In a scathing indictment of ‘Rip off’ IT contracts in government the Public Administration Select Committee called for sweeping changes in government-contractor relations. Jane Tinkler finds that the Committee’s follow-up report comments insightfully on the coalition government’s response document, but also stresses new themes. In particular, PASC is now highlighting the across-the-board absence of social media in central government websites and transactional services. Is it a case of ‘plus ca change, plus c’est la même chose?’
Any large organization can get set in its ways, focusing on what it knows how to do and trying to ignore new developments that seem to threaten to disrupt its way of doing business. Even a company that prides itself on being at the forefront of innovation can fall victim to this syndrome – witness the problems that Google has recently had in trying to get its engineers and marketing experts to take the development of social media seriously compared with the company’s traditional (i.e. last decade) focus on search and search-related advertising. Using the freedom that only major corporates have Google took drastic action – making 25 per cent of all its staff’s bonuses (whatever they worked on) dependent upon the company meeting its social media objectives.
The Public Administration Select Committee yesterday powerfully addressed an almost exact counterpart of Google’s problem – namely the striking absence from all of Whitehall’s websites of any signs of social media being deployed, or the least effort being made to feed back to users information on what other users were finding helpful. Instead the legacy of a decade of now ossified e-government efforts are hundreds of old-style government websites still dominated by wall-to-wall text, devoid of any rich media, written in obscure language apparently for people with a near-PhD knowledge of the byways of public administration. Drawing in part on comments commissioned from myself, Helen Margetts of the Oxford Internet Institute and Patrick Dunleavy (included at Appendix 2 of their report), the Committee note perceptively:
“There are obvious areas in which the Government could go further and move faster to implement ‘digital by default’. For example, officials should be rewarded for using social media and digital channels to disseminate information and provide services (especially where this reduces reliance on other, more expensive channels). User feedback submitted via the Directgov site provides the Government with a great deal of free data on the strengths and weaknesses of its service provision. The Government must make good use of it, alongside other information from social media produced outside Directgov itself, to understand better how its services are used and perceived and, in turn, to design better services” (paragraph 19).
And later the report is forthright on improving Whitehall’s ability to experiment and learn from users:
“We recommend that Departments exploit the internet and other channels to enable users to provide direct online feedback both in the design of services and in their ongoing operation and improvement”.
The consequences of lagging government IT are of course intensely offputting for users who have grown used to better private sector and civil society standards, and have to rack their brains to remember how things operated years ago in order to use government sites. The implications of government’s slow adaptation are not just dysfunctional or hard-to-use online services, but also the maintenance of great swathes of unnecessary costs. For instance, virtually all UK government websites are still provided in expensive-to-alter conventional web pages maintained on content management systems that only Web specialists can fully configure.
Some big departments are still locked into cumbersome integrated IT contracts that cost them an arm and a leg, and impose long delays, to change any webpage. Yet ultra-cheap blogging software is very fully developed and is highly relevant and suitable for most of the government’s information content output – software that can be maintained by non-specialist staffs and updated or changed easily at the click of a button. Perhaps only a small fraction of the most-viewed information pages would then need to be embodied in conventional websites for more permanent use.
The problems that the Public Administration Select Committee so incisively draw attention to are fundamentally those of huge time-lags and gaps in the organizational learning of civil service departments. In a Whitehall where most departments are ‘immortal’ (and some departments like HMRC can trace an unbroken lineage back to mediaeval times), are we condemned to always confronting government IT provision that lags a decade behind the times? Even if we could sort out IT contracting as PASC wants onto a more contractually diversified and competitive basis, and build IT systems in more modular ways to avoid IT disasters, would Whitehall’s pervasive amateurism on modern IT business processes still produce more of the same chronically lagging digital systems?
Please read our comments policy before posting
About the author
Jane Tinkler is the research lead and manager of the LSE’s Public Policy Group
Actually I think this is a very good piece. Government and local government websites are clunky and certainly not user-friendly. They’re structured in such a way that supports producer not consumer interests, and public sector sites lag way behind commercial sties. The issue which the respondents have failed to grasp that theres little point in departments and councils adopting social media if they don’t use it properly. the whole point of social media is the word social, and particularly as a channel for communications. its not for government and councils to use as an alternative channel to crowd out comments from citizens.
On top of this government and councils would have been far better investing in broadband and other knowledge systems – for the benefit of citizens and the economy. Instead they misdirect our money into clunky 19thC approaches to economic development. According to YouGov just 2% think money should have been wasted, ahem spent, on crossrail – an initiative which is causing massive and unnecessary disruption to London with no real benefit.
its no wonder this country is stuck in an economic mire.
Well done Jane, great comments!
Interesting perspective and viewpoint – You do make some statements which if referred to specific examples may well be true…but the sweeping generalisation is simply conter-productive.
As Steph highlights above government and local government has made some important and significant steps in this direction over the last few years…it is important to separate out the use of social media and the perceived effectiveness of a government website. If this kind of thinking drives unnecessary and inappropriate use of social media tools and platforms then that would be a bad move and no doubt government would be slammed for messing it up.
It is simply common sense, to approach the use of any technology, based on the outcomes you want to see…and not be driven by petty competitions to see who has the most followers or likes in particular sites.
Yes google and others do make big points and statements about ow important social media is…however I personally don’t believe government central or local should be creating social platforms themselves…and we are not a commercial organisation (yet)
It would be great to read some informed debate on these issues and how we can take the conversation to more meaningful and relevant areas such as increasing social capital and renewing or reinvigorating democratic processes…I suspect technology can and will play a part, but focus on the right end of the problem and not the perceived lack of solutions..
What on earth are you on about?
It’s one thing to say Whitehall is failing to maximise the potential of social media in its digital communications, quite another to make ludicrous generalisations such as ‘virtually all UK government websites are still provided in expensive-to-alter conventional web pages maintained on content management systems’ and ‘the striking absence from all of Whitehall’s websites of any signs of social media being deployed’.
I can’t believe I’m making this point in 2012, but there are various examples listed at http://sandbox.bis.gov.uk/digitalgovuk/ and 5 minutes on the FCO or DFID websites would probably demonstrate the range of social tools – well-used blogs, videos, podcasts, Twitter accounts and more – being used in Whitehall to make policy and communicate it to a global audience.
Sure, there are some slow adopters and IT departments sometimes drag their heels. But sweeping statements based on very little evidence like your post here don’t help to get your points get treated seriously.
I am left speechless by this post. Lots of sweeping generalisations without sources to back them up. Government web services aren’t 10 years out of date but I suspect the sources for this article are.
Since 2008 1,526 government websites have been closed – part of a rationalisation strategy that will see the vast majority of central government and arms-length body websites converged onto a single website (search for “reporting on progress central government websites 2010/11” I would link but this comment would then be held for moderation.)
This single website is being dreamed and created right now. May I point you to the excellent work of the Government Digital Service who blog at http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ who in a few months have transformed the idea of what a government website can be.
Perhaps you could expand on what a ‘conventional’ web page is? Is it one that meets W3C standards? What should government sites be doing? Implementing unconventional web pages? Surely that would cost more.
I know of many government websites that have used blogging software such as WordPress to quickly develop and deliver their aims. To suggest that it is a catch-all solution for any government website is naive and shows a lack of understanding of the vast range of content curated by government web managers that would be difficult to manage with blogging software.
On the subject of social media and government the article is at least 4 years off the pace. Every year a group of web professionals connected to government gather to share best practice and drive change in government online services. Social media has been on the agenda since 2008 and there were great examples even then (for some excellent write-ups of what was discussed this year see http://ukgc12.posterous.com/ ). Social media is firmly embedded in a lot of government departments and to say the public sector is lagging 10 years behind is a ridiculous statement. Name me which social networks were available in 2002. I can name less than a handful, can you name any? How were private sector companies using social media in 2002 when the social networks we know today didn’t exist* and the ones that did had little market penetration?
* Facebook founded in 2004. Twitter founded in 2006. MySpace founded in 2003.