
www.e-consultancy.com/news-blog/361762/
eric-t-peterson-on-the-difficulties-of-web-2-0-
measurement.html.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community:
homesteading on the electronic frontier. Harper
Perennial Publishers.
van den Bulte, Christophe, and Stefan Wuyts (2007).
Social networks and Marketing, Marketing Science
institute.
Wall Street Journal, (Feb. 17, 2007).
Wyld, David (2007). “The Blogging Revolution:
Government in the Age of Web 2.0,” iBM Center
for The Business of Government.
36
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
A B o U T T H E A U T H o R S
Ai-Mei Chang is Professor of Systems Management at the University of
Maryland University College, where she teaches graduate-level courses
in e-business/e-government and information technology.
Her research and teaching interests include e-business/e-government,
with particular emphasis on e-business strategies, social networking,
information brokering, and mobile commerce; enterprise architecture;
and enterprise security. She has published several articles in scholarly
journals such as Communications of the ACM; International Journal
of Electronic Commerce; IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics; IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management; Decision
Support Systems; Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic
Commerce; Information Systems Research; and Information Processing
& Management. She has also co-authored a chapter in the book titled
The Handbook of Electronic Commerce.
Dr. Chang has presented her research at conferences such as the Hawaii international Conference on System
Sciences, and oRSA/TiMS. She is a member of the ACM and iEEE Computer Society. Dr. Chang is an associ-
ate editor for Decision Support Systems and Electronic Commerce and serves on the editorial board of
the Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce. A member of several national Science
Foundation review panels, Dr. Chang has also served on the program advisory boards of the eGov confer-
ence, Program Management Conference, and information Security Conference, and has co-chaired several
eGov conference tutorial sessions.
Prior to joining the University of Maryland, Dr. Chang was a professor of systems management and director
of the Center for eGovernment Education at the information Resources Management College, national
Defense University in Washington, D.C. Prior to that, she was an assistant professor of management infor-
mation systems at the Karl Eller School of Business, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Dr. Chang received her bachelor of science degrees in computer science and mathematics, and her Ph.D.
in management information systems, from Purdue University.
www.businessofgovernment.org
37
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
P. K. Kannan is the Director of the Center for Excellence in Service and
the Harvey Sanders Associate Professor of Marketing at the Robert H.
Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland.
His current research focus is on Service Science, Management and
Engineering (SSME). As part of his center activities, he is working with
several organizations—business, government, and think tanks, both in
the U.S. and abroad—to develop an agenda of research and practice
focused on service excellence. His other interests focus on new prod-
uct/service development, design and pricing digital products and prod-
uct lines, marketing and product development on the internet,
e-service, social networks, and customer relationship management
(CRM) and customer loyalty. He has received several grants from the
national Science Foundation (nSF), Mellon Foundation, SAiC, and iBM
for his work in this area. His research papers have been published in
Marketing Science, Management Science, Journal of Marketing Research, and Communications of the ACM.
Dr. Kannan’s research has won the prestigious John little Best Paper Award (2008) and the inFoRMS
Society for Marketing Science Practice Prize Award (2007). He was also a panelist in the nSF Workshop
on Research Priorities in e-Commerce (1998) and a Fellow of the American Marketing Association (AMA)
Consortium on e-Commerce (2001). He serves on the editorial boards of Marketing Science, Journal of
Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Service Research, and International
Journal of Electronic Commerce. He has served as the chair for the American Marketing Association Special
interest Group on Marketing Research and is a member of inFoRMS and AMA.
His teaching interests include social media and social networks, customer relationship management,
new product development, internet retailing and pricing, and marketing models/research. He has taught
courses on these topics in executive programs for Black & Decker, Home Depot, ARinC, McCormick,
northrop Grumman, and Hughes network Systems. He has corporate experience with Tata Engineering
and ingersoll-Rand, and has consulted for companies such as Frito-lay, PepsiCo, Giant Food, Black &
Decker, SAiC, Fannie Mae, and iBM.
Dr. Kannan received his Ph.D. in management and marketing from the Krannert Graduate School of
Management, Purdue University.
38
iBM Center for The Business of Government
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
K E y C o n T A C T i n F o R M A T i o n
To contact the authors:
Dr. Ai-Mei Chang
Professor of Systems Management
University of Maryland University College
6304 landon lane
Bethesda, MD 20817
e-mail: Chang.aimei@gmail.com
Dr. P. K. Kannan
Director, Center for Excellence in Service, and
Harvey Sanders Associate Professor of Marketing
The Robert H. Smith School of Business
University of Maryland
van Munching Hall
College Park, MD 20742
(301) 405-2188
e-mail: pkannan@rhsmith.umd.edu
www.businessofgovernment.org
39
lEvERAGinG WEB 2.0 in GovERnMEnT
REPORTS from
The IBM Center for The Business of Government
For a full listing of IBM Center publications,
visit the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org.
Recent reports available on the website include:
Collaboration: Networks and Partnerships
Integrating Service Delivery Across Levels of Government: Case Studies of Canada and Other Countries by Jeffrey Roy and John Langford
From Forest Fires to Hurricane Katrina: Case Studies of Incident Command Systems by Donald P. Moynihan
A Manager’s Guide to Resolving Conflicts in Collaborative Networks by Rosemary O’Leary and Lisa Blomgren Bingham
Contracting
Success Factors for Implementing Shared Services in Government by Timothy J. Burns and Kathryn G. Yeaton
E-Government/Technology
Bridging the Digital Divide for Hard-to-Reach Groups by Heike Boeltzig and Doria Pilling
Best Practices for Implementing Agile Methods: A Guide for Department of Defense Software Developers by Ann L. Fruhling and Alvin E Tarrell
The Blogging Revolution: Government in the Age of Web 2.0 by David C. Wyld
Human Capital Management
Designing and Implementing Performance-Oriented Payband Systems by James R. Thompson
Seven Steps of Effective Workforce Planning by Ann Cotten
Innovation
Transforming Government Through Collaborative Innovation by Satish Nambisan
Managing for Performance and Results
Engaging Citizens in Measuring and Reporting Community Conditions: A Manager’s Guide by Alfred T. Ho
Strategic Use of Analytics in Government by Thomas H. Davenport and Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa
Missions and Programs
Delivery of Benefits in an Emergency: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina by Thomas H. Stanton
Organizational Transformation
Improving Service Delivery in Government with Lean Six Sigma by John Maleyeff
Presidential Transition
Strengthening Homeland Security: Reforming Planning and Resource Allocation by Cindy Williams
40
iBM Center for The Business of Government
About the IBM Center for The Business of Government
The IBM Center for The Business of Government connects
public management research with practice. Since 1998, we
have helped public sector executives improve the effectiveness
of government with practical ideas and original thinking. We
sponsor independent research by top minds in academe and the
nonprofit sector, and we create opportunities for dialogue on a
broad range of public management topics.
The Center is one of the ways that IBM seeks to advance
knowledge on how to improve public sector effectiveness.
The IBM Center focuses on the future of the operation and
management of the public sector.
About IBM Global Business Services
With consultants and professional staff in more than 160 countries
globally, IBM Global Business Services is the world’s largest
consulting services organization. IBM Global Business Services
provides clients with business process and industry expertise,
a deep understanding of technology solutions that address
specific industry issues, and the ability to design, build and
run those solutions in a way that delivers bottom-line business
value. For more information visit www.ibm.com.
For additional information, contact:
Jonathan D. Breul
Executive Director
IBM Center for The Business of Government
1301 K Street, NW
Fourth Floor, West Tower
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 515-4504, fax: (202) 515-4375
e-mail: businessofgovernment@us.ibm.com
website: www.businessofgovernment.org
