Government 2.0 Taskforce Online Engagement Review

8/14/2019 Government 2.0 Taskforce Online Engagement Review

1/36

Darren Sharp,Dr Mark Elliott andMatt Cooperrider

collabforge

Government 2.0 Taskforce

Online Engagement

Review

December 2009


2/36

collabforge

Government 2.0 Taskforce

Online Engagement

Review

December 2009

Darren Sharp,Dr Mark Elliott andMatt Cooperrider


3/36

Unless otherwise noted this report is

licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 Australia

licence. You are free to copy, communicate

and adapt this work, so long as you attribute

the Collabforge and the authors. For the

full terms see http://creativecommons.org/

licenses/by-nc/2.5/au.

The cover image is sigurd lewerentz, florist,1969by seier+seier+seier+ available at

http://flickr.com/photos/seier/2348583304.

It is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution 2.0 licence. For the full terms see

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/auhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/auhttp://flickr.com/photos/seier/2348583304http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0http://flickr.com/photos/seier/2348583304http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/auhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/au


4/36

Government 2.0 TaskforceOnline Engagement Review 3

Contents

4Executive Summary

7Collabforge approach tostrategic engagement

9Online engagement review

22Legacy Issues26Pathways for future

development

32Appendix


5/36Government 2.0 TaskforceOnline Engagement Review4

Executive summary

1.1 Introduction

The activities of the Government 2.0 Taskforcerepresent a signicant investment in time,effort and resources by and in the Australiancommunity. This has lead to the establishmentof an online community with a collectivelycultivated and unique identity and culture.This community acted (and continues toact) in a capacity that can be understoodas a knowledge well or resource, deliveringmeasurable expertise towards Taskforce

decision-making processes.The Taskforce has attracted national andinternational attention over the course ofits operation. How will this initiative beremembered? What will be the legacy of theTaskforce and indeed its community?This review provides an independentassessment of Taskforce activities andcommunity contributions to date. A number of

strategies are proposed that are designed tocapitalise on the unique knowledge, resourcesand networks that this online community nowcommands.

1.2 Background

This review provides an assessment of theGovernment 2.0 Taskforce's online engagementactivities from 22 June to 7 December 2009.

Online activities have been measuredagainst the Taskforce 'Terms of Reference'.

The use of various online tools andprocesses has been assessed in termsof their respective contribution towardsacknowledged Taskforce objectives.

Recommendations have beenmade regarding how to manage theconclusion of Taskforce activities. Theseinclude suggested measures required toprotect the extensive investment madein the online community to date andhow to best progress beyond the formal

conclusion of the Taskforce.

In order to achieve the above, the review hasdrawn upon publicly available metrics collectedacross a variety of Taskforce engagementspaces including the Taskforce Blog, IdeaScale,Mashup contest, as well as the TaskforceFacebook and Twitter activities. These metricsand related analysis encompass:

The quantity and quality of contributionsmade by:

Public participants;

Taskforce and Secretariatrepresentatives; and

Other participants and stakeholders.

The online community managementactivities of Taskforce and Secretariatrepresentatives responsible for

advocacy and promotion, editorialshaping, and responding to communityfeedback.

1


6/36


Personal interviews with Taskforce andSecretariat members have provided furtherinsight into participant experiences. Membersof the International Reference Group as well aspublic participants have also provided feedbackvia the Taskforce blog.

1.3 Summary:engagementspaces

The following comprise key recommendationsfor protecting and leveraging the engagementspaces in the future, post conclusion ofTaskforce activities. Each is termed froma forward-looking perspective of similarengagement activities being undertaken in thefuture. For a comprehensive list please refer tothe body of this report.

Government2.0Taskforceblog

1. Coordinate future online and ofinepublic consultation activities to ensurecoherence for participants.

2. Explore the use of a wiki to enablegenuine collaboration and 'co-creation'for initiatives such as development andconsultation of the Issues Paper.

Government2.0TaskforceSuggestionBox

1. Develop 'Participation Guidelines' and'Terms of Use' documents to improveparticipants' use of the site andinteraction with one another, and thatcan also be used as a framework forother agencies.

gov2taskforceTwitter

1. Provide Twitter participation guidelines.

2. Use Twitter as a backchannel duringevents.

MashupAustralia

1. Provide ofcial discussion channels forparticipants, such as a mailing list andchat.

2. Employ Apps for Democracy"Community Edition" model: solicitapplication ideas before the contest,judge submissions based onresponsiveness to these ideas, andprovide a development path throughwhich the best entries can be integratedwith government operations.

Government2.0Taskforce(Australia)

FacebookFanPage

1. Customise content for the Facebookplatform with the express purpose ofgenerating community interaction.

2. Enable posting of user-generated content.

1.4 Summary: legacyissues

1. Audit the blog, IdeaScale and Mashup sites.

2. Fix broken links; tag all content; developa media library, enhance usability andundertake search engine optimisationactivities for the blog.

3. Promote competition outcomes on blog,IdeaScale and Mashup Australia sites.

4. Address vote gaming on MashupAustralia site and engage participantsin discussion of how to revise criteria forPeople's Choice Mashup prize.

5. Consider packaging the current MashupAustralia Wordpress theme as a freelyavailable template, to facilitate future locallevel innovation contests. Supplementthis with a 'how-to' document.

6. Archive and index the Taskforce's onlineassets.



1.5 Summary:pathways

for futuredevelopment

The following provides a recommendedpathway for the Taskforce regarding managingand leveraging the existing online communityduring and beyond its conclusion. Also providedare recommendations to be included in theTaskforce report detailing opportunities for the

introduction of Government 2.0 into the Wholeof Australian Government

1. Communications & Action Strategyto manage the community duringdecommissioning of the Taskforce.

a. A communications and actionstrategy for managing the onlinecommunity's relationships andexpectations, in addition to legacy

issues surrounding the statein which established Taskforceengagement spaces are left.

2. Establish a Government 2.0 Communityof Practice to maintain communitycohesion during transition from formalTaskforce activities to Governmentadoption of any recommendations.

a. Establish a lightweight onlineengagement space, the objective

of which being to leverage theleadership and reputation ofTaskforce members to informallymaintain community focus duringthis transition period.

3. Include in the Taskforce reportrecommendations for a Whole ofAustralian Government Community ofPractice.

a. A Whole of Australian GovernmentCommunity of Practice shouldbe established, dedicated to

implementing Government 2.0within a secure environmentaccessible to WoAG staff, aswell as a linked, open accessengagement space aimed atfacilitating greater public onlineengagement.


8/36


This section provides an overview of theapproach employed by Collabforge whenundertaking online engagement, thereby

providing context for the proceeding review.

2.1 Strategic design &engagement

Process rst, then Tools.

At Collabforge we use unique proprietaryframeworks to interrogate the variousprocesses that underly the use of an online tool.Our primary focus rests always on the type ofprocess being leveraged by a given tool. Forexample, a search tool leverages the process ofcoordinating information produced by disparateindividuals, while a wiki leverages co-creationby a specic group of contributors. We seek to

match the appropriate process to the desiredoutcome or output, and then the appropriatetool to the identied process.

You can build it, but they wont necessarily

come, and if they do, you may sometimes wish

they hadn't.

Productive online communities rarely (if ever)arise of their own volition. Simply providing anonline space for users to interact does not byany measure ensure that people will contribute.

People must feel comfortable in order toparticipate, and need to know their involvementwill be valued. Achieving this balance requires

three main elements:

1. Understanding and testing the motivesfor participation.

2. Communicating these motives toprospective user groups by manner ofappropriate 'value propositions'.

3. Achieving effective community managementand moderation.

2.2 Communitylife-cyclemanagement

Requirements for engaging online communities

vary depending upon the stage in the projectlife-cycle. Collabforge employs the followingframework to assess the initial requirementsfor engagement design and communitymanagement activities.

1. Establishment - The communityconstitution (i.e. it's membership) andaggregate personality of membersis formed. These 'initial conditions'determine the community's ongoing toneand approach for months or years tocome.

Collabforge approach tostrategic engagement

2



2. Maintenance- The community settlesin. A balance is required betweenmaintaining a consistent direction andopenness towards new members andideas. A third consideration involves the

need to remain fresh in order to avoidstagnation.

3. Decommission/Transition/Sustainability - Requirements for thisphase will depend upon on whetherthe community is to be disbanded,transitioned to another project, or isintended to remain as a self-sustainingentity.

2.3 Monitoring &evaluation

Ongoing and effective monitoring andevaluation is critical to the measurable successof an online community. Monitoring involves

assessing traditional trafc-based metrics, inaddition to the quantity and quality of participantcontributions. Matching agreed KPI's againstproject objectives is also imperative to thisprocess.Effective evaluation requires consideringa range of elements beyond quantifying orqualifying metrics and user engagement.Evaluation should focus on efcacy of

community management, the relevant life-cycle phase, quality of overall outcome andachievement of project objectives. Provisionof periodic and regular evaluation is criticalfor ongoing and timely renement of theseelements (an often overlooked aspect that weterm 'strategy maintenance').During the nal stages of a project, Collabforgeoften recommends the development of a postimplementation review (or equivalent) to ensurethat successes and learnings are captured andevaluated for future endeavours. Secondarily,

this process provides a measurable record ofthe project that communicates ndings longafter activities have wound down.

2.4 Online communityas investment

Purpose-built web communities are a resourcethat require time and energy to grow. Theyrepresent an investment not only into anorganisations human resources, but also therespective communitys digital literacy. Assuch, they should be recognised and protectedaccordingly.This has inspired Collabforge to borrow andadapt a familiar analogy:

1. Reduce the number of disconnectedcommunities.

2. Reuse outcomes for other initiatives.

3. Recycle community members for otherprojects.


10/36


This section of the report maps the variousonline engagement activities of the Taskforceto the relevant 'Terms of Reference'. Online

tools and processes are assessed with respectto their contribution towards achieving theseobjectives.Each engagement space has been evaluatedusing the following criteria:

Contribution quality

Contribution quantity

Community management Output/outcome quality

Meeting 'Terms of Reference'

3.1 Government 2.0

Taskforce blogDescriptionA Wordpress blog was used tocoordinate all public-facing Government 2.0Taskforce activities.OverallRanking

URLhttp://gov2.net.au

The Taskforce blog used a cooperative processwhere individual authors could publish entriesin reverse chronological order and engagein conversational interaction with readers viacomments.Blogs are an ideal tool for when an individual orsmall group of authors publish text, images andlinks on niche topics of interest using an informaltone that encourages ongoing reader interactionand issues-based discussion. A limitation withblogging is the consistent investment required bythe author/s to maintain interest and relevance.This necessitates editorial shaping to ensurecomments remain on topic.The Taskforce blog was launched on 22June 2009. Members of the Taskforce 'hit theground running' with a design competitionfor the site banner and logo. However thiscompetition raised the ire of some membersof the graphic design community (Refer: http://

gov2.net.au/blog/2009/06/22/our-design-competition/#comment-143). Yet the decisionto launch a design competition so early in

= excellent

= very good

= good

= fair

= poor

Online engagementreview

3

Legend
http://gov2.net.au/http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/06/22/our-design-competition/#comment-143http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/06/22/our-design-competition/#comment-143http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/06/22/our-design-competition/#comment-143http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/06/22/our-design-competition/#comment-143http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/06/22/our-design-competition/#comment-143http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/06/22/our-design-competition/#comment-143http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/06/22/our-design-competition/#comment-143http://gov2.net.au/



the piece, demonstrated the Taskforce'scommitment to leveraging the tools andprocesses it was set up to explore and trial asprescribed in its Terms of Reference.

The blog quickly attracted attention and

participation from Web 2.0 practitioners, publicservants and interested citizens as evidencedby the signicant number of comments (82) inreply to the 'Welcome' post. A steady stream ofcomments continued over June (167) and July(122), peaking in August (280) before decreasingthrough October (81) to November (75).

Blog posts relating to the 'issues paper' (36comments), IdeaScale contests (77 comments)and the release of public sector data sets (67

comments) attracted the most interest. Thesignicant public engagement response tothe blog demonstrates the efcacy of postsoutlining opportunities for the public to providedirect input into Taskforce activities acrossvarious engagement spaces.The overall quality of the blog posts andsubsequent commentary was of a very highstandard, demonstrating considered analysis

of key challenges to moving the Government2.0 agenda forward. These observations wereespecially apparent with the topics centredaround:

Social media guidelines for publicservants.

Opening access to social media forthose behind government rewalls.

Open content licensing and the release

of public sector information (PSI).In response to a Taskforce blog post decree that"Public servants should feel free and encouragedto engage in robust professional discussiononline", no less than a public servant replied:

Ha we cant get to FaceBook,YouTube, Flickr, or most commondiscussion forums where I work.(http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/10/21/if-you-could-start-with-a-blank-sheet-of-paper%e2%80%a6/#comment-2607)

This comment effectively demonstrates the typeof authentic communication that blogs oftengenerate.

The submission process for the Taskforce's

formal consultation process is considered tohave been confusing. The Taskforce did notestablish a clear distinction between discretesubmissions by individuals and organisations(http://gov2.net.au/submissions) and thecomments made by those on Commentpress(http://gov2.net.au/consultation/2009/07/23/towards-government-2-0-an-issues-paper-nal).

These two forms of engagement differ markedly.

The former involves people working primarilyin isolation to develop a traditional 'submission'(See: http://gov2.net.au/les/2009/08/Mark-Scott-Australian-Broadcasting-Corporation-Submission.pdf), whilst in contrast the feedbackthat took place via Commentpress was of aconversational nature. Confusingly, this elementwas also referred to as the 'Consultation Page',which ultimately failed to make effective use ofWeb 2.0 tools and was arguably biased towardsencouraging people toward making a traditionalwritten submission:

Taskforce Blog 'Issues Paper' Commentpresspage:

Also, please note, our focus in thisIssues Paper is on your making awritten submission.

You can nd details about how tomake a submission at Appendix 1.We also offer the option to makeonline submissions through ourConsultation page athttp://gov2.net.au/consultation.

We cannot promise to considersubmissions received after start ofbusiness Monday August 24 2009.(http://gov2.net.au/consultation/2009/07/23/towards-government- 2-0-an-issues-paper-nal)
http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/10/21/if-you-could-start-with-a-blank-sheet-of-paper%e2%80%a6/#comment-2607http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/10/21/if-you-could-start-with-a-blank-sheet-of-paper%e2%80%a6/#comment-2607http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/10/21/if-you-could-start-with-a-blank-sheet-of-paper%e2%80%a6/#comment-2607http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/10/21/if-you-could-start-with-a-blank-sheet-of-paper%e2%80%a6/#comment-2607http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/10/21/if-you-could-start-with-a-blank-sheet-of-paper%e2%80%a6/#comment-2607http://gov2.net.au/submissionshttp://gov2.net.au/consultation/2009/07/23/towards-government-2-0-an-issues-paper-finalhttp://gov2.net.au/consultation/2009/07/23/towards-government-2-0-an-issues-paper-finalhttp://gov2.net.au/files/2009/08/Mark-Scott-Australian-Broadcasting-Corporation-Submission.pdfhttp://gov2.net.au/files/2009/08/Mark-Scott-Australian-Broadcasting-Corporation-Submission.pdfhttp://gov2.net.au/files/2009/08/Mark-Scott-Australian-Broadcasting-Corporation-Submission.pdfhttp://gov2.net.au/consultationhttp://gov2.net.au/consultationhttp://gov2.net.au/consultation/2009/07/23/towards-government-2-0-an-issues-paper-finalhttp://gov2.net.au/consultation/2009/07/23/towards-government-2-0-an-issues-paper-finalhttp://gov2.net.au/consultation/2009/07/23/towards-government-2-0-an-issues-paper-finalhttp://gov2.net.au/consultation/2009/07/23/towards-government-2-0-an-issues-paper-finalhttp://gov2.net.au/consultation/2009/07/23/towards-government-2-0-an-issues-paper-finalhttp://gov2.net.au/consultation/2009/07/23/towards-government-2-0-an-issues-paper-finalhttp://gov2.net.au/consultationhttp://gov2.net.au/consultationhttp://gov2.net.au/files/2009/08/Mark-Scott-Australian-Broadcasting-Corporation-Submission.pdfhttp://gov2.net.au/files/2009/08/Mark-Scott-Australian-Broadcasting-Corporation-Submission.pdfhttp://gov2.net.au/files/2009/08/Mark-Scott-Australian-Broadcasting-Corporation-Submission.pdfhttp://gov2.net.au/consultation/2009/07/23/towards-government-2-0-an-issues-paper-finalhttp://gov2.net.au/consultation/2009/07/23/towards-government-2-0-an-issues-paper-finalhttp://gov2.net.au/submissionshttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/10/21/if-you-could-start-with-a-blank-sheet-of-paper%e2%80%a6/#comment-2607http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/10/21/if-you-could-start-with-a-blank-sheet-of-paper%e2%80%a6/#comment-2607http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/10/21/if-you-could-start-with-a-blank-sheet-of-paper%e2%80%a6/#comment-2607


12/36

Government 2.0 TaskforceOnline Engagement Review11

The integration of the online and ofineengagement activities was consideredproblematic, as one commenter pointed out:

I am keen to go to the roadshow to

nd out more about the taskforce butam surprised that the submissions

are due in before the Roadshow has

made it all around the country.

(http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/07/23/ofcial-issues-paper-released/#comment-647)

A number of Roadshow events were held after

the formal submission process had closed on24/08 including Brisbane 25/08, Perth 27/08,Adelaide 01/09, Hobart 22/09 and Townsville25/09. Furthermore, the audio from theRoadshow events was also very difcult to nd(http://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audio). Thiscould be rectied by introducing a media library.The use of the Wordpress plugin,Commentpress, to consult the public's views

on the Issues Paper resulted in participationbeing quarantined to the margins of the maintext. Additionally, there were no participationguidelines explaining how to correctly use thetool. Commentpress uses a linear cooperativeprocess which enables only limited socialinteraction to occur and is mainly useful insituations where an author or authors want tomaintain full control of their work.

The Taskforce 'Terms of Reference' identifythe express intention of "encouragingeffective online innovation, consultationand engagement by government". The useof a truly collaborative tool such as a wikiempowers all participants with add, edit anddelete rights to a shared pool of content (See:http://cpd.org.au/article/collaborating-crowd-better-policy-development). This would havebeen arguably more effective in encouragingonline innovation.

As noted during interviews by Collabforge withTaskforce members:

Commentpress is fairly linear. It'san online version of a traditional

consultation process rather than agenuine attempt to co-produce someshared output. It represents a missedopportunity.

Community management and moderation ofthe blog was handled well by the TaskforceChair and other members. Off-topic commentswere deftly channeled to more appropriatediscussion venues (See: http://gov2.net.au/

moderation/#comment-8). The TaskforceSecretariat also responded quickly tocommunity feedback by adjusting processesmid-way through in order to achieve betterparticipation and transparency outcomes (See:http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/07/23/ofcial-issues-paper-released/#comment-592).However, more attention is required to maintainand organise the blog's content. For example,

a number of links are out-of-date (e.g. http://gov2.net.au/submissions/received). Numerousblog posts were also discovered with no tagsor categories assigned (http://gov2.net.au/blog/category/uncategorized). Organisationof contributions is an important role for onlinecommunity managers. This is more efcientwhere agreed Participation Guidelines havebeen developed. For example, tagging wasinconsistent between a number of blog postswhich creates unnecessary maintenance.This can potentially be avoided if guidelinesestablish expected 'norms' around activitiessuch as tagging.

Cooperatively developed content (i.e. blogposts drafted by different people) requiresconsistent and coordinated editorial oversight.Whilst this can potentially be distributedamongst the community of contributors,Collabforge recommends tasking an individualwith the responsibility of ensuring this takesplace, ideally the same individual tasked with
http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/07/23/official-issues-paper-released/#comment-647http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/07/23/official-issues-paper-released/#comment-647http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/07/23/official-issues-paper-released/#comment-647http://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audiohttp://cpd.org.au/article/collaborating-crowd-better-policy-developmenthttp://cpd.org.au/article/collaborating-crowd-better-policy-developmenthttp://gov2.net.au/moderation/#comment-8http://gov2.net.au/moderation/#comment-8http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/07/23/official-issues-paper-released/#comment-592http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/07/23/official-issues-paper-released/#comment-592http://gov2.net.au/submissions/receivedhttp://gov2.net.au/submissions/receivedhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/category/uncategorizedhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/category/uncategorizedhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/category/uncategorizedhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/category/uncategorizedhttp://gov2.net.au/submissions/receivedhttp://gov2.net.au/submissions/receivedhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/07/23/official-issues-paper-released/#comment-592http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/07/23/official-issues-paper-released/#comment-592http://gov2.net.au/moderation/#comment-8http://gov2.net.au/moderation/#comment-8http://cpd.org.au/article/collaborating-crowd-better-policy-developmenthttp://cpd.org.au/article/collaborating-crowd-better-policy-developmenthttp://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audiohttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/07/23/official-issues-paper-released/#comment-647http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/07/23/official-issues-paper-released/#comment-647http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/07/23/official-issues-paper-released/#comment-647



the responsibility of coordinating communitymanagement.QuotesfromTaskforcemembersregardingtheuseoftheblog:

Public servants should have beengiven a mandate as to what they couldor couldn't do on the blog. This wouldhave opened up the doors for publicsector people to participate. Theblog could have also engaged guestbloggers a bit more proactively."

and:

The blog has suffered from a failureby the Taskforce itself to really useit actively enough. The upside isthat there are a number of threadswhich are very lively and extremelyinteresting in terms of public debate.The blog could become a very bigspace for shared thinking - it is stillembryonic but it has potential to grow.There are a number of Taskforcemembers that would be happy tokeep it going.

PubliccommentfromPaulRoberts:

The high quality level of interactionand thought-provoking discussionon [the] blog site in particular sentan impressively positive messageto those inside and outside ofgovernment about the potentialpower of Gov2.0.

(http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5324)

Recommendations

1. Coordinate future online and ofinepublic consultation activities to ensurecoherence for participants.

2. Explore the use of a wiki to enable

genuine collaboration and 'co-creation'for initiatives such as development andconsultation of the Issues Paper.

3. Maintain the blogging activities (e.g.through commenting) for a certainperiod to provide opportunity forconversations 'closure', then redirectinterested parties to a new blog oralternative engagement space.

4. Provide a media library for access toaudio/visual content (http://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audio).

3.2 Taskforcesuggestion box

DescriptionAn IdeaScale site was used asa suggestion box for nominating and rankingproject ideas, structured brainstorming and alimited range of other Taskforce activities.

OverallRanking

URLhttp://gov2taskforce.ideascale.com

The IdeaScale site, which falls into the class of

idea generation platforms, uses a cooperativeprocess to provide an aggregated pool ofranked and reviewed ideas, targeted to aparticular outcome. Idea generation platformsare ideal for use in contexts where a diversityof ideas and input is desired in order to achievecommunity consensus. The primary limitationof these platforms is that ideas entered earlyhave an unfair advantage due to their increasedexposure to votes. Additionally, the more ideasthat are captured, the less likely participants

are to attribute votes on an equitable basis, asthey're often overwhelmed when evaluatingideas.The IdeaScale site seeks to take advantageof new trends in 'crowdsourcing', a distributedproblem-solving method where users self-organise around topics of interest; submitsolutions; and rank the most popular ideasthrough a process known as collaborativeltering. This innovation process closes the

gap between governments and citizens byopening boundaries between internal andexternal stakeholders, recognising knowledge
http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5324http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5324http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5324http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5324http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5324http://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audiohttp://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audiohttp://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audiohttp://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audiohttp://gov2taskforce.ideascale.com/http://gov2taskforce.ideascale.com/http://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audiohttp://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audiohttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5324http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5324http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5324


14/36


is widely distributed throughout society. Theseapproaches have signicant merit and cangive the community a greater voice in ideasuggestion for policy development, serviceprovision and structured brainstorming.

The Taskforce launched the IdeaScale siteapproximately half way through the project'slife-cycle (4 September 2009) in order tocapture community feedback on rst roundprojects and as a means through which peoplecould propose second round projects. It wasalso used as a brainstorming tool for the publicto suggest ways for the Taskforce to best meetits Terms of Reference. From a quantitativeperspective the IdeaScale site performedmoderately well with 202 ideas posted, 302

comments, 2,671 votes and 1,085 users.Beyond a small group of early adopters, thereremains a general lack of awareness andunderstanding of idea generation platformsby the wider community. An 'about' page or'Participation Guidelines' section on the landingpage could be used to explain the processof 'crowdsourcing' and provide links to casestudies of how this type of platform is beingused successfully within similar contexts (e.g.

http://opengov.ideascale.com).The decision to run the entire IdeaScale site asa competition with monetary prizes may seemlogical but is not supported by the literaturewhich suggests that people are motivated toparticipate in crowdsourcing projects for a rangeof social reasons and non-market rewards,including social standing, esteem and peerrecognition (Benkler 2006, p. 92-99: http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf).

Money can often work as a disincentive andlead to motivation 'crowding out' by givingpower to experts and thus weakening themotivation for non-experts to participate (http://p2pfoundation.net/Crowding_Out). Especiallyin idea generation activities where there is alow barrier to entry for members of the publicto participate, in contrast with mashup contestswhich rely on highly developed technical skills.

Developing 'Motives & Incentives forParticipation' with unique 'value propositions'for user groups before the launch of a new

engagement space can alleviate this byoutlining project objectives and the signicanceof people's individual involvement. Thisapproach also assists in considering systemfunctionality that provides additional motivationand incentives for engagement (e.g. feedback

points).The quality of contributions to the site wasrelatively high with a number of very sensibleideas surfacing to the top through participantvoting. The most popular ideas in theBrainstorming category tended to focus oncreating shared resources through code, data &template repositories; building 'Gov 2.0' literacyfor public servants through training programs;and change management initiatives for the

public sector. Although the window for makingentries to the Brainstorming competition (4-20September) could have been lengthened toallow for greater participation.

A large proportion of ideas were generated bya very small group of contributors, with the top10 collectively generating 75 out of a total 202ideas presented. This demonstrates a generalpower law distribution typical of social mediaenvironments and variously referred to as

the "80/20 rule" or "Pareto principle", where amajority of the outputs comes from a minority ofthe inputs.

One major oversight is the omission of a 'Termsof Use' page on the actual IdeaScale site itselfthat outlines the Creative Commons licensingconditions referred to on the blog (http://gov2.net.au/about/competition-terms/#ideascale).There is also poor integration between the twosites with only one link back to the blog on the

IdeaScale landing page. However, the blogitself was used very well to drive engagementto the IdeaScale site through various postsencouraging the community to get involvedduring key phases of the various competitions.Whilst the IdeaScale site didn't necessarily"make government more consultative,participatory and transparent to maximisethe extent to which government utilises theviews, knowledge and resources of the generalcommunity", it certainly met an important criteria

of the 'Terms of Reference' with regard to trialling"initiatives that may achieve or demonstratehow to accomplish" these objectives.
http://opengov.ideascale.com/http://opengov.ideascale.com/http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdfhttp://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdfhttp://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdfhttp://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdfhttp://p2pfoundation.net/Crowding_Outhttp://p2pfoundation.net/Crowding_Outhttp://p2pfoundation.net/Crowding_Outhttp://p2pfoundation.net/Crowding_Outhttp://gov2.net.au/about/competition-terms/#ideascalehttp://gov2.net.au/about/competition-terms/#ideascalehttp://gov2.net.au/about/competition-terms/#ideascalehttp://gov2.net.au/about/competition-terms/#ideascalehttp://gov2.net.au/about/competition-terms/#ideascalehttp://gov2.net.au/about/competition-terms/#ideascalehttp://p2pfoundation.net/Crowding_Outhttp://p2pfoundation.net/Crowding_Outhttp://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdfhttp://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdfhttp://opengov.ideascale.com/



QuotefromaTaskforcemember:

The IdeaScale site worked well as aranking tool to tell us what's gettingtraction with people and what isn't.It's useful for making distinctions -you can't be woolly on IdeaScale aspeople clearly tell you they preferone idea over another. Which begsthe question: "Why do they thinkthat?" Which forces you to have aconversation.

Recommendations

1. Develop 'Participation Guidelines' and

'Terms of Use' documents to improveparticipants' use of the site andinteraction with one another, and thatcan also be used as a framework forother agencies.

2. Develop 'Motives & Incentives forParticipation' that articulate the 'valueproposition' to internal and externalstakeholders, and that can also be usedas a framework for other agencies.

3. Run the IdeaScale site as an ongoingGovernment 2.0 Ideas GenerationPlatform without a competition structurelinked to monetary incentives butinstead with targeted categories relevantto the Government, public service andcommunity at large.

4. Promote outcomes on landing page.

3.3 gov2taskforceTwitter account

Description A Twitter account was used tocommunicate Government 2.0 Taskforceactivities, events and issues.

OverallRanking

URLhttp://twitter.com/gov2taskforce

The Twitter account, which falls into the classof web-based micro-blogging services, drawsupon a process of cooperation and coordinationthat enables authors to publish micro-blogposts of up to 140 characters in length. Thiscan provide snapshots of opinion, analysisand news relevant to specic communities ofinterest. The value of an individual 'tweet' (theeuphemism for a micro-blog post) is greatlyenhanced by the addition of hashtags (a formof user-generated metadata prefaced by a '#'symbol) which essentially tags the tweet toa social pool of knowledge whose collectivevalue is greater than the sum of its parts. Forinstance, searching Twitter for the hashtag#gov2au will collectively reveal all tweets that

users have tagged as relevant to this topic.Twitter is ideal for use in contexts whereinformation requires amplication to drawattention, such as the tweeting of news items,the publication of a new blog post, the resultsof a competition or 're-tweeting' (re-publishingwith attribution) another person's message.Twitter is also a powerful tool for engagingin conversation with other Tweeters (peoplewho use Twitter) and as a research methodfor uncovering ideas and opinions on specictopics. Twitter can also provide additionalcontext to events when used as a 'backchannel'or form of real-time online conversation thatcan be provided alongside live spoken remarks(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backchannel).A limitation of Twitter (which is also one of itsstrengths) is that only fragments of ideas canbe published for any given 'tweet'. This means

abbreviation is common, likewise the use ofweb slang, acronyms and emoticons, therebyrequiring a little time to develop condence inthe medium.Given that individual identity has become thelocus for one's reputation in online communities,it is sometimes problematic to use anorganisational account (such as gov2taskforce)as it erects a degree of opacity between users,in contrast to personal accounts which fostertrust and authenticity. It should be noted thatindividual Twitter streams (the collection of
http://twitter.com/gov2taskforcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backchannelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backchannelhttp://twitter.com/gov2taskforce


16/36


tweets from one Twitter account) are alsoephemeral and Twitter.com does not generallyarchive tweets for longer than a few days.The Taskforce Twitter account commencedoperation on 24 June 2009 and from itsbeginnings adopted the appropriate tone andstyle for the medium. It has been used sparinglyover the life of the Taskforce, with only 64tweets posted from 24 June to 7 December2009. Tweets showed a tendency to clusteraround a few key themes such as alerts tonew posts appearing on the Taskforce blog,inviting ideas for guest bloggers, promoting themashup contest, Issues Paper & Roadshowevents, re-tweeting other relevant posts, and

engaging in conversational interaction withother tweeters. This demonstrates a clearawareness of Twitters' power to draw peopleback to a central site like the Taskforce blog, butmuch more could have been done to consultthe community's views.

Hashtags are a crucial tool for both lteringconversations and ensuring tweets are noticedby target communities. The #gov2au hashtagwas mentioned on Twitter from the Taskforce'sbeginnings on 24 June 2009, yet only appearson the blog in a post by Mia Garlick discussingthe various contests being developed at thetime which is not related in any way to Twitter(http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/13/hack-mash-and-innovate-contests-coming-soon). Likemany other hashtags, #gov2au appears to haveemerged in an ad-hoc fashion and has sincebecome identied as the de-facto tag for allTaskforce-related tweets.

The Taskforce would have beneted fromproviding more explanation regarding theuse of Twitter more broadly. The importanceof the #gov2au hashtag as a means to trackthe conversation taking place across thewider 'twittersphere' (or collective Twitterecosystem) would have also been useful.That said, the hashtag was used appropriatelyin tweets discussing links to the blog andcompetitions etc, but was dropped when usedmore informally for communicating with othertweeters.

There was little integration with Twitter on themain blog site beyond embedding the #gov2autwitter stream on the homepage. Givenindividual Taskforce members prior experiencewith using Twitter in their capacity as privatecitizens (e.g. @NicholasGruen, @martinsw,@lisaharvey @miakgarlick, @sebchan,@btzgerald7), it would have perhaps beenwise to reference these respective Twitter'handles' on the Members page, as a means tofacilitate more direct, informal, and authenticcommunication with the public (http://gov2.net.au/members). The #gov2au hashtag could thenhave been used to aggregate Taskforce relatedinteraction for ltering purposes.

It is important to have a Twitter archive plan inplace before setting sail, as Twitter provideslimited access to its search index. Accordingto the company's documentation: "[the] limit iscurrently around 1.5 weeks but is dynamic andsubject to shrink as the number of tweets perday continues to grow." (http://apiwiki.twitter.com/Things-Every-Developer-Should-Know).Luckily, the entire Taskforce Twitter streamappears to be available. This is most likely dueto the small number of tweets posted (64).

The Taskforce would have beneted from usingTwitter as a backchannel for the Roadshowevents. This would have demonstrated agreater commitment to trialling Web 2.0 toolswithin new contexts as per the Taskforce 'Termsof Reference'. Not only would this have beenan exciting experiment in Government 2.0 inaction, more importantly, it would have providedaccess and lent a greater voice to people witha disability, as well as those in regional and

rural areas. This would have led to a richerdiversity of questions, opinion and reection atthese events, which could only be considered apositive.QuotefromaTaskforcemember:

Twitter's interesting because theconversation has been happeningall by itself and has been really

valuable. But we haven't takenas much notice of Twitter as weshould have.
http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/13/hack-mash-and-innovate-contests-coming-soonhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/13/hack-mash-and-innovate-contests-coming-soonhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/13/hack-mash-and-innovate-contests-coming-soonhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/13/hack-mash-and-innovate-contests-coming-soonhttp://gov2.net.au/membershttp://gov2.net.au/membershttp://gov2.net.au/membershttp://apiwiki.twitter.com/Things-Every-Developer-Should-Knowhttp://apiwiki.twitter.com/Things-Every-Developer-Should-Knowhttp://apiwiki.twitter.com/Things-Every-Developer-Should-Knowhttp://apiwiki.twitter.com/Things-Every-Developer-Should-Knowhttp://gov2.net.au/membershttp://gov2.net.au/membershttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/13/hack-mash-and-innovate-contests-coming-soonhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/13/hack-mash-and-innovate-contests-coming-soon



Recommendations

1. Archive all Taskforce-related tweets.

2. Provide Twitter participation guidelinesthat can also be used as a framework

for others.3. Formalise and promote hashtag use.

4. Use Twitter as a backchannel duringfuture events.

3.4 Mashup Australia

Description An innovation contest with cashprizes used to inspire citizens to create usefulsoftware applications based on governmentdata sets.OverallRanking

URLhttp://mashupaustralia.org

Mashup Australia involved an innovation contestthat offered diverse incentives for participationto civic-minded local developers. This contesthas the potential to result in useful softwareapplications, strengthen the Australian civictechnology community, provide opportunitiesfor positive press coverage, and concretisethe importance of open data for citizens,elected representatives, and governmentofcials otherwise unfamiliar with or sceptical

of these concepts. Mashup contests are low-risk and cost-efcient if conducted accordingto existing contest formulas and if there is anidentied base of skilled technologists. Civicmashup contests are especially strong, astheir scope includes the full range of citizens,and government data sets are typically diverseenough to support a range of interests on thepart of participants.A weakness of mashup contests is that,during the course of the contest, there isminimal opportunity for participation on the

part of non-technical citizens. This is a minorconsideration, as the strengthening of the civictechnology community is an end in itself, andfuture iterations of the contest can make simplechanges to provide opportunities for broaderparticipation.Mashup Australia attracted a considerable82 mashups during the submission periodbetween 7 October and 13 November2009. Compare this to the rst iterations ofApps for America (46 submissions, nationalscope - U.S.A.) and Apps for Democracy (47submissions, municipal scope - Washington,D.C.). Apps for Democracy estimated themonetary value of these 47 applications at

$2,300,000 USD.Mashup Australia submissions received anaverage of 6 comments, mostly in the form ofconversations among application developersand other participants. Submissions were alsorated by the community from 1 to 5 stars. Eachsubmission received an average of 117 votes,and the average rating across submissions was2.95 stars.

The votes cast and ratings shouldbe considered invalid, however, dueto open and acknowledged gamingand counter-gaming of the ratings byparticipants and outside parties using"voting bots" and other techniques. Thisissue is discussed below in more detail.

While submissions ranged in functionality,elegance and completeness at an individual

level, taken in aggregate they represent asignicant innovation benet for Australia.Participants engaged a wide range of datasets,each application revealing new possibilitiesfor engagement with the data. Clusters ofsubmissions appeared around data sets andthemes, such as crime statistics and stimulusspending, generating high potential for futurecombinative innovation in these areas.The contest derived additional value fromit's Transformation Challenge. Governmentdatasets are not always ready for use in software
http://mashupaustralia.org/http://mashupaustralia.org/


18/36


applications, and may require "cleaning up".Mashup Australia incentivised the use of thesedatasets by offering $1,000 TransformationChallenge bonuses to participants. In total, 13submissions claimed to use at least one of theeligible datasets. Inspiring contest participantsto clean up this data through bonus prizes likelyrepresents signicant cost savings over payingfor a professional service provider to undertakethis task.Software developers are typically self-starters,and any "cold start problems" (difcultiesinitiating participation where participation byothers is a key motivator) for mashup contestsusually results from a lack of information about

contest structure and guidelines. Participantsneed to know how they will be judged and bywhom, that the contest will be conducted fairly,and that contest rules will not be changed laterbecause the organisers did not adequately thinkthrough the contest process. Mashup Australiacreated the conditions for a successful contestby providing complete information about thecontest rules, guidelines, and mechanics on thecontest website at http://mashupaustralia.org.In addition, the website included information on

the importance of open access to data.A key benet of mashup contests is to builda culture of collaboration and mutual supportamong local developers. This can be achievedby creating spaces for collaboration, both onlineand ofine, and structuring contest rewards tostrike the right balance between competitionand collaboration.

The contest website provided adequate space

for collaboration by displaying the submissionsin an easily searchable and navigable manner,and by providing a comments section for eachsubmission. Comment threads reveal thatparticipants supplied each other with usefulfeedback (although sometimes phrased in anegative manner) and reported bugs in eachothers' applications.Contest organisers could have further

encouraged collaboration among participants bycreating an ofcial contest mailing list and chatchannel, and displaying these on the contest

website. Not only would this provide furtherencouragement for participants to help eachother, but it would also provide a venue in whichthey could discuss the nature of the contest itselfand suggest process improvements. This, forexample, may have led to a speedier resolutionof the vote gaming issue. Currently, the votegaming discussion is fragmented across thecomment threads of various submissions thatwere openly involved or accused of participatingin the gaming.Five in-person "hack" events took placethroughout the course of the competition. Face-to-face collaboration is vital to trust-buildingwithin the local developer community, and

speeds knowledge transfer and combinativeinnovation. These events also generatesignicant opportunities for press coverage, andfor government ofcials to meet local developersin their native habitat. By organising one event,and supporting the self-organisation of four otherevents by promoting the events on the contestwebsite and Taskforce blog, the Taskforcereaped additional benets in the form of strongercommunity ties and better information about thelocal developer communities across the country.

The structure of contest rewards was mostlyappropriate, with some downsides. The mainprizes, ranging from $2,500 to $10,000, wereenough to inspire participation, but not so high asto encourage highly aggressive competition andto undermine community building and the spiritof collaboration. Software developers participatein mashup contests for diverse reasons, perhapsthe least of which is the chance at a cash prize.Motivations to participate include reputation-building, networking, professional development,the chance to contribute to their community, andsimply "stretching their development muscles".The higher the monetary prize, the more thesealternative motivations - which are more alignedwith the goals of the Taskforce - are crowded out(as discussed in the IdeaScale evaluation).The invitation to winners to present their mashupto the Taskforce provides a helpful reputational

supplement to the monetary prize. Future contestiterations might increase alternative motivationsthrough additional reputational/social capital
http://mashupaustralia.org/http://mashupaustralia.org/http://mashupaustralia.org/



prizes. The NYC BigApps mashup competitioncurrently underway for example, is awarding adinner with Mayor Bloomberg to the grand prizewinner, in addition to the monetary prize (http://www.nycbigapps.com).The contest organisers took a risk in attachingthe People's Choice Mashup prize to an onlinerating system. Some participants, skilled webdevelopers, manipulated the voting systemthrough the use of 'voting bots' that circumventedthe website's protections against multiple votes.This gaming quickly drowned out any authenticcitizen engagement, making the ratings entirelyinvalid. There were, however, positive outcomes.Initial attempts at gaming were quickly spottedby participants, who called attention to themand engaged in protest and counter-gaming.While some participants took moral standson the issue, other participants took a morephilosophical stance.Once the gaming became obvious, participantsshifted their focus to calling attention to the issue.Technologists are typically tolerant of 'bugs' andthose who take risks and fail, so long as goodfaith efforts are made to repair the situation.Thus, this gaming can be seen as a form of civicparticipation on the part of the participants whobelieve in the social goals of the contest andwant to see it and future iterations succeed.

The contest organisers have an opportunityto make a course correction in the wake ofthis gaming. So far, ofcial communicationon the issue has been limited to directresponses to inquiries through the contactform and an offhand mention at the bottomof an 18 November blog post (http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/18/australia-you-have-been-mashed). Increased transparency andengagement on this issue is advised, ascontinued quiet could contribute to a growingresentment and harm future participation.Future mashup contests should consideralternative means of engaging the broadercommunity. A possible example is the Appsfor Democracy "Community Edition" strategy

of sourcing citizen ideas at the beginning ofthe contest, and then making responsivenessof submissions to these ideas a judgement

criterion (http://www.appsfordemocracy.org/citizen-engagement-through-apps-for-democracy-community-edition).With regards to the Taskforce's 'Terms ofReference', Mashup Australia made signicantcontributions to accessibility of information bymaking new datasets publicly available andimproving the quality of datasets through theTransformation challenge. In turn, it contributedto a pro-disclosure culture by demonstratingwhat open data makes possible, and promotedinter-agency collaboration by demonstratinginnovative ways in which datasets fromdifferent agencies can be combined. It madegovernment more participatory and consultative

by inviting direct contributions from citizens tothe improvement of government systems andprocesses. Finally, it serves as a trial initiativethat tests key open government concepts andcan be iterated and improved for continued civicbenets.Mashup Australia for the most part realised itspotential as an innovation contest, especially asan investment in the local developer community.

Its perceived benet remains to be seen, asit may largely be judged by the public by thequality of the winning entries. In addition, ifthere is no path for converting winning entriesinto fully-tested market-ready applications,some may see the submissions as wastedeffort. In order for it to reach its full potential,communicating the hidden benets of thecontest is vital, as well as providing a continueddevelopment path for the best entries.

QuotefromaTaskforcemember

Mashup Australia was a really good

exercise and a very practical one aswell. It really demonstrated value in

an operational way - we can actually

make some change happen here.Two things that came out of it: we

could prove that datasets could be

released under a Creative Commonslicence and that if you release people

will do something valuable with them.
http://www.nycbigapps.com/http://www.nycbigapps.com/http://www.nycbigapps.com/http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/18/australia-you-have-been-mashedhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/18/australia-you-have-been-mashedhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/18/australia-you-have-been-mashedhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/18/australia-you-have-been-mashedhttp://www.appsfordemocracy.org/citizen-engagement-through-apps-for-democracy-community-editionhttp://www.appsfordemocracy.org/citizen-engagement-through-apps-for-democracy-community-editionhttp://www.appsfordemocracy.org/citizen-engagement-through-apps-for-democracy-community-editionhttp://www.appsfordemocracy.org/citizen-engagement-through-apps-for-democracy-community-editionhttp://www.appsfordemocracy.org/citizen-engagement-through-apps-for-democracy-community-editionhttp://www.appsfordemocracy.org/citizen-engagement-through-apps-for-democracy-community-editionhttp://www.appsfordemocracy.org/citizen-engagement-through-apps-for-democracy-community-editionhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/18/australia-you-have-been-mashedhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/18/australia-you-have-been-mashedhttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/18/australia-you-have-been-mashedhttp://www.nycbigapps.com/http://www.nycbigapps.com/


20/36


Excerptsfromcommentthreadre'votegaming'

Adam Kennedy says: November 13,2009 at 11:12 pm Attention:

This is an announcement fromthe geo2gov team. We have beenobserving with great dissapointmentthe rampant vote-stacking andvote-poisoning occuring with theMashupAustralia competitionwebsite.At this point, the voting system hasbeen abused so heavily in pursuit of

a $2,000 prize that we believe it nolonger holds any relevance.To ensure that these activities do notresult in any offender taking the prize,we intend to manipulate the votingsystem so obviously that it will beclear to all and sundry that the votingis of no use.We hereby declare ourselves

ineligable for the Peoples Choiceprize. If awarded this prize, we willrefuse it.

Our intent it to place ourself at the topof the voting ranks, thereby denyingrst place to any and all who thingthey can vote-manipulate their wayinto victory.This is a community of IT professionalsand democracy nuts. You should

know better than to do this kind ofthing. Shame.(http://mashupaustralia.org/mashups/geo2gov)

Recommendations

1. Provide ofcial discussion channels forparticipants, such as a mailing list and chat.

2. Address vote gaming head on, and

engage participants in discussion of howto revise criteria for the People's ChoiceMashup prize.

3. Communicate the importance of ahealthy community of civic-minded localdevelopers.

4. Consider packaging the currentWordpress theme as a freely availabletemplate, to facilitate future local levelinnovation contests. Supplement thiswith a 'how-to' document.

5. Encourage other tiers of government torun competitions using local datasets.

6. Employ Apps for Democracy"Community Edition" model: solicitapplication ideas before the contest,judge submissions based onresponsiveness to these ideas, andprovide a development path through

which the best entries can be integratedwith government operations.

3.5 Facebook fanpage

DescriptionA social network prole onFacebook.com was used to deliver informationabout Taskforce activities to Facebook usersand offer opportunities for engagement bycommenting on and sharing this information.

OverallRanking

URLhttp://www.facebook.com/Gov2TaskforceAustralia?ref=ts

A Facebook fan page functions much a like atraditional website or blog, but benets fromintegration into the Facebook social network.When users interact with the fan page thisactivity then appears in the respective users'"news feed" for others to read, thereby tappinginto the platform's inherent 'viral' capacity.Thus, users who were not otherwise engagedwith Taskforce activities are introduced throughtrusted friends, and they in turn can becomefans themselves. A weakness of this tool is

that user-generated content is contained withinthe Facebook 'walled garden', potentiallyfragmenting the community.
http://mashupaustralia.org/mashups/geo2govhttp://mashupaustralia.org/mashups/geo2govhttp://mashupaustralia.org/mashups/geo2govhttp://mashupaustralia.org/mashups/geo2govhttp://www.facebook.com/Gov2TaskforceAustralia?ref=tshttp://www.facebook.com/Gov2TaskforceAustralia?ref=tshttp://www.facebook.com/Gov2TaskforceAustralia?ref=tshttp://www.facebook.com/Gov2TaskforceAustralia?ref=tshttp://www.facebook.com/Gov2TaskforceAustralia?ref=tshttp://www.facebook.com/Gov2TaskforceAustralia?ref=tshttp://mashupaustralia.org/mashups/geo2govhttp://mashupaustralia.org/mashups/geo2gov



While the Taskforce 'Terms of Reference' do notexplicitly state the need to build a communityof lead users (tech-savvy inuencers), thesepeople are vital to the success of current andfuture Government 2.0 initiatives. With morethan 8 million Australians already on Facebook(From a Nielsen Online report cited in http://www.asiadigitalmap.com/2009/11/australia-facebook-statistics) a fan page representsa signicant opportunity to grow a basecommunity of users by providing the rst rung inthe "ladder of engagement".The initial commitment to joining a Facebookfan page is very low, requiring just a single clickto connect and from therein demands very little

additional attention, as the page merely addsnew items to a user's news feed. From there,users can comment on and 'like' fan pagecontent, or post their own content to the page,spurring online conversations where users learnabout new possibilities and overcome their initialfears and scepticism of participatory governmentinitiatives. The low initial barrier to entry enablesfan page membership to grow rapidly. Facebookempowers fan page members with the tools toprogressively climb from the lowest rungs of

"inactive" and "spectator", to the upper rungs of"critic" and "creator" (http://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2007/04/forresters_new_.html).The Taskforce, which targeted those working ingovernment and the relatively small segmentof the population already engaged in theGovernment 2.0 movement, did not take fulladvantage of the opportunity provided bythe fan page. Of the 80 odd items publishedbetween 5 July and 5 December 2009, the

fan page merely re-posted content from theTaskforce blog and announced Taskforceevents. Users were encouraged to makethemselves heard on the blog website ratherthan the fan page, and the ability of users topost their own content was turned off entirely.

None of the fan page content was customisedfor Facebook, where users expect directengagement, a human voice, as well as simple

interaction opportunities. As a result, the 80fan page items garnered a mere 20 userinteractions, thereby limiting the degree to

which fan page content spread throughout thebroader Facebook network. This in turn resultedin extremely low page membership with only114 fans as of 4 December 2009.Because of the relatively small number

of fans and the fact that Facebook doesnot allow adjusting a fan page's "vanityURL" (currently http://www.facebook.com/Gov2TaskforceAustralia), future attempts tore-badge and reboot this engagement spaceshould not hesitate to start over afresh. Ideally,a new page should focus on introducing usersto low-commitment engagement opportunitiesin the Government 2.0 space, and reservehigh-level strategic thinking for ofcial blogsand other engagement spaces. Such a page

would serve as an aggregator for new initiativesand opportunities sourced from the AustralianGovernment 2.0 ecology. If posted content ischosen for its capacity to inspire engagement,then this will more effectively spread throughoutthe Facebook ecosystem, tapping into viralmechanisms and helping amass a much widerbase of participants for current and futureGovernment 2.0 initiatives. A small commitmentof time and resources towards generating fanpage engagement can yield impressive results.QuotefromaTaskforcemember:

I didn't engage with Facebook -I didn't participate.

Craig Thomler commenting on the blog inresponse to the announcement of Collabforge'sreview:

There was a Taskforce Facebookchannel? I wasnt aware.

(http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5414)

Recommendations

1. Customise content for the Facebookplatform with the express purpose ofgenerating community interaction.

2. Focus on low-commitment

engagement opportunities for usersnew to Government 2.0 concepts andpossibilities.
http://www.asiadigitalmap.com/2009/11/australia-facebook-statisticshttp://www.asiadigitalmap.com/2009/11/australia-facebook-statisticshttp://www.asiadigitalmap.com/2009/11/australia-facebook-statisticshttp://www.asiadigitalmap.com/2009/11/australia-facebook-statisticshttp://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2007/04/forresters_new_.htmlhttp://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2007/04/forresters_new_.htmlhttp://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2007/04/forresters_new_.htmlhttp://www.facebook.com/Gov2TaskforceAustraliahttp://www.facebook.com/Gov2TaskforceAustraliahttp://www.facebook.com/Gov2TaskforceAustraliahttp://www.facebook.com/Gov2TaskforceAustraliahttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5414http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5414http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5414http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5414http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5414http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5414http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5414http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/#comment-5414http://www.facebook.com/Gov2TaskforceAustraliahttp://www.facebook.com/Gov2TaskforceAustraliahttp://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2007/04/forresters_new_.htmlhttp://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2007/04/forresters_new_.htmlhttp://www.asiadigitalmap.com/2009/11/australia-facebook-statisticshttp://www.asiadigitalmap.com/2009/11/australia-facebook-statisticshttp://www.asiadigitalmap.com/2009/11/australia-facebook-statistics


22/36


3. Enable posting of user-generatedcontent.

4. Obtaining a new vanity URL may be asufcient reason to start a new pagerather than reuse the original page for

new initiatives.

5. Many Government 2.0 initiatives areproduced by volunteers. It may bepossible to inspire and collaborate withvolunteers to administer and promotethis page.



Legacy issues

4This section outlines opportunities for managingthe conclusion of the Taskforce's onlineactivities, as well as recommendations designed

to protect and leverage the investment madeinto the online community.

4.1 Conclusion oftaskforce onlineactivities

At the stroke of midnight 1 January 2010,the Government 2.0 Taskforce will ceaseto operate and could go the way of formerinquiries and merely publish its ndings,provide ongoing access to submissionsreceived from the public and maintain alimited, static online presence.Yet for many reasons, this Taskforce is

fundamentally different to its predecessorsthrough its pioneering use of online engagementplatforms, approaches to public consultation,and an unprecedented willingness to participatein frank and open communication with thecommunity. These achievements deserverecognition for setting the Australian Governmenton a path towards greater transparency,participation and collaboration with anyonewilling to play an active role in public life.The innovative nature of the Taskforce's onlineactivities will no doubt cast a long shadow for

years to come. All the more so because of theway these interactions occurred, that is, via theWeb; the most public and persistent forum to be

devised in human history.This inquiry is also unique for havingengendered, intentionally or otherwise, a smallbut committed online community comprised ofpublic servants, web consultants and interestedmembers of the public. Elements of thiscommunity existed prior to the formation of theTaskforce, albeit on disparate discussion lists,social networks and other forums. Through itshigh-prole mandate, solid mix of monetary

and reputational incentives, not to mentionthe no-nonsense approach to communitymanagement, the Taskforce has managed todraw these fragmented communities into itsorbit to not only develop innovative Government2.0 solutions but to engage in publicconversation on the nature of governance inthe 21st century. This is to be commended andcelebrated.Having invested the time and effort to generatethis 'network value' (i.e. public goods, socialconnections & knowledge resources),it would be wasteful to 'pull the plug' onthis online community after considerablegoodwill, trust and shared ownership hasbeen established. The Taskforce will continueto attract interest locally and internationallyfor enhancing the Australian Government'sreputation for innovation, public consultationand technological leadership, well beyond

the conclusion of its formal activities. Curiousgovernments and members of the publicfrom Australia and overseas will continue to


24/36


discover the blog, IdeaScale site and Mashupcompetition and will seek to provide their owninput in the months and years to come. How willthe Taskforce's legacy be judged in the eyes ofthe world?Looking further aeld certainly providesinstructive precedents for what not to do.ThePower of Information Taskforce (UK) providedinspiration for the Government 2.0 Taskforcethrough its use of a blog and other Web 2.0tools (http://poweronformation.wordpress.com) in December 2009, one nds a nalpost dated 1 May 2009 with no indication ofthe conclusion of Taskforce activities, or theresult of its review. Walking away from a web-

based community is no longer an acceptableoption given the disorientation this generates.It is the equivalent of moving house and notproviding any forwarding address, leaving thegrass to grow and junk mail to pile up. Peopleexpect to be able to engage with governmentsin one form or another, even once formalactivities of an inquiry have ceased, especiallywhen the inquiry in question includes 'Termsof Reference' that place such importance on

matters of online engagement.

Whilst reecting on the unique opportunity thisall presents, one Taskforce member notes:

The work of the Taskforce raised thelevel of interest and expectation outthere in the community. We don't wantthat momentum to dissipate, and wedon't want the work to vanish off theface of the Earth. Public visibility and

a discussion base for the communityto talk amongst itself would be theminimum people expect in a Web2.0 world. If we don't follow through,people could become cynical anddisillusioned, and not take thegovernment seriously.

The Gov 2.0 agenda will have visibilityand a life beyond the lifespan of the

Taskforce itself. Therefore we need anappropriate response for the subjectmatter to make sure things don't

disappear from view while everyonewaits to see what the Government'sresponse is. We need somethingto keep things moving along in theinterim. This represents a new kind ofdilemma that governments are faced

with and there will be an expectationto do this for future Taskforces - to seta new template.

The rst response to protect the legacy of theTaskforce must be to strengthen the foundationalready developed by undertaking an audit ofthe blog, IdeaScale and Mashup Australia sites.Many of the tasks required (outlined in detailbelow) can be crowdsourced to the community,

especially bug reporting, identifying dead linksand tagging of blog posts.

In parallel with the audit activities, the variousassets of the Taskforce blog, IdeaScale,Mashup contest, as well as Twitter andFacebook groups must be archived andindexed for future reference purposes. Thisis a complex task given the dynamic natureof much of the content in question, and thatmany of the outputs (blog posts, tweets etc)

are actually encoded forms of human-to-humancommunication which tend to be generative,self-organising and non-linear in nature.As Taskforce member Adrian Cunninghamobserved in a Taskforce blog post:

How to capture and preservedynamic web-based resources asrecords has been a challenge thathas occupied the minds of recordsprofessionals for a number of yearsnow and the spread of blogs andwikis has not made this challengeany easier to resolve. Successwill require collaboration betweencreating/hosting organisations andarchival institutions. Mere webharvesting, while it has a role to play,is no real solution. Indeed treatingsuch resources as static information

objects to be preserved is probablythe wrong paradigm altogether.A better approach is to abandon
http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/



object-oriented thinking and insteadadopt event-oriented thinking. Usersexperience the Web (indeed also anydigital platform) as a series of event-based interactions or performances.Identifying the important events forwhich evidence needs to be capturedand retained is the key here.(http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/09/ 14/capturing-and-preserving-authentic-and-accessible-evidence-of-government-2-0-part-two)

This will obviously require cooperation betweenvarious government agencies includingthe National Archives, the National Library

of Australia through its Pandora project,and the proposed Ofce of the InformationCommissioner.

4.2 Recommendations

1. Audit the blog:

a. Test and x all broken links.b. Tag all uncategorised blog posts

and rene tagging where requiredfor consistency and clarity.

c. Develop a media library to store allaudio/visual content (http://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audio) andpromote this library on the homepage and in the site's navigation.

d. Enhance the usability wherepossible of the blog whilst keepingits informal style in check.

e. Employ search engine optimisation(SEO) and improve the indexingof the blog to aid search enginediscovery.

2. Audit the IdeaScale site:

a. Test and x all broken links.

b. Promote competition outcomes onthe landing page.

3. Audit the Mashup Australia site:

a. Address vote gaming head on andengage participants in discussionof how to revise criteria for thePeople's Choice Mashup prize.

b. Consider packaging the currentWordpress theme as a freelyavailable template, to facilitatefuture local level innovationcontests. Supplement this with a'how-to' document.

c. Test and x all broken links.

d. Promote competition outcomes onthe landing page.

4. Archive and index the Taskforce's onlineassets.

4.3 Communitylife-cycle

managementrevisited

As the Taskforce nears its completion, inthe experience of Collabforge the primaryconsideration will be how the online communityis handled during this nal phase. As impliedabove, it is all too easy to consider the Taskforceengagement spaces in terms of just information

residing on web servers. While this is true, whenit comes to online community engagement,it is imperative to remember this informationrepresents time and energy invested by whoare essentially unpaid passionate membersof the public. This equates to an investmentmade not only in the ideas developed, but in therelationships that have formed.Since the mode of engagement was socialmedia, there is a need for the Taskforce todirectly and authentically acknowledge theparticipants. These and others should be
http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/09/14/capturing-and-preserving-authentic-and-accessible-evidence-of-government-2-0-part-twohttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/09/14/capturing-and-preserving-authentic-and-accessible-evidence-of-government-2-0-part-twohttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/09/14/capturing-and-preserving-authentic-and-accessible-evidence-of-government-2-0-part-twohttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/09/14/capturing-and-preserving-authentic-and-accessible-evidence-of-government-2-0-part-twohttp://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audiohttp://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audiohttp://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audiohttp://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audiohttp://gov2.net.au/roadshows/#audiohttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/09/14/capturing-and-preserving-authentic-and-accessible-evidence-of-government-2-0-part-twohttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/09/14/capturing-and-preserving-authentic-and-accessible-evidence-of-government-2-0-part-twohttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/09/14/capturing-and-preserving-authentic-and-accessible-evidence-of-government-2-0-part-twohttp://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/09/14/capturing-and-preserving-authentic-and-accessible-evidence-of-government-2-0-part-two


26/36


provided with opportunities to stay abreastof future plans. No one enjoys investing theirtime and energy into a relationship, only to bedismissed without notice once their utility hasbeen exhausted. The abrupt cessation of onlineactivities could leave participants feeling usedand generate negative sentiment towards theTaskforce and its outcomes in the future.With the need to strategically manage the nallife-cycle of the community (i.e. communicatingthe Taskforce's future intentions to thecommunity), the available options are:

1. Decommissioning - closure of theproject, with no future community

engagement planned.2. Transition - migrating the community

to another initiative, approach,engagement space, etc.

3. Sustainability - redesigning thecommunity towards one that is active,supported and resourced in an ongoingfashion.

Collabforge's advice (outlined below) is tocombine all three options so as to:

1. Notify the community of the Taskforce'sformal decommission via prominentupdates on each engagement space.

2. Provide for an informal transitionperiod where Taskforce memberscan opt into ongoing discussions viaa new engagement space as well as

other pre-established communities(e.g. Gov 2.0 Australia Community(http://gov20australia.ning.com),Gov2.0Australia Google Group(http://groups.google.com.au/group/gov20canberra), OzLoop (http://apsozloop.ning.com), GovLoop (http://www.govloop.com) VPSCIN (http://www.vpscin.org), etc), in order to continue thedialogue and momentum.

3. Make recommendations in the Taskforcereport for the establishment of asustainable community dedicated to

implementing Government 2.0, within asecure intranet environment accessibleto Whole of Australian Governmentstaff, as well as a linked, open accessengagement space aimed at facilitating

greater online engagement betweenelected representatives, public servants,citizens and other stakeholders.
http://gov20australia.ning.com/http://groups.google.com.au/group/gov20canberrahttp://groups.google.com.au/group/gov20canberrahttp://apsozloop.ning.com/http://groups.google.com.au/group/gov20canberrahttp://apsozloop.ning.com/http://apsozloop.ning.com/http://apsozloop.ning.com/http://www.govloop.com/http://apsozloop.ning.com/http://www.vpscin.org/http://www.vpscin.org/http://www.govloop.com/http://www.vpscin.org/http://www.vpscin.org/http://www.vpscin.org/http://www.vpscin.org/http://www.govloop.com/http://www.govloop.com/http://apsozloop.ning.com/http://apsozloop.ning.com/http://groups.google.com.au/group/gov20canberrahttp://groups.google.com.au/group/gov20canberrahttp://gov20australia.ning.com/



Pathways for futuredevelopment

5The Government 2.0 agenda has only justbegun to gain momentum, both in Australia andinternationally. The work of the Taskforce has

measurably enhanced Australia's reputation forinnovation by making public sector information(PSI) more widely available and by encouraginggreater online engagement.The Australian Government is now uniquelyplaced to leverage the success of theTaskforce's initiatives in order to drive a rangeof productivity improvements and efciencygains within the public sector. The use of Web

2.0 tools for inter-agency knowledge-sharing,web-based collaboration, comprehensiveinformation ltering and idea generation arenow well within the Government's grasp.Networking tools enable self-organisation,which as a by-product can lead to reducedmanagement and coordination costs. They alsoprovide tremendous opportunities for publicengagement activities in areas such as wide-

ranging as policy development (http://cpd.org.au/article/collaborating-crowd-better-policy-development), service delivery, planning (See:http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au), datarecombination (i.e. mashups) and other forms ofcitizen innovation (See: http://www.slideshare.net/dasharp/web2-gov-sharp-collabforge).It is important to situate these developmentswithin the broader context of public sectorreform, and to reference the work of otherGovernment inquiries, in particular the'Advancing Public Sector Innovation' project

led by the Department of Innovation, Industry,Science and Research (DIISR).

This project is "developing recommendationsand a strategy for how the public sectorcan foster an innovation culture that tacklesbarriers to innovation and shares and rewardsinnovative practices." (See: http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/AdvancingPublicSectorInnovation.aspx) ThePublic Sector Innovation project is exploringmany similar themes to the Government2.0 Taskforce, including the use of newcollaborative technologies, mechanisms that

encourage innovation from the 'bottom up',and ways in which to draw upon the externalexpertise of citizens and other stakeholders.Another crucial development to consider isthe recent publication of new Australian PublicSector Commission (APSC) protocols for onlinemedia participation which for the rst timegrant public servants the right to "engage inrobust policy conversations". The publicationrecommends that "equally, as citizens, APS

employees should also embrace the opportunityto add to the mix of opinions contributing tosound, sustainable policies and service deliveryapproaches" (See: http://www.apsc.gov.au/circulars/circular096.htm). This constitutes asignicant step towards greater involvement byAPS staff within online community engagementactivities.Interviews with Taskforce members during thedevelopment of this review echoed the needand interest for greater participation in onlineinitiatives by APS and public sector staff.
http://cpd.org.au/article/collaborating-crowd-better-policy-developmenthttp://cpd.org.au/article/collaborating-crowd-better-policy-developmenthttp://cpd.org.au/article/collaborating-crowd-better-policy-developmenthttp://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/http://www.slideshare.net/dasharp/web2-gov-sharp-collabforgehttp://www.slideshare.net/dasharp/web2-gov-sharp-collabforgehttp://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/AdvancingPublicSectorInnovation.aspxhttp://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/AdvancingPublicSectorInnovation.aspxhttp://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/AdvancingPublicSectorInnovation.aspxhttp://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/AdvancingPublicSectorInnovation.aspxhttp://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/AdvancingPublicSectorInnovation.aspxhttp://www.apsc.gov.au/circulars/circular096.htmhttp://www.apsc.gov.au/circulars/circular096.htmhttp://www.apsc.gov.au/circulars/circular096.htmhttp://www.apsc.gov.au/circulars/circular096.htmhttp://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/AdvancingPublicSectorInnovation.aspxhttp://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/AdvancingPublicSectorInnovation.aspxhttp://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/AdvancingPublicSectorInnovation.aspxhttp://www.slideshare.net/dasharp/web2-gov-sharp-collabforgehttp://www.slideshare.net/dasharp/web2-gov-sharp-collabforgehttp://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/http://cpd.org.au/article/collaborating-crowd-better-policy-developmenthttp://cpd.org.au/article/collaborating-crowd-better-policy-developmenthttp://cpd.org.au/article/collaborating-crowd-better-policy-development


28/36


It has to stop being about theTaskforce and start being aboutpublic sector reform issuesand morph very quickly intoan attractive space about thesubstantive issues - not about

the Taskforce blog. The bestlegacy for the Taskforce is forthe Taskforce to be forgotten asquickly as possible. There's anappetite for a really good onlineforum for these issues (lists &hackfests etc are great) but abroader forum is required.

This could become Australia'spremier Government 2.0 publicsector reform community. What

would its outputs be? Firstly theconversation itself. It would alsoprovide a support & solidarityfunction (primarily within thepublic sector); and nally itwould generate propositions forinnovation and be an incubator, aplace where people can tinker. Itshould be open by default, privateby exception.

There are numerous pathways for developmentavailable. These involve a range of tools andprocesses that have already proven successfulduring the Taskforce's current life-cycle. Thefact these tools are essentially a byproductof the acceleration of technology and socialengagement which are both still within theirinfancy, illustrates the need to chart a clearcourse for the future when the Taskforcedelivers its nal recommendations. While thiscourse only provides a starting point for ajourney that will require ongoing renement, it

is imperative that it begin decisively and witha clearly articulated vision, if Australia is toprovide and maintain the current leadership rolewhich it has admirably so far carved for itself.The concluding elements of this review presenta recommended pathway for the Taskforceto manage the decommission of its formalactivities and the associated management ofthe established online community. An approachis also offered with respect to the transitional

period between the delivery of the Taskforce'srecommendations and potential adoption ofthese by the Government.

SummaryofRecommendations

1. DecommissionPhase-Communications&ActionStrategy

A communications and action strategy

for managing online communityrelationships and expectations, inaddition to legacy issues surroundingthe state in which established Taskforceengagement spaces are left in.

2. TransitionPhase-Government2.0CommunityofPractice

Establishment of Government 2.0Community of Practice - a lightweightonline engagement space, the

objective of which being to leverage theleadership and reputation of Taskforcemembers to informally maintaincommunity cohesion and focus.

3. SustainabilityPhase-WholeofAustralianGovernmentCommunityofPractice

Recommendations in the Taskforcereport for Whole of AustralianGovernment (WoAG) Community of

Practice dedicated to implementingGovernment 2.0 within a secureenvironment accessible to WoAGstaff, as well as a linked, open accessengagement space aimed at facilitatinggreater public online engagement.

5.1 Decommission

Objectives

Maintain and build goodwill with theonline community.

Manage potential legacy issues with thes

Documents

Government 2.0 Taskforce Online Engagement Review