Designing for Civil Society

How far people engage online

Ross Mayfield in Social Technographics and a Power Law of Participation gives us ways of looking at how far people engage on the web that go beyond the "one percent contribute, ten per cent may comment" rule of thumb.
First Ross offered us a Power Law of Participation that graphs involvement from low to high;

Social software brings groups together to discover and create value.  The problem is, users only have so much time for social software.  The vast majority of users with not have a high level of engagement with a given group, and most tend to be free riders upon community value.  But patterns have emerged where low threshold participation amounts to collective intelligence and high engagement provides a different form of collaborative intelligence.

Ross then reports that Charlene Li at Forrester has produced a report on Social Technographics that surveyed user engagement.

How the profiles vary by age is interesting, says Ross, who has read the report:

Teenagers create more than any other generation. Youth between 12 and 17 years old are avid  users of Social Computing technologies, with more than one-third engaging as Creators. But  this is a fairly self-centered age group — while very likely to create their own content, they are  less likely than Gen Yers to be Critics and Collectors...
Joiners dominate Gen Yers. While this age group has higher percentages in each category than  every other age group (except for youth Creators), it’s their sky-high participation in social  networks that stands out. In fact, there are slightly more Joiners than Spectators — meaning  that Gen Yers are less likely to passively read, watch, or listen to social media, even when it’s created by their peers...
Gen X Spectators form the foundation for future participation. While significantly fewer  members of Gen X are at the top of the participation ladder, that four out of 10 are already  using social media as Spectators means that they are well positioned to take the next step...

Also note that Creators self-identify themselves as leaders (38% say "I am a natural leader") than any other group, and those who participate in social software are greater influencers (Active categories range from 52-56% saying "I often tell my friends about products that interest me, compared to 33% for Inactives).

Thirdly, Ross gives us Phil Wolff's remix.

 
Someone commenting on Ross's blog says he believes that the participation ladder ignores email. It also ignores other ways that people may be interacting, including by phone. The analysis - useful as it is - is web-centric rather than people-centric. What I would find interesting is analysis of any group, network, community in terms of the different communication styles. If you are loquacious on the phone or face-to-face, will you be more or less so online? How far does it depend on the situation, and how far on the individual?  Some people will send an e-mail when they could walk down the corridor for a chat.

Ecampaigning: it's your turn

If you are interested in how new media can give individuals as well as organisations more influence, I recommend taking a look at the programme for Participation 2007: Who's Leading Who?, London May 9.  It is organised by Duane Raymond, who pioneered ecampaigning at Oxfam GB, and is now running Fairsay. As Duane says in promoting the event:

Participation is at the heart of thriving local communities, vibrant nations and a healthy planet. But a new player is starting to be important: you. While campaigning organisations are creating opportunities for more people to be involved, ordinary people are also acting independently on their concerns as 'new' media removes the barriers.

I'm a little biased because Duane's asked me along to speak, and a little over-awed by the talented cast already assembling: mainly UK, but also representation from Europe and the US, Hong Kong and South Africa. It costs £100 but free if you can sign up five others. Sponsors welcome, but "No arms dealers, clear cutters, cigarette companies or others that participants would object to".
The London event is a sister gathering to the two-day invitation-only Ecampaign Forum on May 10-11 in Oxford.

Technorati Tags: ecampaigning, engagement

MySpace or YourSpace: which is more involving?

My friends at Involve are running a series of seminars on Participation Nation: The Challenge of Reconnection - and tonight's topic was "My Space not Yours? Public Engagement and the YouTube generation".
The challenge of the seminar seemed to me not just reconnection, but connecting differing views of social media with the world of engagement.
After Involve director Richard Wilson's nicely self-deprecating intro (struggling to keep up with Facebook under direction from colleagues, no longer time for books and radio), we had a blitz of quotes and stats from Oswin Baker of Ipsos-MORI showing the growth of online participation and user generated content. If I remember rightly, the BBC is now the only traditional content provider in the top 10 UK web sites. The rest are for search, social networking, trading, and other forms of user content.
Tom Steinberg of MySociety explained their highly successful strategy of creating specific tools people want - like the No 10 e-petitions site - rather than thinking generally about how to help people engage. Political blogger Iain Dale emphasised the importance of blogging and similar activity in providing people with a voice and influence to a degree previously unknown.
Iain maintains that the blogosphere is a community, with some blogs (like his) up the top of a triangle of prominence, with others less-viewed at the base. No matter, he says, good messages get re-blogged up to the top.
Ros Taylor, of The Guardian, wasn't convinced about the triangle, but liked the idea of blogging by front-line workers to give us insights into the realities of public services, for example.  Nigel Dacre of 10 Alps Digital TV argued that the future would be video, with maybe some surprises about who would participate. A few years ago people were saying teachers would never find time to get to their computers - but teachers.tv is highly successful.
The panel offered a wide range of perspectives, with still more coming from the audience. I ventured that things might get really interesting on the participation front when all these users generating content started to use their skills to challenge public agencies who pretend to engagement but fail to listen to their views.
I felt just a little dissatisfied at the end that clearer strands had not emerged around the Net as an engaging place. Aha - here's an insight!  Most of the contributions focussed on blogging and other online participation as solo activity ... probably because that's what people see on news and political blogs. There didn't seem to be much appreciation of blogging and much online activity as social, conversational, and about relationships. But then perhaps that's inevitable in a panel-style seminar. There's no real chance of conversation. Hmmm ... what would a social networking seminar structure be like? That would really show some MySpace influence on traditional YourSpace events.
Next Tuesday: "Better Things to Do with Our Time? A Progressive Vision of Citizenship" with a panel including Ed Milliband MP. Register with seminars@involve.org.uk

Technorati Tags: engagement, socialmedia

Open Innovation Exchange starts to buzz

Since starting the Open Innovation Exchange a couple of days ago we've had a really gratifying response to our experiment in developing an open source bid for a £1.2 million Government contract. The aim is two-fold: first, to create an exception proposal for ways in which nonprofit can share knowledge, and improve public service delivery. Secondly, to demonstrate that it is possible to collaborate in a competitive situation, and so improve upon public procure processes. As I wrote previously:

The difficulty in tendering for complex and challenging projects is that you know your proposals may well turn out to be inadequate because there's no way of figuring out in advance  what will work. Ideally the solutions have to be worked out with those who are "the problem". But if you do go in with a proposal full of co-creation workshops with stakeholders, there's a danger you will be seen as fuzzy. It's all too easy to end up either in tacit collusion between consultants and funders to do something rather inadequate, or acrimonious disputes about failure to "deliver".

Quite a few people seems to agree, and are blogging and commenting on the site with enthusiasm. If you have a moment, do take a look, and join in. Simon Berry has put together a first model for our proposal, and will shortly be posting the work packages that will deliver this. We are exploring collaboration with a number of people and organisation, and would welcome more.  The site seems to be providing a further benefit - a space to talk about the general issues of collaboration, knowledge sharing, process evaluation and more. That's another lesson - if you open up, good stuff happens.

Technorati Tags: innovation, knowledgesharing, nonprofit, openinex

Doing it different with an open source bid to Government

As I mentioned recently, the Cabinet Office wants to promote innovation among UK nonprofits, and is offering £1.2 million to anyone who can come up with a plan for a Third Sector Innovation Exchange - and also put it into practice over three years.
My initial reaction was slightly sceptical, because despite brilliant work being done by extraordinary people there are many barriers to innovation in the sector, and even more to sharing. Why give away your best ideas when competing for funding? Why try and do things differently if that would mean getting rid of most of your trustees first? As a fall back, there's the fatal "We have always done it that way."
Then I got a few calls from people who were thinking of putting in a bid, and we fell to wondering whether it might be done differently. If one of the things that stifles innovation is the way that procurement of services is handled, couldn't we demonstrate a different approach while still meeting all the tendering requirements?
The difficulty in tendering for complex and challenging projects is that you know your proposals may well turn out to be inadequate because there's no way of figuring out in advance  what will work. Ideally the solutions have to be worked out with those who are "the problem". But if you do go in with a proposal full of co-creation workshops with stakeholders, there's a danger you will be seen as fuzzy. It's all too easy to end up either in tacit collusion between consultants and funders to do something rather inadequate, or acrimonious disputes about failure to "deliver".
One of the main aims of the Innovation Exchange is help improve the ability of third sector organisations to deliver public services. These days there's a lot of emphasis on the need to make this a collaborative process, as set out by Demos in its recent publication The Collaborative State. A few years ago they did an excellent publication Wideopen on open thinking, drawing on the inspiration of collaborative open source software development. The book Wikinomics argues the case for collaboration in what have been  commercially competitive situations. So why not invite people to develop a collaborative bid - and also commit to collaborating afterwards? Ah, said my friend Drew Mackie, when I relayed my conversations with others, "what we need is an open source bid".
Nice soundbite, but would it work in practice? I checked in again with my friends Simon and Jane Berry, who manage to be innovative, creative and very effective in delivery through Ruralnet UK and their associated trading company RNUK Ltd. The team there have a great track record of running learning and mentoring programmes. Could we do it open source? Yes, said Simon. In Bristol, Ben Whitnall and Andy Parkhouse at Delib, together with Steve Bridger and Ed Mitchell, had come up with their own ideas about mixing innovation online and off. My son Dan put together a Drupal-based site, where we could invite contributions and comments. You can see the result at the Open Innovation Exchange. Do join in there, and if you blog anything about it elsewhere, please use the tag openinex. There's a feed to the site.
It may fall flat. It may get a lot of interest and ideas ... but at least we are trying something different. Isn't that what innovation is about?

Technorati Tags: innovation, knowledgesharing, nonprofit, openinex

Bootstrapping the benefits of mixing face-to-face and online

PR blogger Simon Collister writes to ask if I might mention the NKM Forum 07 running in June, where I will be able to find "what lies beyond the revolution in social media and what it means for business". Five per cent off if put a forum badge on my blog.

I'm dithering whether to spring the £245 fee, available to freelancers, and his note nudges me back to the site. Simon is moving to London to join Edelman, and is helping to promote the forum with great enthusiasm. As Simon says, the three keynote speakers are impressive:

• Jason Calacanis - "Entrepreneur In Action” at Sequoia Capital, Silicon Valley’s leading venture capital firm;
• Dan "We, the media" Gillmor - director of the Center for Citizen Media at the University of California, Berkeley and also at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Law School;
• Jyri Engestrom - co-founder of jaiku.com, a mobile docial software startup. He is also Founder and Vice-Chairman of Aula Network, a non-profit organisation to advance the vision of a creative society.

I respond with some doubts on the rather conventional format. Yet another event (like that at the RSA) about the conversational benefits of new media delivered mainly from the platform.

I'm torn about whether to attend, and write to say:

Yes, interesting speakers, but yet another event about new ways of communicating that is keynote - panel - Q and A? Sigh:-)

However, Simon has an answer:

Ah yes.... but this event has a live back-channel running through the day which will allow delegates to interact with panelists and join the event 'conversation' - so will be thoroughly interactive.... has that helped sway you ;)

At the same time I notice Lloyd Davis writing about bootstrapping:

What I’m particularly frisky about is the bootstrap effect - we’ve built a bit of a relationship online, then we enrich that relationship offline and face to face, then when we go back online it’s all been taken forward and we do more new and interesting things together… and so on… and so on… and so on….

... with a list of the events (including NKMForum) that he'll at over the coming weeks, courtesy of a press pass or fee to blog about them. I did that with the e-democracy '06 conference but have been slipping recently.  Looks as if I'll just have to find fee for NKMForum 07 or feel out of it.
Anyway, Lloyd's post makes me wonder whether there is an "I'll be there if you will" web tool by which people could signify on their blogs or elsewhere their bootstrapping intentions. Sort of Meetup meets Pledgebank. That way we could get a bit of buzz going beforehand, make sure we meet at the event, carry on afterwards. Then we could say something like, bad format, but we bootstrapped our way out of it. That must be worth 10 per cent off.

Technorati Tags: NKMForum07

Voter apathy? Try TheirSpaces

A traditional voters' complaint about politicians is they never turn up until there's an election, then they are all over your streets and doorsteps, expecting you to turn out for them. It's a bit unfair, since traditional communication methods don't enable even the most diligent to be in lots of places at once, except perhaps on special occasions with much dashing about.
That's now changing, at least for MPs and other representatives prepared to embrace new media ... and tonight the Hansard Society gave a number of speakers the chance to explore the implications of the Internet for political awareness, participation and trust.
Professors John Curtice and Rachel Gibson offered analyses that were heavy on research but a bit light on significant shifts. Is it that the politically interested are more likely to use the Net ... or the Net helps people become more interested? Not yet clear.
Derek Wyatt MP tried showing this Blair-Cameron video comparison, Hilary Clinton's online conversations, and the French Presidential elections, but was rather defeated by lack of bandwidth in the Thatcher Room, Portcullis House. Maybe the lady doesn't really approve of YouTube politics ... but Derek's enthusiasm was enough to make me explore more here later.
However, the most interest remarks, for me, came from another professor who is also an MP - Liberal Democrat Steve Webb.
He has dealt with being everywhere at once by first setting up an opt-in e-mail list for constituents to receive non-partisan news from him. One in eight households - 5000 people - now hear regularly from Steve, and e-mail him with queries and problems. He says they come up to him in supermarkets with a nudge, a wink, and "I sent you that e-mail ... I really like hearing back from you." He says it is not about sending out political propaganda, it's about building relationships.
Even more significant, I think, is his strategy of setting up profiles in MySpace and Facebook. As he explained to me, it's all about going to where people are, rather than expecting them to come to you. (Click thumbnail for Quicktime, or here for Google video) Since younger people are failing to turn out at elections in large numbers, go to their places and engage. Earlier in the meeting I asked whether the new £10,000 communications allowance for MPs was such a great idea, since e-mail and social networking was relatively inexpensive - except in MPs' time. Would less Net-savvy MPs just spend the money on yet more boring newsletters and brochures? Steve smiled, spelled out his approach, but declined to score a point. Does the Internet help create nicer MPs, or do nicer MPs use the Net? There's one for the academics.
Previously:
Government explores going where people are ... online at least

Open Source politics - fine make sure you join in

Technorati Tags: e-democracy, politics, socialnetworking

How to design engagement

If you want to consult or engage more deeply with a local community, or range of interests, there's no shortage of methods recommended for use by facilitators and their clients.  You may think about focus groups, workshops or roadshows backed up by newsletters and other documents. Fairs can offer fun, citizens' juries foster deliberation. Then there's all the more recent web-based processes.
The problem is which method to choose, how long to take, how to ensure you can respond to people's preferences ... in short you need to design a process. While a professional facilitator may know this well, it can be difficult to convince a public agency, for example, that it's more than a matter of choosing a tool and applying it.
I'm delighted to see that engagement specialists Dialogue by Design have now produced not only a free handbook on designing engagement processes, but also a dialoguedesigner. This online system helps you choose the right method for the right situation by asking four simple questions:

• what you want to achieve;
• who you want to consult with;
• how sensitive the subject matter or relationship is; and
• how much time you have to run the consultation.

Once you have provided answers to these questions you are offered a range of possible methods, with links to detailed explanations. I like the way that the system provides gentle rebukes if you don't take engagement seriously enough. For example, if you choose "gather views or opinions" as an objective, you are told:

While gathering views and opinions from people is often an important part of a consultation process it is not, on its own, consultation. If you really only want to gather views and opinions your project is a market research or opinion polling exercise. See the supporting information link for more information on these and some of the methods most commonly used.

The rationale behind this is explained in the handbook, which offer the spectrum of engagement (information giving, information gathering, consultation, participation, collaboration, delegated authority) as a model for thinking about the degree of influence.
In the foreword, Andrew Acland - who is co-director of Dialogue by Design with Pippa Hyam - reflects on the lack of emphasis on design elsewhere.

We think it is because people tend to choose their engagement method first and then fit the process to the method rather than vice-versa, as it should be. We also think it may be because theorists of public engagement focus on purposes and results while practitioners tend to concentrate on methods. Being both, we are inclined to notice gaps and do our best to fill them.

I'm particularly impressed by the handbook and designer tool because I've tried my hand at writing a guide to effective participation, and know how difficult it is to take people through the options. Drew Mackie and I are now developing a complementary approach through engagement games, in which people working in groups develop scenarios and consider possible methods. We now know where to signpost people once their interest in process design is aroused. Dialogue by Design offer a range of consultancy services to follow through the advice in the handbook and online designer. I can't think of a better way of demonstrating the potential value of these services, while also providing such excellent free advice. Smart engagement.

Technorati Tags: engagement

Telegraph bloggers hold open house

Blogging enables journalists to publish more stories, get rapid feedback, and cross the boundaries between old and new media. That's just online. At the Daily Telegraph - the first UK newspaper to go online 10 years ago - the new approach now extends to holding an open house event and inviting readers and other bloggers in for a chat.
Yesterday was London Social Media Club night, so Lloyd Davis led the way in meeting up with Communities Editor Shane Richmond and other Telegraph bloggers for some Q and A, a tour of the newsroom and refreshments afterwards. It reinforced my feeling that one of the greatest benefits of social media is the chance to meet interesting people.
Much of the questioning was about how journalists took to producing stories both for print and online, how comments were handled, who developed the technical platform, and how far journalists actually read other bloggers and linked.
Answers: all 40 bloggers are volunteers ... they like having the opportunity to get more stories published ... they deal with over 1000 comments a day ... Interesource developed the blogging platform ...  linking to other sites is actively encouraged. It was all very open and informative, with the added treat of a guided wander around the amazing open-plan newsroom. This is organised as a hub and spokes, so that reporters can easily talk to each other, and to senior staff at the centre. Editorial conferences are held in the middle, not away in a closed office, and looming over everyone are enormous news screens showing what others are producing. It is an all-media affair, with studio space for video and podcasting.
Afterwards I asked Shane whether blogging changed journalists ... and if it did, whether they were in danger of losing some traditional questioning edge. He thought yes, there was a often change, and it was all for the better in developing a closer relationship with readers. Good relations with other bloggers won't hurt either. As someone said, once you have met someone, you are less likely to snipe at them online. Expect few jokes about the Torygraph in the blogosphere in future; it didn't feel like that at all ... though we did gather that comment moderation is fairly tight, and some of the readership holds to more, ahem, traditional values.
If you have problem with the Quicktime movie above, it's on Google video here, together with a longer version including discussion with new media consultant Simon Dickson and lawyer Mark Boardman.
Here's an earlier report on the Telegraph newsroom by Jeff Jarvis, and Shane with Jeff.

Technorati Tags: blogging, norgs, newspapers, telegraph

Government explores going where people are ... online at least

The UK Government's interest in using social media and external sites for public information and engagement has now surfaced officially in a press release from the Cabinet Office. It was previously trailed in the Guardian and elsewhere, with an emphasis on possible funding for civic online projects.
On reflection, what is just as interesting is that Ministers and Civil Servants are  becoming aware that presence on the Net is no longer a matter of creating - and controlling - your own web space. It is a matter of going to the places where people already are, and so ending up in many places at the same time. Paul Caplan offers an excellent explanation of the implications of live rather than static web for communicators in work he is doing for Government.
The press release itself is fairly bland. (I've added links):

Minister for the Cabinet Office Hilary Armstrong wants Government to harness the phenomenon of internet advice sharing sites and empower people with information that could help improve their lives.
Hilary Armstrong has asked for a report to assess how Government can help citizens using this new form of citizen to citizen advice with better information from Government. It will look at how non–personal public sector information can be re–used and reinvigorated outside of government to generate public and economic value.
Websites like Rightsnet and NetMums are examples of how people are using the internet to share information, advice and help. Now, a review will look at the benefits such online communities are creating for their members, how they relate to major areas of government policy or focus, and whether there is a case for involvement at any level by Government.
Hilary has appointed Tom Steinberg, Director of MySociety and Ed Mayo from the National Consumer Council to take forward the review. They are being supported by a team of government officials from Cabinet Office.

There's a quote from Hilary Armstrong:

We know people feel, and are, empowered when they can access advice and help easily and directly online; the growth in web sites such as NetMums proves this. If Government can improve the experiences and lives of people using such web sites by providing information and advice through these channels, we should do so – but in a way that helps and not hinders this phenomenon.

There's some discussion in the E-democracy exchange, where Tom Steinberg is expanding a little on the review. Answering a query about reuse of existing information, and discussion on external sites "which could/should be looped back into government more actively" he says:

Well, I think you've hit the nail on the head yourself, Steve, it is about both. The review is about both traditional public sector information questions, like what's valuable and how it should be accessed, plus the newer ones of how people use online communities to fix things in their own lives.
Where the overlaps between the two halves happen is interesting, too.

Tom expressed keen interest in one story offered by Sophia Collins:

I told the story on our blog about accidentally being in Nepal for the revolution. I met a guy from the British Embassy who thought it was ridiculous that he couldn't post travel advisory information on the  Lonely Planet forum. That was where travelers were discussing the situation, desparate for info and clarification, but it wasn't foreign  office policy to join in.

If the review does lead to civil servants and politicians offering information and joining in discussions on "unofficial" sites it opens up lots of possibilities. It would be a welcome change from the usual ways of conducting public engagement, in which the power-holders generally insist on people coming to "their" events, and responding to their consultation documents. It might also give a nudge to nonprofit organisations and what social networking might mean for membership. If you are an organisation offering people online information and interaction, it may well be important in future to engage government in your spaces ... or find the action has moved elsewhere.
The big challenge for government is moving from a hierarchical, controlled environment into one where anyone can have a say.
In a follow-up message referencing the blog post,  Sophia - who is Producer at I'm a councillor, adds:

I get the impression posting on forums is regarded with deep suspicion by older/more senior civil servants and the younger ones who get it aren't in a position to challenge that idea.
This creates a very artificial barrier between citizens and government. It must also create a strange disjunct for the staff concerned - who would use sites in a personal capacity, but have to pretend they can't see them at work.

MySociety develops terrific online engagement tools, so I wonder if we will see both more examples of Tom, Ed, and others getting "out there" to talk about the review, and perhaps a preview of the conclusions where we can add comments and further ideas. MySociety did rather a good tool for this on the Power inquiry - more here, although the CommentonPower site has now gone. It would be an interesting test of how open the Cabinet Office is feeling about all this.

Update: Tom Steinberg responds in the E-democracy exchange:

David, the review is being done so quickly that it won't actually have an interim findings report to put out. However, please don't assume that that means I'm not going to try out possible recommendations on you guys :)

... where a lively discussion continues. You can view messages and contribute here, after first registering here.

Technorati Tags: engagement, onlinecommunities