A common failing of many consultation processes is a failure to consider and plan for the end of the eEngagement process. This tends to reflect an instrumental view of the process which holds that, once the information has been collected or the decisions reached, the engagement is over.
This can lead to:
Clear planning for the closeout process will require:
It goes without saying that the relative newness of eEngagement, combined with the rapid pace of change (both in the capacities of the technology and the costs of undertaking activities using ICTs) mean that – for the immediate future at least – practice will continue to outstrip theory.
Following the conclusion of any engagement activity – online or off – it is necessary to prepare a suite of post-engagement documentation which normally takes the form of:
Given the newness of this area of activity, it is important for many of these (often internal) documents to be shared with the eEngagement community, i.e. those who are actively pursuing the area of practice, those interesting in undertaking activities and those not aware of the potential. This often necessitates the development of case study information – the repackaging of information provided to a range of stakeholders in a complete encapsulated form.
Good case documentation will include:
One of the important aspects of this documentation needs to be a clear statement of the managerial learnings: namely, the ‘lessons learned’ at the managerial level about handling ‘intangibles’ (such as upwards and downward management, stakeholder issues, etc.). While there is an excellent array of case studies now being developed, attention to subtle management questions will be one area of particular interest to others in your position.
A common criticism heard from many consultation and engagement participants is the lack of feedback from government agencies on the outcomes and decisions made from the information received.
Maintaining good post-engagement relationships is important in maintaining citizens’ motivation for civic participation and the inclusion of eEngagement projects can be a valuable means by which feedback is delivered at low cost. The low cost of email, fax and SMS communications, together with their capacity to deliver multimedia content, makes the provision of feedback relatively straightforward and can stimulate further, or future, participation from members of the target community.
Feedback should contain:
The provision of feedback regarding specific instrumental (policy specific) outcomes of the process can be an appropriate point in which stakeholder views on the conduct of the engagement process can be collected (if this has not already been done). It is important to note that the quality and nature of feedback provided at the closeout stage of the process will also be assessed for future reference.
Exhibit 30: Maintaining Contact – Address Lifecycles
When collecting contact information from participants (to allow information to be ‘pushed’ to them), the limited ‘life expectancy’ of contact information must be considered. While email is often considered an excellent communication channel because of cost and speed, it can also be highly temporal.
Consider the limitations of various channels based on the life expectancy of their use:
- email addresses are notoriously short lived, possibly lasting only between 1-3 years on average. This is often associated with changes to ISP connections, employment changes and the tendency to ‘shed’ addresses that have become targets for high volumes of SPAM messages. People who have a lasting valid email address tend to be in long-term employment. The life expectancy of Instant Messaging addresses (such as Microsoft or Yahoo! Messager, Skype, etc.) is unknown at this time, but may also be short;
- residential addresses are relatively long lived, approximately 7-8 years on average, however, this average is highly variable and tends to be a function of stage-of-life (marriage, children) and the age of the individual. As a general rule, the younger the adult, the more likely they are to change residential address; and
- mobile telephone numbers may prove to be one of the most enduring contact addresses for participants in eEngagement processes, particularly following the introduction of MNP (mobile number portability – the capacity to retain a fixed mobile telephone number even following changes of service). Australia introduced MNP in 2001 and New Zealand is expected to do so in 2007-8.
Given the short life expectancy of contact addresses and telephone numbers, it is wise to collect a number of contact details from participants for future engagement and follow-up. Delivery failure using one channel can then prompt the use of alternative approaches.
In some policy deliberations, it may be wise to establish an ongoing process of feedback provision to participants. This helps maintain public interest in the issue and personal commitment to participation by citizens.
On-going feedback is most appropriate where:
Exhibit 31: Transparency Networks
Transparency Network is a term used to describe organically connected groups of organisations and individuals who share information and oversight of the activities of policy makers, government agencies and corporations. The participants of the network can include policy insiders, non-government organisations, scholars, journalists and members of the community. Based around loose network organisational structures and using ICTs, (email, discussion lists, websites), these networks collect and distribute information and can act to highlight issues or problems that emerge in their area of concern. Good examples of transparency networks can be found in the environmental movement, where large numbers of quasi-autonomous actors and groups can mobilise and organise over environmental issues and policy processes.
By nature, these networks are outside of government and largely outside of formal eEngagement processes (though members of transparency networks are often found in formal consultation and participation processes). Governments are increasingly responsive to these networks, both positively (providing greater access to oversight information, inclusion in consultation processes) and negatively (secrecy), depending on the ability of the networks to utilise their members’ resources to challenge policy decisions and implementation (often in tandem with mainstream media). Transparency networks share many similarities with the notion of ‘policy communities’ from mainstream public policy literature, but may take a more ‘outsider’ role.
See: http://www.agimo.gov.au/publications/2004/05/egovt_challenges/ accountability/transparency
While careful management of the closeout process can involve ongoing communication with participants, the conclusion of a formal process of eEngagement may not mean the ‘end’ of the process. For example, instrumental processes often lead to the creation of on-going communities of interest or relationships with the hosting agency through the development of formal reference groups, participants transition from ‘passive’ to active overseers of government policy and the future re-use of consultation mailing lists.
In addition, in areas where the expected benefits of the engagement strategy are broad and diffuse, the project may have an expectation of stimulating the development of a ‘community of interest’ around the policy area or agency that is relatively self-sustaining over time. Clearly, the toolsets provided by ICTs to the public to self-organise and network outside the direct intervention of government, represent a key strength.
eEngagement processes can result in the mobilisation of an ongoing community of interest. Public sector managers can be instrumental in fostering these communities of interest via a cultivating approach and drawing value from them by exercising a listening role. Public sector managers should consider the following:
Examples of active roles public sector managers may play to cultivate these types of ongoing outcome are:
The end may be just the beginning of a new phase of engagement.
Exhibit 32: Wiki’s and Collaborative Tools
A ‘wiki’ is a popular term for collaborative software which allows anyone participating in the development of the content to edit what is published or presented. Good examples of wiki’s include the free online general encyclopaedia Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) or the Davis Community Wiki (http://daviswiki.org/).
Wiki’s require the establishment of motivated communities, authoring and collaboration tools, storage space and mediating and arbitrating processes for managing version control. Other examples of collaborative approaches to online publishing would include: