Public Sphere Model: Local issues must be next

Senator Kate Lundy's innovative approach to citizen engagement using social networking tools and new media is proving very successful in enabling citizens to have a voice in policy development. So far, the model has focused on giving citizens a voice in Government 2.0.

The obvious next step is to see the model used to engage with citizens on local issues. I have been arguing for some time that we need a balance between centralisation and decentralisation.

To borrow Roger Clarke's concept (from Public Sphere #1), centralisation leads to systemic failure, whereas decentralisation leads to sporadic failure. It would seem a balance between the two is appropriate for a connected world.

The trouble I see at this point is that Australia's approach is highly centralised, and we are lacking in capabilities (infrastructure and culture) to engage in a decentralised environment.

That is not to say that centralisation is all bad. The idea of 'centrality' (as opposed to 'centralisation'), particularly leadership from federal politicians (such as Senator Lundy), is crucial to enabling local communities to take advantage of the benefits of new media (leading to decentralisation).

As I argued in my presentation at Public Sphere #2 (see video below), we need to develop decentralised research and learning facilities at the local level to overcome the problems of our deep-seated tradition of central control.

Feedback from some of the 'tweeters' at Public Sphere #2 suggested that my idea of 'centres' for social innovation went against my approach of avoiding 'centralisation' (and I agree).

After discussions today with an emerging community of online collaborators at the University of Canberra, I mentioned this feedback and we came up with the label 'Social Innovation Exchanges'. Stay tuned for some online initiatives in this regard soon.

So where to next? I think the Public Sphere model of short presentations - video recorded, live blogged, tweeted and then followed up with blog comments and a briefing paper (with wikis to be added soon) - would work well for citizen engagement on local issues.

For example, activities such as the recent consultation on the future of the Scullin shops would have been a great issue to experiment with the Public Sphere model on a local problem.

Starting off with a fairly innocuous issue is important to get the model right for local communities, as it would enable interested parties to present their views - even if they could not attend a particular public meeting - about the issue for public review without being too controversial.

There are many opportunities and challenges ahead in the digital future. What we do now in the quasi-digital present will be an important step in the evolution of new media models for citizen engagement.

I have conceptualised where we are at now using the 'forming, storming, norming, performing' process (outlined in much of the project management literature) in the presentation below.

Keep your ears to the ground about current developments at the University of Canberra. We have a proud and strong community which lends itself to an actively engaged and online 'Community 2.0'. But more on this in a future post!

Public Sphere: Government 2.0 - Michael De Percy from Kate Lundy on Vimeo.

Wikis to broaden policy debate | Australian IT

I didn't think this would happen for some time. But here it is: Public Sphere made it to the news:

Mr Tanner told the second Public Sphere event in Canberra that Web 2.0 tools such as blogs and wikis had allowed citizens to "bring their knowledge, perspectives and resources inside the tent" of government.

Politicians and bureaucrats will have to overcome the old and reflexive mistrust over the release of information, and learn to accept that citizens will assemble and combine it in new ways, he said. We also have to accept that when we open ourselves to public discussion through chatrooms, blogs and online forums, we won't always like what we hear.

The link to the original article is here: Wikis to broaden policy debate Australian IT

Some related sites or those mentioning 'public sphere':

• Minister Tanner's Speech
• Gov 2.0 Taskforce
• Kate Lundy (includes a list of other blogs mentioning Public Sphere)
  
• Open Australia
• Open Forum
• TweetMP
• Technology & Business on 'Public Sphere'
• CASE Blog
• TechWorld
• Creative Commons Australia
• Computerworld
• Liveblog from Public Sphere #2
  

Government 2.0 Taskforce launched today

I participated in today's Public Sphere #2: Government 2.0 event in Parliament House, Canberra, where Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner and Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary Joe Ludwig announced the launch of the Government 2.0 Taskforce. The Taskforce has a website using open source architecture with a Creative Commons 2.0 licence.

(photo courtesy of Stephen Collins)

The Taskforce is a great initiative and has a public competition running until 3 July to design the banner for the website. It appears that the Taskforce will advise the government on the use of Web 2.0 technologies and will also provide funding to assist innovative uses of new technologies for citizen engagement and open access to government information:

The Project Fund is a $2.45 million fund available to the Taskforce to support the development of Web 2.0 tools and applications that either enable engagement between government and the community or support the innovative use of government information.

Members of the Taskforce, chaired by Dr Nicholas Gruen, include:

• Ms Ann Steward (Deputy Chair)
• Mr Glenn Archer
• Mr Sebastian Chan
• Mr Adrian Cunningham
• Prof Brian Fitzgerald
• Ms Mia Garlick
• Mr Peter Harper
• Ms Lisa Harvey
• Mr Martin Hoffman
• Ms Pip Marlow
• Mr Alan Noble
• Dr Ian Reinecke
• Mr David Solomon
• Mr Martin Stewart-Weeks

The Project Fund is being provided through a partnership with Microsoft, with Cisco providing some of the 'telepresence' infrastructure for the group. Funding will be provided on a competitive basis:

[T]he Taskforce will run competitions that will invite interested individuals and groups to submit ideas and Web 2.0 designs to the Taskforce for consideration and potential prizes and other benefits such as funding for pilots.

It would seem that Gov 2.0 has commenced in Australia.

Business 2.0: Consumer Culture in Australia

How does Australian consumer 'culture' impact upon a businesses' ability to engage with customers using new media?

I recently wrote about Australian civic culture, so today I take a look at Australian consumer culture. Let me make it clear that when I talk about 'culture', I usually mean 'the way things are done around here'. If you have ever tried to introduce new ways of doing things in your work (or any group setting for that matter), you have probably heard the cultural context expressed as 'that is not the way things are done around here'. When businesses try new approaches to customer engagement, the phrase is not uncommon, too. So I have penned a few thoughts below on consumer culture in Australia and how businesses might be able to overcome some of the barriers. It is not an exhaustive examination but this might be a worthy future research project.

Some initial observations concerning consumer culture in Australia:

1. When I first wrote a pdf newsletter (years ago) for a professional organisation and emailed it to members, there were many complaints. 'Take me off the email list'; 'The file is too big and it took me X hours to open my email app'; 'How did you get my email address?'.
2. In a community forum, the culture was so constrained you had to be very apologetic if you dared to have a voice. It was OK to advertise the latest cookie drive, but not to advertise a discount on a commercial product or service - that was just plain 'wrong'. But the culture is changing rapidly.
   
3. In most government forums, anything which is slightly commercial is usually unwelcome. There is a time and a place for marketing (unless you are a major sponsor, of course).
4. On most new media apps, everybody is an expert in making you money online. Predominantly from overseas. Indeed, it might even be legitimately 'unAustralian' to market oneself as such.
   
5. If you have ever hear an acquaintence mention 'I would like to discuss a business opportunity with you', you now know which firm they are talking about and you haven't gone back for a second take.
   
6. The Do Not Call register was so popular the server crashed in the first few minutes of operation. But then again, so did Canada's.
7. When a company launches a consumer information campaign in Australia, it is deemed to be 'corporate propaganda' (but public-funded advertising telling us how good a new policy will be hardly gets a mention).
8. The traditional media is quick to point out when new media 'fails', especially if it can be construed in such a way as to support so-called 'mainstream' views of the world.
9. On some new media forums, so-called 'businesses' will follow you, only to unfollow you once you follow them back. This annoys me no end.
10. I cringe when I buy a pair of cheap sunglasses and the salesperson says 'the system won't let me complete the sale unless you give me your address and telephone number'.
    

So how are 'things done' around here? I am convinced that the first hunch is not necessarily correct. It is important to take an objective view of things.

For example, to test the community view of things in (2) above, I set up a voluntary survey using VotApedia. The results were surprising: the apologists achieved only 35% in favour of the conservative, polite approach to broadcasting information. It seems that in many ways the 'culture' may have been the domain of the vocal minority. The culture has changed since others have become confident enough to have a voice. We need to conduct more research into the dynamics of online engagement and take the findings seriously.

But how does this relate to business?

First, I think it is important to acknowledge that one negative comment from a customer, journalist, participant or other observer is not necessarily representative of the group. If the 'negatives' happen to be very vocal, it is easy to develop a skewed view of the whole. Adequate market research is the key.

Second, managing customer expectations is essential. Customers want everything, right now, for free. You can never meet all their desires, but you can manage what they expect from you. This is where new media represents a major improvement on the old-style engagement mentioned in (1) above. Email provides a sense where we must respond or at least take some action (such as deleting the email), whereas it is too easy to ignore something that is not interesting in new media forums.

Third, it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. Points (4) to (9) above make this a difficult task. Competition is great for consumers, but how can the average consumer make an informed decision when there is too much information? Information must also be comparable and the dilemmas created by 'fine print' make the task very difficult, even if a customer wanted to engage with a business. Conversely, if a business tries something new and the news media takes a particular view of it, then things can go publicly wrong. I am hoping this will change as the number of participants increases.

Fourth, the artificial delineation between business and government suggested in (3) above is really just that: artificial. To say that business is not a legitimate participant in a liberal democracy denies the actual role of the liberal democratic state. I am certainly not a proponent of free markets, but markets exist because of the state. To think otherwise is simply naive - companies should not have free reign but neither should governments. Indeed, such naive views tend to be counter-productive by creating a culture which restricts civic participation, reduces innovation and prevents new ideas or new players from entering the marketplace.

So what can businesses do?

I argue first that businesses must establish their legitimacy. Point (5) suggests that sneaky marketing practices will lead to short-lived business opportunities. Twitter, for example, is looking into a beta version of Verified Accounts to deal with the issue of legitimacy. Establishing legitimacy takes time, too, but there must be an element of 'genuineness' about the process. New media provides numerous opportunities for customer engagement.

But how can a business be genuine with customers? I think the first step is to engage online with existing customers, rather than using new media as an opportunity to gain new customers. This would, in my view, overcome the appearance of being 'spammed'. And it must be more than an attempt to collect information from customers without offering something in return - see point (10) above. I happily use Google's tools because I get access to a capability by simply sharing my data and I know others do the same.

Another area which businesses tend to overlook in Australia is educational institutions. Sure, there are plenty of Australian Research Council linkage grants designed to encourage greater interaction between researchers and business, but these are for the most part the domain of the superstars only. I often draw upon educational material from North America and advertising is a part of the material. I doubt North American students would moralise the use of advertising funding for educational material production, but I can imagine the furore such an 'innovation' would cause in an Australian university!

I have also found that it is useful to 'interconnect' the face-to-face experience with the online experience. I have written about this elsewhere on social policy engagement with youth online. There are many opportunities for businesses but I think it will take some time before Australian consumer culture views customer engagement as more than just a way for businesses to increase sales. The involvement of businesses in the higher education sector, in particular, would demonstrate a more meaningful connection with society. Getting a foot in the door would be another matter, but this has already happened in terms of email outsourcing and so on, so why not in teaching?

One observation of using new media in my teaching suggests that there must be an equal amount of openness on the part of both lecturer and student. While some of my colleagues' research suggests that students see lecturers online as an invasion of privacy, I have not had this experience. When we tried Facebook as a teaching tool a couple of years ago, the student satisfaction correlated with the number of students who opted to use Facebook. But I (and consequently my tutors) tend to be quite open in the online environment. Where the lecturer acts as a 'lurker', rather than a participant, the results tend to reflect my colleagues' findings. I would not be surprised if a principle of 'equal openness' could equally be applied to a customer engagement model.

Some hasty generalisations

It is difficult to make an empirically-verifiable generalisation about consumer culture and how this might affect businesses' ability to engage with Australian consumers using new media. Nonetheless, I will make a few 'hasty generalisations':

1. Businesses must establish themselves as legitimate participants in the online environment.
   
2. Australian consumers tend to view attempts by businesses to engage online as a an infringement on consumers' personal time, especially when the engagement is unsolicited.
3. There should be 'equal openness'. If the customer must provide all their personal details and contribute to marketing statistics, then the business must give something in return.
4. Businesses should be given more opportunites to participate in the higher education system, and not just with the superstars. After all, businesses are the real customers of universities (if you think this statement is incorrect, see my earlier comment on the role of the state).

New media provides many opportunities for businesses to enagage with customers, but there are a few issues which must be addressed. Rather than viewing these as cultural impediments to businesses, it is arguable that businesses have a duty to amend their practices to suit the consumer culture. That is not to say that businesses need to meet the unreasonable demands of consumers, but at least meet the realistic expectations of consumers (avoiding unsolicited spamming is an obvious example). But on reflection, I think that Australian consumer culture is less of an impediment to customer engagement than civic culture is to citizen engagement. But while the stakes are higher in the latter, the benefits might just be more tangible in the former.

Can Australian civic culture accommodate Gov 2.0?

On Monday 22 June, I will be speaking at Senator Kate Lundy's 'Public Sphere #2: Government 2.0' at Parliament House in Canberra. Program details are available here.

The ideas for my presentation are developed from my work at the University of Canberra where I have been experimenting with new media in teaching and research for some time. My experience from numerous consultations with community groups and involvement in social media also informs the ideas outlined in the slideshow below:

Public Sphere 2 - Gov 2.0

View more OpenOffice presentations from Michael De percy.

I am not convinced that Australia's civic culture sits comfortably with open government and online policy engagement. While there are plenty of interested citizens and groups, my prediction is that there will be a period of 'cultural' upheaval as citizens (who historically have not been involved in formal democratic processes) gain greater access to government.

The demands of citizens will arguably multiply as citizens come to expect more opportunities for active engagement with governments at all levels. This trend, which has commenced in the US, will no doubt permeate the news media as events unfold there. In the meantime (and enabled by new media), blocking citizens from accessing government information will be like holding back the proverbial tide.

But the education sector has a significant role to play in providing citizens with the skills to become effective participants in open government. One of the major challenges is that educational institutions are part of the fabric of Australian civic culture. Indeed, I would argue that a culture of openness is yet to develop in our educational institutions.

How we meet these challenges will require significant cultural change. How we get there means there are very interesting times ahead.

NY Senate to 'open up'

Thanks to Twitter:

RT @JeffreyPeel RT @dalezak: Wanna see the future of politics? http://open.nysenate.gov #opengov #gov20 #g2010 - way to go NY!

New York is opening up access to state data for use by citizens. This is fantastic news!

During a number of recent presentations, I have argued that all sorts of public information should be available for use by citizens. My favourite example is the bus timetable information in Ottawa which was developed by Canadian citizens. The OC Transpo service is already second-to-none in my experience, so this adds an extra value dimension.

I am very keen to see if something similar could be developed by citizens in Canberra, especially so I could work out how to catch a bus in Palmerston via Gungahlin. But can you freely access the information?

I say more power to the people. In the meantime, mash away NY!

Australia beats US for broadband access | Australian IT

The release of this media report on Australia's international broadband standing raises some interesting issues.

While I agree that broadband penetration should be measured by households, not individual connections, there are several other issues concerning how broadband is measured.

A major problem is how 'broadband' is actually defined. The OECD still uses 'always on' with a download speed above 256kbps. Hardly broadband in the Web 2.0 era.

Synchronous (two-way) 1.5mbps is generally accepted as the minimum speed for adequate teleconferencing facilities, and this is the measure Canada adopted in the early 2000s. The ACCC's earlier reports on broadband adoption in Australia have used 200kbps or above. This measure significantly lowers the bar.

Further, the methods of collecting data are problematic. The OECD relies on 'theoretical' best speeds and advertised prices, in addition to government-produced estimates and statistics, in ranking member countries.

The Akamai 'State of the Internet' report, I understand, uses data actually collected from participating servers worldwide. The Quarter 4, 2008 report records Australia as well below both the US and Canada in terms of 'fast' broadband. To make matters worse, Palmerston via Gungahlin (see earlier post) has theoretical speeds of 1.5mbps which drop to below dial-up each evening.

Until the problems of data collection and reliability are resolved, I remain very sceptical about reports which claim Australian broadband is more accessible than in the US.

See the full article: Australia beats US for broadband access Australian IT.

Bloggers to have greater say in legislative debate | Australian IT

The article (below) in Australian IT is a promising sign of the times. The issue which we will face soon is how we educate people to operate in the new policy environment. Universities will play a major role here. I will be speaking about some of these issues at the next Public Sphere event on 21 June 2009 at Parliament House.

Article: Bloggers to have greater say in legislative debate Australian IT

Netiquette: The next big challenge

Time and again, I am seeing online participatory forums reduced to public arguments which lead to a reduction in participation (and subsequently constructive discussion) in otherwise positive online communities.

Most of the arguments are about what content is 'appropriate' for inclusion in a particular forum. This is hardly surprising, but it does not bode well for our digital future.

Broadband networks will enable more people to connect online in ways which are yet to be devised. But as with most innovations, the limits to connectivity are not all related to technology. I have argued elsewhere that technology is not entirely deterministic; nor is it entirely constructed by society.

Technological momentum is a middle-of-the-road theory which suggests that both technology (and its potential uses), and society (and the way society uses technology), each have an impact on the possible futures and uses of broadband technologies.

But in most of the relatively 'localised' social networks I have observed, recently there have been many bouts of conflict. This suggests that the momentum of technology has advanced, while society and its uses of the technologies are yet to evolve. I would argue we are on the cusp of a change in how we, as humans, interact, as the evolving public e-sphere empowers the voices which for a long time have been excluded from a public hearing.

How we proceed will determine the extent to which our increasingly collective views of enabling an empowered society are more than just rhetoric.

In many regards, there was some merit to the 'old ways'. Content was filtered by the hierarchies which govern the provision of information. Easy to control when you are a one-way broadcaster, but much more difficult to control when you are involved in an any-to-any conversation.

In the past (at least increasingly since 1975!), content which was viewed as racist, sexist, or in any way viewed (by the majority, or at least the law) as discriminatory, was simply excluded. Open up the communications network to the masses, and the situation changes dramatically.

As more people are exposed to the rigours of public life (which broadband and new media participation ensues), the need for an institutionalised sense of Netiquette is fast becoming a priority. Incorporating 'Netiquette' in educational curricula is a necessary next step.

One of the biggest impediments to an ideally inclusive digital future is how our educational institutions will deal with the challenge of emerging ideas about Netiquette. The extent of exclusion from earlier ideas of the 'public sphere' is well documented. But the voices which will be heard in the emerging 'public e-sphere' will be hard for the old hierarchies to hold back. Historically, education is the most effective way to deal with such challenges.

The emerging ideas about 'Netiquette' will require a great deal of soul-searching if the traditional gatekeepers are to play a useful role in the digital future. At this stage, it is difficult to imagine a future without gatekeepers. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the 'rules of entry' through the information gates must be changed for the better if we, as humans, are to benefit from the potential provided by modern communications technologies.

Presentation at the 4th Annual Broadband Forum

On 11 June, I presented some of my research findings to the 4th Annual Broadband Australia Forum at the Sydney Harbour Marriott. There is a tendency for academics to get caught up in their own silos, so having an audience of prominent industry players was very helpful. I have included a copy of my presentation below.

Informa: A comparison of broadband policy: Canada & Australia

View more OpenOffice presentations from Michael De percy.

NBN: Tasmania gets it right

With the Tasmanian Government's $12.7 million contribution to the NBN, there are some early signs that 'the times they are-a changin'. Co-investment and greater cooperation between all levels of government are essential if we are to get the most out of the NBN.

Interestingly, local councils have a strong showing in the submissions to the NBN regulatory reform paper and these will hopefully encourage greater involvement by this often-overlooked level of government.

It would seem timely that in addition to NBN Co., a national research institute be established to facilitate innovate uses for the forthcoming NBN. CANARIE Inc in Canada is a very good example of how this organisation might look.

However, CANARIE is not directly controlled by government, and this is where Australia consistently misses out. CANARIE are considering all sorts of innovative approaches to broadband networks.

For example, the 'homes with tails' idea suggests that individuals and local communities could invest in their own fibre connections. This idea would see the fibre connection to the home become a part of home ownership.

The Tasmanian decision is good news and represents a significant change to the centrally-controlled approach to communications infrastructure which is predominant in this country. Building Australia's innovative capacity is an important 'next step' in ensuring that this historic investment in infrastructure will be worthwhile.

But a research centre based on the CANARIE Inc model is yet to be discussed, and it is timely that such an organisation is established in Australia.

Sour Grapes? Sol Trujillo was right

In my latest ABC Unleashed article, I argue that Sol Trujillo was right. The sour grapes belong to politicians.

Pipe Dreams: A vision for a connected Australia

Click to Play

Presentation on Australia's possible broadband future by Senator Kate Lundy, Professor Keith Lyons and Michael de Percy, University of Canberra, 21 May 2009.

The live blog from the event (by Pia Waugh and Minh-Tam Nguyen) is available here.

Kate Lundy’s Public Sphere #2: Government 2.0

Senator Kate Lundy has organised the next Public Sphere event on Government 2.0 to be held at Parliament House on 21 June. The event is free, but attendance is limited. You can book a seat here.

This event will include international speakers via video conferencing.

As per the format, speakers will have 15 minutes each but this event will run from 9am to 5pm. You can submit a presentation ‘abstract’ via the website if you wish to speak at the event.

Targeting Telstra: The negative side of separation

Recent media reports again have Optus suggesting Telstra should be structurally separated. This would no doubt help Optus to compete more effectively in many ways and might even help with improving competition, leading to cheaper prices, more customer choices and so on.

But there is a negative side. Despite the urban myths and the political rhetoric, many studies (1) indicate that small businesses do not contribute to innovation and employment to the extent that large businesses do. Indeed, Telstra is one of Australia's major innovators and employers. If Telstra is functionally or structurally separated, how will this impact upon innovation? Telstra is also a large employer, so what about employment?

The (functional or structural) separation debate needs to be visited carefully. Some of the questions which are escaping the onslaught of Telstra-bashing include:

1. What will Telstra look like once its wholesale and retail arms are separated?
2. How will this affect innovation and employment, especially during the global financial crisis?
3. Telstra is one of the top telcos in the world. How will Telstra's separation affect its international competitiveness?
4. If the government is going to let Telstra buy 49% of the NBN, will the NBN company utilise Telstra employees?
5. Who will train the people needed to run the NBN company? Will it be necessary to duplicate Telstra's expertise to run the NBN?

These are some of the questions which remain unanswered, and there are no doubt many more which will need to be addressed.

In the meantime, the consultation on regulatory reform has fallen back (at least in the news media) on how to constrain Telstra; not on how to make the ailing system work.

The reform consultation provides a major opportunity to fix a problem which has plagued Australia for close to three decades. Telstra is only one small part of the problem but it is popular to blame the world-class company for woes which have never really been its fault.

Leo Gray, Sydney specialist media barrister, pointed out what needed to be done years ago:

[W]e do not have a systematic body of communications law which allows new technologies and new uses for old technologies for that matter, to be conveniently slotted in to their correct place in a single integrated regulatory framework (cited on p. 29 of the 1989 Standing Committee on Transport and Communications Infrastructure Report)

The problems associated with technological convergence were raised by the then Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT), calling for a 'radical overhaul' of the broadcasting, telecommunications and radiocommunications laws. Despite the expert voice of the ABT, the policy changes were hardly radical.

But the problems have mostly fallen by the wayside and pragmatic solutions remain elusive. Instead of focusing on the regulatory system and getting that right, the focus is on how to reduce Telstra to a non-world-class company, reduce its innovative capacity, and most likely reduce the number of jobs the company provides.

The situation hasn't really changed much from the 80s, and getting it right means breaking from the old ways. Regrettably, focusing on Telstra will make it great for the other telcos, but leave the benefits to citizens (which technological convergence enables) suspended in the future. The trouble is that the benefits have been there for decades.

Notes:

1. See, for example:

Ács, J. & Audretsch. D.B. (1990) Innovation and small firms. Cambridge: MIT Press: 16.

Hoffman, K. Milady, P., Bessant, J. & Perren, L. (1998) 'Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation in the UK: a literature review'. In Technovation, Vol. 18, No. 1: 39-55.

Nooteboom, B. (1994) 'Innovation and diffusion in small firms: Theory and evidence'. In Small Business Economics, Vol. 6, No. 5: 344-345.

Worries mount on ABC web ambition | Australian IT

The ABC is moving into the digital age quickly. Yet commercial networks are screaming 'unfair advantage'. Who will lead the charge: government or business? It seems government can do it, but the private sector won't because there is no money in it for them. Seems tragic that improving Australian content and access to communications infrastructure will be hindered by self-serving and entrenched interests.

Not that commercial interests are necessarily bad - but in this case the old ways are holding back the digital economy and consequently, Australia's international competitiveness.

read more | digg story