News Flash: Government Websites Are Not Newspapers!

Last week, I was talking to a friend who is a private sector usability specialist. I asked her if, like me, she is noticing that some agency websites seem to be slipping backwards, featuring agency news rather than top citizen tasks on their home pages. She said that, indeed, she and her colleagues are observing the same thing. It appears that agency public affairs staffs are really getting into websites (and web management) – which is a good thing – but they haven’t yet learned this truth: the public comes to government websites to do things – perform tasks - not read the news. They go to newspaper sites for that.

I can appreciate the learning curve. I also can appreciate that Public Affairs folks have a different mandate than agency Web Managers. Public Affairs is responsible for marketing. Their clients are the agency chiefs. Web Managers are responsible for making sure websites serve the public. Their clients are the audiences. So the disconnect is understandable.

But here’s the thing: turning government agency websites into newspapers is not what the public wants or expects. As important, it is the antithesis of what President Obama has urged of all government: participation, collaboration, responsiveness to/trust in the citizens who ARE the owners of government.

Putting news and press releases as the featured items at the top of government websites shouts, “me, me, me” – not “you, you, you.” It is not furthering transparency – it’s obscuring service and engagement. In several cases, I’ve seen agency news (including photos of agency officials) crowding out and pushing down links to what the public really wants – top tasks..those services that they pay taxes for. This is a step backward.

There's no blame game here. People are just trying to do their jobs with all the tools available. The point is that you need to recognize the trend (because we who are looking at you certainly see it) and stop it in its tracks before it gets worse. Maybe you Web Managers invite Public Affairs Officers to some briefings on the facts that you have…the data and evidence (site traffic statistics, usability data, customer satisfaction data, performance measures, emails from the public) that shows conclusively what the public wants from their government websites. If you are a Public Affairs officer, maybe you ask for such a briefing. Maybe you bring in some noted authorities on the subject of government websites and usability research and let them present their findings to the Public Affairs Officers and agency chiefs and Web Managers, together, so there can be a good discussion about how government websites should be used to serve and engage the public and achieve the President's goals.

Successful websites are audience-centered. That’s not an opinion – that’s a fact. So please…let’s get our government websites back on track. Let’s use them for service and engagement and collaboration – not as surrogate newspapers. Let’s make them shout “you, you, you.” It’s the right thing for the President’s objectives. It’s the right thing for the American public.

Related Links
What Is the Role of Government on the Web? (3 parts)
Government website survey: from organization-centric to citizen-centric

Holding Out for a Hero

Remember that song from “Footloose” – “Holding Out for a Hero?” I’ve been humming that song all day. Maybe that’s all the government web manager community really needs: a hero.

In the very early days of web management at HUD, I had a pivotal meeting with then Deputy Secretary Dwight Robinson to decide where the Web Team should live, organizationally. The web team had come-to-be in a small special projects staff in the Office of the Secretary, but we thought it was time to find a more permanent home. At that meeting, Dwight decided he didn’t want to put the web team either in the CIO’s office or in Public Affairs. He liked the way we were “entrepreneurial” (his word) – working across the agency, organizing and fostering collaboration to create our “one HUD” website - and thought that was the best way for us to stay. So he decided we would report directly to him. And then – as I sat there with him – he picked up the phone and called each Assistant Secretary, telling them exactly what he expected them to do to support the agency web team. After that, he left us pretty much alone. When we hit a real snag – one we just couldn’t solve on our own – we could go to him, and he’d pick up the phone and solve it. Beyond that, he let us do our jobs.

Dwight was my hero. He understood the value of our grassroots operation. He also understood the need for a hero.

Web Managers are much like Community Organizers. We're out there beating on doors, trying to stir up new ideas for using the internet to serve citizens. We’re breaching silos…getting people to work together across organizations and across government to create good, consolidated audience-centered web content. The most successful among us are those who stay loose, working directly with managers and staff as needed, respectful of - but not mired in - pecking order. In fact, it’s when we get locked into a hierarchy (silo) that we get stymied. Armed with our passion to improve service to citizens, we've caused governmentwide change - not through delegated management authority, but through critical mass.

It actually works pretty well - except when some higher up who fails to appreciate the body of knowledge that goes into good web management and/or the fact that government websites should be citizen-focused wants to do something harebrained. Then, we have no advocate or authority to counter that. That's where our grassroots structure fails. That’s when we need a hero.

Here's the thing. Government doesn't know what to do with a grassroots operating structure. I think that's why, after nearly 15 years, we still have no official "web manager" job classification in the federal government or a standard web governance structure. What other function can you think of that has knocked around government that long without a handbook on how it will be done? But how does government condone that kind of management? How does government live with that kind of ambiguity?

So, you may wonder, what about all that talk in my earlier posts about needing a Chief Web Officer at OMB? Have I changed my mind? Maybe. Still pondering. What I do believe is that our grassroots operation has worked pretty well up to now. Maybe we should be glad there’s no official line manager at OMB (or anywhere else) that pigeon-holes us in a hierarchy. Look how much we’ve accomplished just by banding together and building critical mass. Maybe all we really need to do is look for that hero.

My Web Design Pet Peeves

Normally, I try to make these blog posts pretty positive. But today - I’m grumpy. I just finished going through more than 50 government websites (at all levels of government), to prep for a couple of web management courses I’m teaching soon; and way too many of them have some really bad design habits that frustrate the heck out of me. So - in hope that some web manager will read this, recognize one of these offenses, and fix it - here they are, friends…my current top three web design pet peeves:

1. Large photos or graphics billboards in the top left/middle of the home page that cycle through 3-5 different views. Why in the world has this trend caught on? Why in the world would web designers think that a web audience wants to sit there for 10, 15, 30 seconds or more, waiting for these things to cycle through? Honestly, I just want to scream when I see one of these images (and they seem to be all the rage these days).
   Have you ever actually talked to people who are trying to use your website to find out if we like this practice? Yes – a picture often can be worth a thousand words. But why do you waste important front page space – space that could be used to get me to what I really want – to show me pretty pictures or tell me cute little stories or show me what YOU think should be important to me? It makes me think you don’t know (or care about) what I want to do on your website. Enough. Use Amazon or Google or Craigslist as your model – be utilitarian. Pretty pictures do not make me like you better. Efficiency – helping me get to what I want – makes me like you better. (Oh - and PS...I made this same design mistake several years ago when I managed the HUD website. And I got the same feedback I'm giving you now).
2. Photos of government agency officials. I thought we’d dealt with this problem long ago, but – no – they’re still all over the place. So here’s the thing, agency heads. You don’t own that agency. We - the people - own it. It isn’t your agency. It’s our agency. If we want to know who’s currently serving us as head of our agency, then we’ll go to the “about this agency” page. Please don’t use our websites for personal publicity. It’s incredibly annoying.
3. Welcome messages. So passé. We don’t want or need to be “welcomed” to your website. Do you think your welcome will make us stay longer? No. All it does is waste space and give us more words to wade through, trying to find what we came for. Please – spare us.

I beg of you, government web managers (and/or those who tell government web managers what to do)…do some usability testing. I’m pretty sure you’ll find out that most of us don’t want this junk cluttering up our government websites. Fast, efficient, effective service – that’s what we want. Amen

Creating An Agency Web Strategy – How You Do It Is As Important As What You Do

About 10 years ago – toward the end of the Clinton administration – I got a memo from HUD’s Deputy Secretary directing me to lead an agency-wide Web Management Task Force to develop a comprehensive web strategy for HUD. I was totally surprised and deflated! Had he lost confidence in me as HUD’s Departmental Web Manager? Was he questioning my leadership and policy recommendations? But once I got over my initial shock, I realized that this was a brilliant idea! What better way to get agency-wide buy-in to a single web strategy than involving managers and key staff from across the agency? What better way to make the case for our budget needs than to have an agency-wide task force say, “This is what we need, as an agency?”

The Deputy Secretary gave me 4 weeks to complete our work and make our recommendations. I assembled key SES and GS 15 managers and high level staff from every program area, the CIO and other key support offices, and the field – in all 14 people. We involved 22 other staff, many of them organization web managers or web coordinators, to help us collect information and do our analysis. We split into teams, interviewing every one of HUD’s 100 existing web managers, a number of program managers, and web directors at 5 “best practice” federal agencies and 5 private “best practice” organizations (e.g., Washington Post online).

The task force identified 4 major issues impacting HUD’s ability to use the web efficiently and effectively, to implement the agency’s mission and the administration's goals:

• Issue 1: Implementing "electronic government" at HUD will require a cultural change, from the top on down.
• Issue 2: Staffing is inadequate to accomplish web management responsibilities.
• Issue 3: Training for Web Managers is inadequate.
• Issue 4: HUD lacks leadership in managing the technical web infrastructure to ensure that it is adequate to support the demands of electronic government.

Under each of those issues, we made 3 strategic recommendations. We briefed the Deputy Secretary, and he adopted every single one of our recommendations.

Further, even though administrations (and parties) changed within months, the plan survived. Why? Well, for one thing, it wasn’t a political effort. It was a task force entirely of career employees who were considered leaders in the agency. Second, the task force had developed sound strategic recommendations based on good research and analysis. And third (and most important), because career employees – who don’t change with administrations – were involved in creating the plan, they had a stake in advocating for it and making it work.

And what did I learn from all this? That how you do something can be as important as what you do. Getting key managers and staff across the agency together, doing good research, arguing out the pros and cons of our ideas, and presenting it (and getting credit for it) as a single unit bought HUD’s web team more good will, more support, and more agency pride than anything I could have done on my own.

OK – that’s nice. What’s that got to do with today?

Well, despite the fact that we’ve come a long, long way in creating cross-government web policies and strategies, despite the fact that we now have an active and effective federal Web Managers Council, despite the fact that web managers are enjoying much-deserved praise and support from high level administration executives and industry leaders, there remains a void at the agency level. The number one complaint I still hear from my web colleagues is: “I can’t get my bosses to support me. I can’t get my agency to listen and go along. I want to implement these improvements, I want to try social media, I want to feature our top tasks, but I can’t get my bosses to agree.” It’s the major stumbling block for real progress in web management across government: getting that agency-level support and buy-in for a good solid web management strategy.

So here’s a thought. What if the Director of OMB challenged every agency to establish an agency-wide task force, modeled on HUD’s? The goal would be to develop a long-term, agency-wide strategic plan for web management at that agency, incorporating both agency-specific needs and goals and governmentwide goals and directives.

Direct the agencies to comprise those Task Forces primarily of career managers and staff. Take politics out of it. Make sure the agency web managers are part of the effort – after all, they know most about the day-to-day challenges. But include program staff and field staff, CIOs, Public Affairs, key managers and top staff.

Provide an advisory council - with thought leaders like Vint Cerf and Craig Newmark and Micah Sifry and web content and plain language specialists like Gerry McGovern and Annetta Cheek and Thom Haller - to serve as a resource to these agency efforts.

Require each agency task force to review and consider documents like the Web Managers Council white papers, recommendations from the CIO council, and recommendations from Macon Phillips and Vivek Kundra and Beth Noveck and other key administration officials with a stake in how government uses the web.

Use the Web Managers Council to monitor progress and results and to publish best practices.

What better time than at the beginning of an administration - when every part of every agency is scurrying to develop plans and goals that will rely in some way on the web - to come up with a single agency-wide strategy for web management? And what better way for agency web managers to present their challenges and get that buy-in and support they so need to move forward?

Having a strategic plan is obvious. But remember: how you do it is as important as what you do, if you want to make sure that plan works.

Anticipate While You Innovate

Last week, two events reminded me how important it is to think ahead and anticipate issues, even as you’re being innovative with social media.

First, I posted a blog piece that mentioned the Department of Homeland Security’s Facebook page. Later that same day, my friend, Gwynne Kostin (who manages Homeland Security’s web presence) posted a comment on that blog piece, correcting me. She said that the Department does not have an official Facebook page. So I went back to the DHS Facebook page I had seen. Yes, it is called “Department of Homeland Security.” Yes, it has the DHS seal. Yes, it shows the Department’s website as the point of contact. Yes, it includes the Department’s mission statement. And the discussion items look like official announcements (one mentions the Secretary). At first glance, it appears to be an official website, even to this experienced former web manager. The only clues that it’s not official are these:

1. The intro says: "This Group is dedicated to the Department of Homeland Security, and all of its supporters and affiliates." As I read it again, I realize this probably is not the kind of language a government agency would use to introduce its page – even on a social networking site.
2. The page administrator is in Cheyenne Wyoming. Not Washington, DC. That’s probably the best clue that this isn’t an official government page. Normally, federal government web content is managed from Washington.

Why does should this concern us? There are more than 1,600 members of this Facebook page. I wonder how many of them joined, believing they were becoming part of an official government discussion group. I wonder how many of them think that the comments they post in the discussion room are going to government officials and being considered in official policy-making. Will it impact public trust if they find that they’re being ignored?

Look-alike government pages on social networks are tough to deal with because you don’t control the website. But maybe some agreement across government to use common branding (e.g., always use an official seal and always use the words: this is an official site of the U.S. government) would help. If it appears that fraud is involved (someone is purposefully trying to impersonate a government agency to deliver misleading information), you can and should notify your legal department. Probably the most effective thing to do, for now, is to monitor social media sites to keep track of any sites that look like government sites. At least know who’s out there. Watch the discussions and jump in to let folks know where they can find the official web page.

The second event that got me thinking about the perils of innovation occurred at the end of an audio course for federal, state, and local governments that I taught last week. A participant asked me if I had any recommendations on ways to port their web content to their social network page. I responded that, not only am I unaware of any porting software, I don’t think they should be reposting official government web content on a social networking site. We have so much duplication on government websites as it is…I’d hate to see more. The person who asked this question is just trying to do what her bosses want her to do. And there’s another aspect of this issue…bosses who decide they need to be part of the social media wave, without having a “why.”

As with all innovation, you can stumble into those pitfalls if you don’t think ahead.

Social networking sites could be a good supplement to official government websites…maybe a good way to recruit employees and raise awareness of important public issues. Maybe a good way to do Q&A with the public. Maybe a way to have discussions. Note that I used the word “maybe.” Because the only way you should take on any new work is if your agency has the staff to manage it (write it, post it, monitor it, follow up on comments/discussions, update it). Most government agencies don’t have the staff to manage the content they already have posted, so be sure to give ample thought to how you’re going to juggle all this new content. That’s true for words, videos, audio files…anything you post anywhere. It’s all official content that has to be managed.

Web managers are starting to craft policies for, and best practices in, using social media. They will serve as important guidance and are much needed. But you don’t need to wait to be told what to do. There is enough experience now – just look around. Take the time to identify and address those potential pitfalls. Anticipate while you innovate.

Confession: I Don’t Want to Be “Friends” With the Government

I’m a Facebook junkie. It’s the first thing I look at in the morning and the last thing I look at before I go to bed. I visit it several times during the day. Why? Because I love the day-to-day updates from my friends and family. It helps me keep in touch with them. It’s a place where I know I’m going to be with people I know (at least a little) and like. So last night, I finally admitted to myself that – though I support government’s foray into social media - I just don’t want government agency updates mixed in with all my friends' and family's. I don’t want them in my “social network.” And I turned them all off. I don’t want to be “friends” with government agencies.

Early on, I was eager to see what government agencies were doing on social networking sites, and I “friended” or “fanned” (new verbs?) several. A couple – specifically EPA and USA.gov – have done a nice job with their Facebook presences. They get it that these are social networks – places where people are informal; and what they post and the words they use reflect that awareness. That is not true of some other agencies. In fact, some (and I won’t embarrass them here) just use Facebook to post their press releases. Not seeing too many “likes” on those announcements. Duh. Press releases are not friendly. And most people I know don’t like to be bombarded by propaganda in their social settings (harsh, but true).

Unfortunately, over time, even the friendly agency status updates started to annoy me. They seemed intrusive in a place where my friends and family and I are hanging out. So I gonged them.

It looks to me as though interest is (and I’m being charitable) modest at this point for government presence in social networking sites. EPA’s Facebook page has 2,200 fans, as does USA.gov. Department of Homeland Security’s Facebook page has 1,600 members. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has 163 “fans.” Considering that Facebook has some 75 million users in the U.S. alone, not sure that government is doing a resounding business in that realm.

Would I search out government agencies on Facebook or My Space to find government information? Hmm – I don’t think so. I’d go to USA.gov or the agency website. Or I’d just do a search on the web.

Do I still think government has a place in social media? You bet. Twitter (and other microblogs). Feeds (web, email, and mobile phone). Huge potential! In fact, a must. YouTube…at least for agencies with an education mission (Smithsonian, NASA, etc.). I’m not convinced yet that people go to YouTube to be informed. I do know they go because they’re curious. So that might be a reason to be there…if you have the right content. Again – forget that press stuff. Boring.

I follow my local government on Twitter, and I’m grateful for their helpful and responsible Tweets on weather alerts, traffic snarls, and community issues. I subscribe to both email and mobile phone feeds from my local/county governments’ “alerts” page. As long as they Tweet/feed useful, practical information that I want and need (and don’t over-do it!), I think this is a great way for government to use social media/web 2.0. If they start sending me press releases or bombarding me with Tweets every 10 minutes, I’ll gong them, too.

I think it’s fine to do some experimenting – see what sticks. But at some point, I think it’s best to put your investment where data shows a real payoff. I don’t think government has to be (or even should be) everywhere, to benefit from social media.

Are my opinions and actions an aberration or a trend? Time will tell. So what do you think?

Now the Real Innovation Begins

The Obama administration unleashed a tidal wave of innovation, and no where is that more apparent than in the web world. My former colleagues are finally emerging as heroes of innovation, freed from obscurity by fellow innovators in and outside of government. It’s been gratifying to watch people like famed web pioneer Craig Newmark discover and champion the web manager community…a community that has labored behind the scenes for so many years, trying to turn a federal government that considered itself “wholesale - not retail” into a citizen-centered services provider. The spirit of innovation has permeated camps and conferences and blogs and email discussions and social networking spaces for the past 6 months; and I don’t think there is a government web manager out there who isn’t floating in a sea of new ideas, stirred by the passion to serve. This is a very good thing.

But at some point, innovation in government always hits that brick wall of reality: the responsibility not only to serve citizens but also to respect and protect their rights and needs. Citizens count on government to do the right thing. Security and privacy and accessibility and open competition and fairness are important to citizens and the reality that government faces. These responsibilities can hobble innovation, and some innovators try to suppress or ignore these responsibilities - seldom a successful strategy. But I don’t think that’s going to happen this time.

I think these innovators will use their creativity and passion and “crowd-sourcing” to look at constraints and problems in the ways responsibilities have been managed in the past and find new ways to do the right thing for the American people. In most cases, it’s the processes that are the problem - not the principle involved. I think these innovators have what it takes to make the processes better. Heck, we all know it’s usually harder to fix what is than to do something entirely new. But I think these folks are up to that challenge. So let the real innovation begin!

Three interesting blog pieces caught my attention recently. The first is a very well done piece by Gwynne Kostin, who manages web operations at Homeland Security and is on the Federal Web Managers Council. It’s entitled, “What Is the Most Important Thing;“ and in it, Gwynne ponders how government can move forward with the promise of social media and other possibilities, while confronting the realities of existing legislation and policies. She likens it to an intersection, where innovation and responsibility to the public cross paths. How can we all get to our destinations?

The second, “Mixed Feelings About OGI Conference,“ by Jaime Maynard (portions repeated in Gwynne’s blog and posted originally on Govloop - a social networking site that is a wonderful innovation in itself) expressed the frustration that some (many?) government web managers are feeling as they go to camp after camp, conference after conference, and hear all the exciting things going on at other agencies - particularly in the area of social media - when they can’t break through the red tape or reticence of their own agencies to begin similar innovations.

The third piece is a reality check done by Tanya Gupta called, “Why Do Governments Keep Getting Technology Wrong?” Tanya reminds us that citizens still can’t find what they want on government websites and don’t understand why it’s so hard for government agencies to get that right.

Gwynne’s piece comes from an optimistic innovator who has experienced success and is frustrated by - but realistic about - the responsibilities that are hindering progress. She wants to address the issues at the intersection of innovation and responsibility and find some peaceful resolution so everyone can move forward. No doubt in my mind that Gwynne will be a leader in that effort.

Jaime is just plain frustrated. She probably represents a sizable portion of the web manager community who feels powerless to try new things. And then there’s Tanya, who reminds us of that elephant in the room - the one that some would rather circumvent than fix - those enormous government websites that need to be rewritten, reorganized, and reduced. Web managers know what Tanya wants. They’re just tired of trying to fix these out-of-control websites with no support. Hello - innovators?

We have skilled, passionate innovators in all the right places who can turn on their creative juices and find ground-breaking ways to carry out government’s responsibilities better. I think they’ll find ways to get rid of outdated processes and mandates and replace them with new, improved ways to achieve the same objectives. I think they’ll deal with the obstacles to making government websites really useful to citizens (don’t give up hope, Tanya!). They get it. And I think these energizer bunnies can do it!

As for you innovative web managers in agencies not yet caught up in the innovation cyclone... don't despair. You can still be innovative. Maybe you can’t move out on social media yet, but maybe you can come up with innovative approaches to fix those websites that so disappoint Tanya and other citizens. You can be ready with ideas for that time when your agencies do get onboard this change train. You can seek out innovators in and outside of your agencies and build alliances - start your own crowd-sourcing. You can get involved in the web manager community’s efforts to develop new initiatives. To paraphrase that old serenity saying: change what you can, accept what you can‘t change, and be smart enough to know the difference. There are always opportunities to be innovative.

Exciting times. Lots of new energy. Lots of pent-up energy being released. Social media, data.gov, public-private collaboration - all the new stuff is good. But I’m just as pleased to see these innovators turn their collective energy and talents to fixing the old stuff - helping government carry out its responsibilities better. That’s a huge - and difficult - challenge. Now the real innovation begins!

A National “Communicating” Strategy

Periodically, I review my older blog posts to see if I’ve changed my mind on something or if I want to jaw on a pet issue again. Today, I went back to a post from January 2008 where I laid out my fantasy strategy for improving the way government communicates with its citizens. That post was a follow-up to a white paper I had written and sent to every member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which was evaluating the reauthorization of the E-Gov Act. Well, I never heard boo from a single member of that Committee – you win some, and you lose some. But as I went through the post, I thought, “this is still good stuff.” The only thing I’d change is the title. Instead of calling it, “What’s Missing From E-Gov? The Mandate to Communicate,” I’d call it, “What We Need Is a National Communicating Strategy.”

Government’s communication problems aren’t limited to the way it provides services online. It’s more pervasive. Citizens often just can’t understand what government is saying…in publications, on the phone, on the internet. If the public can’t understand our services because we don’t explain them well or if the public can’t use our services because they’re too complicated or if the public doesn’t know about our services because we haven’t gone to them to tell them, then we aren’t serving effectively. If we don’t communicate effectively, we don’t serve effectively. Those concepts are inextricably linked.

Too often, government focuses on process – not results. We can tweak and tune our communication processes all we want; but if we aren’t communicating effectively with our audiences, it’s all for naught.

How to fix it? Government needs a comprehensive “communicating” strategy…a strategy that improves communication processes within the context of improving results. Are we getting the job done? Does the public understand what we say the first time we say it? Were they able to learn or do, based on what they read or heard? Are they able to use our services easily, without help? Are there citizens who walk away from, or avoid, our services because they just don’t understand them? Are we using the right delivery mechanisms (websites, print, phone, new media, etc.) to reach the intended audiences? Are we reaching out in the right ways to the right audiences?

I’d like to see Government work with Pew and/or other researchers to find out how we’re doing – are citizens able to understand what we say? - and how we could do better. Based on those outcomes, I’d like to see agencies consolidate and coordinate communication efforts within and across government, based on what the public wants and needs, cost effectiveness, and common sense. I’d like to see them prune and sharpen and restructure accordingly. Test the changes before implementing them permanently, and keep testing and re-testing to make sure they’re still achieving the results we want.

I’d like to see communications professionals and citizen service experts (web content managers and experts, new media directors, public affairs officers, experts in public engagement, plain language experts, writers, audience analysts), both inside and outside government, brought in/put in charge of getting this right. If that includes public/private ventures and/or partnerships with other levels of government (federal, state, local), that’s all the better.

I’d like to see government establish performance measures in terms of results:

• How many more citizens did we serve because we are communicating better and because we improved our outreach?
• Did we reduce the time it took them to get the service?
• Were they able to understand/use it on the first try?
• Could they get help quickly if they couldn’t use it on the first try?
• Did we keep looking for breakdowns, and – when we found them – did we fix them quickly?

And, of course and absolutely – I’d like to see government involve the public in this strategic planning process. Heavily and routinely. Asking for both their experience and their ideas. And not just from your offices in Washington DC or through surveys. Get out of your offices and actually talk to the public, and listen to them. Communicating to improve communicating.

I think we need a national communicating strategy…a strategy that focuses on results. A strategy that shows that government cares that citizens can really use the services we provide. A strategy that addresses the question: are we really communicating?

Balancing Transparency With Volume and Accuracy

Transparency is a terrific concept. Heck, government web managers were trying to make our agencies “transparent” from the get-go. Oh, we didn’t call it that back in 1995. We muttered the mantra: if it can be public, then it should be public. But it was the same concept. We worked hard, scouring the nooks and crannies of our agencies to shine the light on everything that had been said, published, decided, or discussed. We built up huge websites, full of everything imaginable. We ended every meeting or conversation with, “and let’s put this on the website.” Now, we have wonderful new ways to inform and serve citizens through the web – new ways to make our agencies even more transparent…blogs and Facebook pages and Twitter accounts and videos on YouTube and wikis and more. But I’m worried.

I worry about the fact that we couldn’t keep up with the web content we had 5 years ago. I worry that, despite noble goals, web managers have not been able to trim their bloated websites or take down websites that no longer are needed. I’m guessing way more new content has gone up than has come down, in the past 5 years. Who is monitoring all this content to make sure it’s current and accurate? How are web teams and program managers dealing with all that volume?

And now, with new content going up on sites not even belonging to the agency (e.g., Facebook, YouTube), who is monitoring that content to make sure it’s current and accurate? Who is making sure that those blog posts done by officials who have left the building are pulled down or moved to some archive area? How are you making sure that important information contained in those posts is maintained?

I worry about this. Why? Because public trust suffers when you publish content that is outdated or no longer accurate. What if someone uses that content to make a decision or take an action that turns out to be bad or wrong? What if your outdated content contradicts other official government content that is current? What does that do to public trust? How does it make your agency look?

Isn’t part of doing the right thing making sure that everything is right?

So what’s the answer? Well, I guess one strategy is to just do nothing and let nature take its course. If you hear about something that’s wrong, fix it. No news is good news. Maybe that strategy will work…for awhile… But I’m optimistic…I think you want to get this right. So here are a few management actions that could help:

• Certification: When we finally faced this problem at HUD, we started a quarterly content certification program. Every quarter, each top executive had to certify, in writing, to the Deputy Secretary that all his/her organization’s web content was current and accurate. The very first quarter we used this process, one sub-organization alone pulled down some 5,000 files that were obsolete. And every quarter thereafter, web managers scrambled to make hundreds of content corrections discovered in the review process. It’s not a perfect process, but it’s a good start. I’d like to see every agency adopt a similar review process.
• Archives: Five years ago, Sam Gallagher (at HUD) had the great idea to create a separate “archives” site…a website that would contain all those reports and memos and initiatives from former administrations, information about programs that had been killed or expired, old funding decisions, and other content that was no longer current, but that the public – especially researchers and historians – might want to use in the future. Every page would be clearly labeled “archive,” and the public would be warned that the content was no longer being reviewed. Even the URL for the content would include the term “archive.” Great idea. Every agency should consider it.
• Metadata: I’ve had mixed emotions about metadata. Is it really worth the effort? Well, I think it is IF you really use it to manage your content. If you do no more than use “creator” (listing the organization) and “date created,” you can sort out older content and know which organization to hold accountable for review. Put in a “last reviewed” date, and you can flag anything older than 3 months or 6 months and make sure it’s checked. The trick, of course, is to establish standard metadata across the agency and make sure all content contributors are entering it. Then you (the web manager) have to make the time to pull reports and use them to monitor and update content. It can be quite a process…but it also could really improve the quality of your content.
• Tagging: I hope your agency has policies and procedures that specify what you post and, more important, who can post content on outside websites, such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. That will help control your content. In addition, some of these sites allow you to “tag” the content with generic terms that can help people who search on those terms find that content. Establish rules for tagging and use standard tags on any content your agency posts, and you should be able to search on those tags to find and review your content. Again, you need to do this regularly to make sure your content stays current and accurate.
• Spring cleaning: Let’s not forget the most obvious action: reduce the amount of content you have to manage. An annual “spring cleaning” initiative can work wonders. Challenge your web managers and contributors to go through their content and see where they can consolidate or edit or delete. Use your stats to identify those pages that are never used (come on – we all have them). Either make them worth visiting or just get rid of them.

Transparency is great! But in your quest to be open with the public, don’t lose sight of the importance of making sure all that content is correct. Maintaining public trust is worth the effort.

Oh Top Tasks, Where Art Thou?

For the past 5 years, the Federal Web Managers Council has had one priority: improve the efficiency and effectiveness of citizens’ top tasks and make it easy for citizens to find them. Why are “top tasks” so important? Typically, the public comes to a website to do something…I want to get a passport…I want to buy a home…I want to sign up for food stamps. They want to accomplish those tasks quickly - get in, get it done, get out, and move on to something else in their busy lives. If you want to satisfy your customers, you put those frequently-used tasks (think of them as the most popular tasks) where citizens can find them easily…you put them on the screen where the web user’s eye goes first.

So I got to wondering…how easy is it to find those popular tasks?

Nicole Burton – GSA’s Usability Specialist – uses this chart when she teaches courses on website usability. It’s based on user experience, showing how people scan a web screen. The red areas are the places their eyes go first; yellow areas second; and green areas third. If you want your web audience to pay attention to something, then, you should put it in the red area.

I went through several of the Cabinet-level agency websites, doing two things:

• Before I visited the site, I picked one or two “tasks” I thought a large number of citizens might want to complete and then I tried to find a path to those tasks on the home page; and
• Once I got to the site, I tried to identify that agency’s top tasks by the wording and placement on the home page.

My experience was mixed. I’ll give you a just a couple of examples.

On the EPA site, my pre-determined tasks were:

1. I want to know what environmental problems are in my neighborhood
2. I want to do something to protect the environment

Good news. I did find a path to the answers for both. In a section called “My Environment,” I can type my zip code and get maps and other information about the environment in my area. I can “Pick 5 for the environment” or click on “Protect the Environment” and get clear and specific ideas for things I can do to help the environment. So EPA gets an A for letting me achieve my top tasks. But placement should be better. “Pick 5…” and “Protect the Environment” are in the red quadrant – but just barely. “My Environment” is in the lower left corner of the screen – in the green area (and my screen is set at 1680 X 1050, so I see more content in a screen than others may see).

A large rotating billboard graphic at the top of the screen takes up a lot of space. Might be better to shrink (or get rid of) that (annoying) feature and move the top tasks up. Still, I think EPA does a pretty good job.

On the Department of Interior site, I looked for a list or a map showing the national parks. Surely that would be a top task. I thought I’d hit a “bingo” right off the bat. First thing I see in the navigation column on the left is: How Do I…” and the first item is “Get a National Parks Pass.” OK – it’s not exactly a listing of parks, but I figured this could be a path to that list. Wrong. I came to a very wordy and long press release.

I looked through the rest of the topics in the left…webcams, For Teachers, For DOI Employees…I don’t see anything there for me. In fact, I don’t see anything in the first screen about national parks. So I started scrolling down. In the lower right of the second screen (and this home page is way too long - over 4 screens), I found a link to the National Park Service website. When I clicked on it, it went to an (annoying) pop-up that, indeed, did have a link to a map of parks. So I was eventually able to complete my task – but it took a lot of work. Further, I really wasn’t sure what Interior’s top tasks are, based on my review of the home page.

Oh top tasks, where art thou?

I’ve come to 3 conclusions.

• Top tasks probably are there – somewhere - on most agency level sites…but they can be very hard to find. Often they’re mixed in with more esoteric items or links. Often they are articulated using terms that the general public wouldn’t recognize or use. So the best practice here is to separate the top tasks from other links and to use terms that the public uses to describe the task. Action words (e.g., apply for passports, learn how to buy a home) really help.
• There’s no consistency across government about where to place top tasks on the home page. Something as simple as agreement across government to put the top tasks on the left side of the home page, in that top “red” quadrant could make it easier for the public to find and use top tasks across government.
• There’s no consistency across government about how to label top tasks. Again, something as simple as agreement across government to put the links to top tasks under a header, “Do you want to…” or “Most Requested” or “Most Popular” could make the public’s experience so much better.

One thing more…and it’s important. How you organize your website says a lot about your priorities. Many of the cabinet agency sites I reviewed use much of the “red zone” space on narrative, topics, or links that promote the agency or the administration, when most of the public comes to government websites looking for narrative, topics, or links that get them to the tasks they want to complete. Frankly, it’s annoying to have to wade through that organization-centric content when I just want to do what I want to do. I'll think better of you if you put my needs first.

Oh top tasks, where art thou?

Related Links

Top Task Management For Websites (Gerry McGovern)

It’s Time for Chief Web Communications Officers

So many exciting things going on in the government web world…so many opportunities. The Chief CIO is out there with a great agenda. The White House Director of New Media is turning government as we knew it upside down. The advocates for transparency and citizen engagement are getting action. But I still don’t see any movement to address the huge void in the way the government manages the content of its websites. So – once again (because I’ve been yipping about this for years) – I say: it’s time for Chief Web Communications Officers!

There’s no need to restate the case for the critical role government websites play in delivering government services to citizens, offering a platform for transparency and engagement, and communicating government news. Who isn’t already convinced? So let’s get down to the point…these huge communications devices need real top-level leadership.

The Federal Web Managers Council is fighting mightily to get attention on critical problems, convene the various players to try to get consensus on major policy issues, and muster the advocates to bring focus to the plight of government websites. But they don’t sit at the Office of Management and Budget, where policy is made. They need someone who does. Most of them (as agency Web Managers) don’t even sit in the executive management meetings where agency management decisions that involve using the websites are made. The quality and potential of government websites cannot advance as it should until someone with substantial knowledge and experience with managing government websites is sitting at those tables where key policy and management decisions are made.

The Director of OMB should designate a Chief Web Communications Officer (CWCO) for the government and should direct each agency head to designate a Chief Web Communications Officer for the agency. The CWCOs should have the same stature in the agency as the CIOs and Public Affairs Directors/New Media Directors, with whom they must work. That would give the agency a powerful triumvirate for implementing the President’s directive for transparency and engagement and for ensuring that the public gets the high quality of service that their taxes pay for.

OK – some of you are still scratching your heads. What exactly does the CWCO do? Three major roles:

1. Serve as editor-in-chief/publisher of the agency’s website(s). Make sure editorial guidelines and standards are in place and enforced to ensure the quality of website content…make sure that content really communicates. Work with the CIO and Public Affairs Director/New Media Director to take advantage of new technologies to improve the quality and delivery of content. Work with agency managers to produce and maintain quality content to carry out the agency mission. Ensure that content is created once and delivered many ways.
2. Serve as director of citizen services. Assess and monitor citizens’ wants and needs and work with agency managers to address those needs. Establish and enforce customer service standards. Measure customer satisfaction and work with top management to improve customer service.
3. Work with other CWCOs, CIOs, and Public Affairs/New Media Directors across government to create governmentwide strategies to improve web communications. Collaborate, consolidate, and coordinate web content and content delivery governmentwide. Work with the Office of Citizen Services at GSA to improve citizen service across government.

The Chief CWCO at OMB directs web content policy and strategy, with the Council of CWCOs. I can even tell you who’d be great in this job, By Golly (but I won’t…hmm…spell it out here because she’d probably clobber me!).

And what happens to the FWMC? Well, hopefully, many/most of those agency web managers will be elevated to CWCO status - the same way many IT Directors were elevated to CIO status 15 years ago. Many of those agency web managers have all the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for that executive status. They’re ready to sit at the table – they just need an invitation.

Citizens depend on government websites for government information, services, data, and interaction. Agencies depend on government websites to carry out their programs. Many agencies couldn’t function anymore without websites to help them do their work. The people who run government websites need (and deserve) status to improve performance and impact. They need someone at OMB whose agenda is their agenda. Yes indeed…it’s time for Chief Web Communications Officers.

Related Posts

Three Pieces Make a Whole Better Online Government
Can’t We Have One Federal Government – At Least Online?
Worried About Too Many People In the Sandbox? Governance to the Rescue!
It’s Time for Governance

What Does the Public Want on Government Websites?

Last week, I wrote about how important it is for agency managers to listen to – and honor – what the public wants on government websites. So I got to thinking: I wonder what the public does want on government websites these days? I’ve always championed using government websites to provide services. But with the emphasis on transparency and engagement and a new administration at the helm, is that still what the public wants? I decided to run my own little unscientific survey to find out. Some of the results were a bit surprising.

OK – big disclaimer: there is nothing statistically valid about this survey. It was completely informal. I set up a short survey form on Survey Monkey and sent out an email to 110 family, friends, and acquaintances asking them to respond. I also asked them to forward it to their friends. I did not collect any identifying information, so I have absolutely no idea who took the survey. I can tell you that my mailing list included people diverse in age, race, geographic location, economic background, and political preference. I specifically excluded anyone who is a web manager or who is an advocate or consultant for government websites. I gave them 6 days to take the survey, and then I stopped responses. In all, 50 people took the survey.

The Results?

Question 1. In your opinion, what purpose(s) should federal government websites serve? You may choose more than one answer.

• To provide government services to citizens (42 of 50 chose this)
• To make government data available to citizens so they can use it as they see fit (35/50)
• To communicate the administration's policies, initiatives, and accomplishments (30/50)
• To engage citizens in their government so they can be part of the decision-making (27/50)

Question 2. In your opinion, what is the most important function of federal government websites? (choose one)

• To provide government services to citizens (40%)
• To make government data available to citizens so they can use it as they see fit (26%)
• To engage citizens in their government so they can be part of the decision-making (24%)
• To communicate the administration's policies, initiatives, and accomplishments (10%)

Question 3. In your opinion, what is the second most important function of federal government websites? (choose one)

• To make government data available to citizens so they can use it as they see fit (38%)
• To provide government services to citizens (22%)
• To engage citizens in their government so they can be part of the decision-making (22%)
• To communicate the administration's policies, initiatives, and accomplishments (18%)

Question 4. In your opinion, what is the third most important function of federal government websites? (choose one)

• To communicate the administration's policies, initiatives, and accomplishments (37%)
• To engage citizens in their government so they can be part of the decision-making (26.1%)
• To provide government services to citizens (23.9%)
• To make government data available to citizens so they can use it as they see fit (13%)
  * Note – only 46 responded to this question

I gave respondents an opportunity to explain their choices, and I found some of the answers quite interesting. Here are just a few examples:

• Websites are the primary way to access government services. It is extremely difficult to gain access to a real person in almost any agency
• No one needs any administration – Republican or Democrat – telling us their accomplishments. That’s unproductive advertising for a cause. Give the people the facts and let them tell the administration how effective they are at the ballot box.
• Informed engagement is an essential part of an “educated citizenry,” a cornerstone of our democracy…
• …The more open we are, the more honest a democracy we’ll have…
• Notification of existing or proposed policies and initiatives is essential for private and commercial planning and decision making.
• 80% of data manipulation is performed for selfish or wrong reasons, usually by amateurs…Let serious individuals (scholars, experts, investigative reporters) obtain data thru freedom of information laws.
• …In a democracy, the state is obligated to present neutral, nonpartisan information…
• …the average citizen needs to be able to express his/her opinions so government can base their decisions on what the REAL public wants and not what some for-profit activist THINKS we want
• Clear communication concerning government services is essential

What Did I Learn?

Well, first I learned that I’m not very good at choosing the words for surveys. I should have explained the first option – “to provide services to citizens.” A couple of people said they didn’t know what I meant by “services.” So FYI – by “services” I mean such things as “apply for a passport” or “learn how to buy a home” or “apply for student loans.”

The number one thing people (still) want on government websites is services. Confirms what I always heard when I was a government web manager. So keep featuring those “top tasks,” web managers!

I wasn’t surprised to see “data” come in second – transparency is of great interest these days. But I was very surprised to see “engagement” come in last! The more I thought about it, the more I realized this mirrors some conversations I’ve had with people who said they weren’t so interested in participating in government, through the web or any other way; but they definitely wanted government websites to provide services so they didn’t have to go to an office or try to get a human being on the phone to get them.

The biggest surprise to me was the third place: "communicating the administration’s policies, initiatives, and accomplishments" (aka “message”). I wonder if this came in third because we’re still in the early stages of a new administration and there’s a lot of interest in finding out what the new administration is doing. Would it remain in third place (instead of dropping to fourth place) if we were further along in this administration of if another President were in office? Not so sure.

What’s The Point?

The point is this: listening to the public is not a one-time thing. Government managers – both web managers and program managers – need to keep asking the public what they want on government websites and respect what they tell you…no matter how excited you are about what you think the public wants and needs. Do those reality checks. And when they tell you what they want, allocate your time, resources, and website space accordingly. Listen to them. Honor what they tell you.

If We Engage, Will You Listen?

Citizen engagement is a big ticket item in all parts of government these days. That’s wonderful – long overdue. But I wonder – will government leaders really listen?

Here’s something you may not know. Web managers have been “engaging” citizens since 1995 and – more important – listening to, and using, what we learned from the public. How?

• We got thousands and thousands of emails from the public, telling us what we were doing right and – more often – what we were doing wrong. We made changes based on what they said and asked.
• We did usability testing, where we literally watched the public use our websites and sort content into piles that made sense to them, and we made improvements based on their experience.
• We went out and talked to the public in focus groups and at public demonstrations of our websites, asking them what is most important to them. We adjusted our sites (both design and words) accordingly.
• We looked at the words they use when they search and then tried to incorporate those terms in our websites (OK – maybe that’s stretching “engagement” – but it is using their input to improve government).
• We analyzed our metrics – what pages do the public use most? What pages do the public use least? How can we clear the clutter so we can get them to what they want most?
• We posted customer satisfaction surveys and used “comments” forms to get feedback…and we changed our websites – both design and content - based on that feedback.
• We shared our best practices for listening to our audiences and encouraged our peers to use the same techniques, so all government websites would be what the public wants them to be.

For years, government web managers have operated from this basic truth: if you listen to your audience, they will tell you what to put on your website – and where to put it. Most government web managers know what their audiences want. The problem is this: too many times, agency leaders don’t listen to the public or don’t share the goal to feature what the public wants; and web managers are over-ruled.

Go to any of the Cabinet-level agency websites today. Look at the front (home) page. Can you tell what citizens want most from that agency? Imagine what you, as a citizen, might want from that agency – do you see it on the front page? If the public is the customer/partner, shouldn’t what we want most (or what most of us want) be front and center on that home page, so we can find it easily?

Here’s a fact – the public doesn’t care much about press releases. Yet if you look at just about any of those Cabinet agency websites, you’ll see prime real estate (the top left and center of the screen – the way the eye scans) devoted to news from and about the agency. I fold into that category those ubiquitous photos of agency heads that are featured prominently on home pages (does Google post photos of its executives on the home page?). In many cases, you have to look pretty hard to find that information or those online services that citizens want most. Agency leaders – are you listening?

I remain optimistic that this is a new day and that the voices – both inside and outside government – who are calling for citizen engagement and involvement in their government will cause agency leaders to really listen to the public – and act on what they hear. I’d like to think that if the public tells you that they care more about how to get a loan or how to apply for a passport or how to find a job than about your news announcements or speeches, you’ll listen to us and organize your websites accordingly.

Please – don’t ask us to engage if you won’t listen.

Related Post
USANews.gov?

Related Links
Best Practices for Home Pages (from the Federal Web Managers Council)
Press Releases Are Awful Web Content (Gerry McGovern)

Government Of, By, and FOR the People

I just read a little article quoting Congressman Mike Honda saying, "...Congress must take advantage of Web 2.0 technologies to transform the relationship between citizens and government. Instead of viewing the public as a customer for services, I believe that we should empower citizens to become our partners in shaping the future of our nation." I realize he was talking about Congress – not necessarily the Executive Branch. But my feeling is the same - this doesn’t have to be an either/or situation, folks. It should be both. It must be both!

Be clear. I’m all for citizen engagement. I’ve been advocating using the internet to involve citizens in their government longer than some of the current prominent advocates (see HUD’s State of the Web report that I wrote back in 2001). But Lincoln got it right, in my book. Government should be of, by, and FOR the people. So in our quest to start the “of” (transparency – because we own it) and “by” (engagement – because we should be part of it), let’s not forget the “for” (the services that government provides for its citizens, paid for by their taxes).

Believe it or not, some folks really don’t want to engage in their government. I’ve been surprised when I’ve talked to folks who have no interest. But they still want – and depend on – government services. Whether or not they become your partners, they always will be your customers.

So why did this article get my dander up? Because, Web Managers, I worry that – in your excitement to work on the “of” and “by” stuff right now – you might be neglecting the extensive work that still needs to be done on the “for.” I know that many of you have been chomping at the bit to move out on transparency and engagement for years. I know that there’s a lot of pressure/support both inside and outside government for you to move out on this. And, heck, it’s fun! But you’ve still got that elephant in the room – those way-too-many, morbidly obese, poorly written, poorly organized websites that citizens do (and often must) use to get government services.

When I look at some of the major government websites, I still see press releases and agency news where top services (tasks) should be featured, so the public can find them. When I look at some of those services, I still find convoluted organization that makes no sense to me and, more commonly, explanations and instructions (writing) that are – well – just plain bad. I haven’t come across one single government website recently that doesn’t need pruning and cleanup and improvements to make those services easier to find, more useful, and more usable.

I know fixing that “for” stuff isn’t glamorous. I know it can be slow-moving, thankless drudgery. I know you sometimes have trouble getting support for making the changes that turn worthless web junk into real online service. But I believe it’s the most important thing you do. If not you – then who?

So yes, absolutely facilitate engagement and transparency. Proselytize. Encourage policy makers to use the web to interact (both ways) with citizens. Design your website so that opportunities for engagement are obvious and usable. Encourage program managers to get their data out there and make government more transparent. Take advantage of the backing you have now to make government “of” and “by” the people. But don’t lose site of your obligation to finish (if that's possible) what you started – to improve the way government provides services FOR its citizens.

Government should be “of,” “by,” and “for” the people. We can – and should - have all three.

Related post:

To Everything There Is A Season

Super-sites: Let's Not Forget the Basics

Like many Americans who are interested in government transparency, I looked forward to seeing Data.gov, one of the new "super-sites" being developed to carry out and monitor the President's initiatives. Not much there, for now; but I know they have big plans. Kudos on that!

But wait a minute. As I looked closer, I noticed that some things were missing. For starters...who owns this site? It should be obvious, if not by branding on the page or a statement at the bottom of the page that tells you clearly that this site is an official site of the U.S. Government, at least by the information on the "about" page or the "contact" page. Not there. I finally, clicked on the FAQ link, and...skim, skim, skim...there it is! FAQ 6 tells me that GSA is managing the site on behalf of the federal CIO Council.

Intrigued, I wondered if other web content requirements and best practices were missing from Data.gov. So I pulled one of the convenient checklists that the Federal Web Managers Council has published on Webcontent.gov and did a spot check.

Well, I don't see a linking policy. Maybe they aren't using any links yet. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Oh...but there's no "search" tool for the site. Yes, you can search the databases. But you also should be able to search the site. Or at least there should be a sitemap. And plain language. Hmm...not so sure about that.

OK - enough on Data.gov. What about some of the other new government super-sites that have debuted recently? Are they following the content requirements and best practices? I took a look at Recovery.gov. Better - but not perfect. Similar problems on the branding. I was able to learn that the site is owned by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, under both the "about" and "content" tabs. But then I read the FAQs and learned that the Board isn't functioning yet and that an interim cross-agency council is doing the reporting. Wish I could have found that information in the "about" or "contact" sections. And I'm betting that someone (Treasury? GSA?) is actually managing the site on behalf of the council. But no mention of that. Also, no linking policy that I could find. Might be other issues - I stopped there.

Look folks. This isn't about nit-picking. This is about making every single federal government website - including super-sites - as useful, usable, and visitor-friendly as possible. The content requirements and best practices for government websites are readily available on Webcontent.gov. I can tell you - because I was part of the group that put them together - that those requirements and best practices aren't just some arbitrary bureaucratic nonsense. They come from laws, regulations, OMB policies, and other official documents aimed at aiding and protecting the public. They come from thorough research; extensive discussion and vetting among many, many government and non-government web content professionals; and current usability research. The purpose was - and is- to "make U.S. government websites the most citizen-focused and visitor-friendly in the world."

As my sainted grandmother told me repeatedly, "a job worth doing is worth doing right." I know there's great pressure to get these super-sites up quickly. But it just doesn't take that much extra time to get it right.

So...to the owners of these super-sites (both those that are out there now and those that are being developed): please, consult with the Federal Web Managers Council and use Webcontent.gov to make sure the content of your sites is as useful and uasble as it can be and that it complies with all the same requirements that agency websites must meet. In your sincere desire to move ahead, please don't forget the basics that make U.S. government websites the most citizen-focused and visitor-friendly in the world.

Three Pieces Make A Whole Better Online Government

Last week’s Government Web Manager Conference was historic in many ways. But one of the most significant outcomes is that Macon Phillips (the government’s New Media lead) and Vivek Kundra (the government’s head CIO) acknowledged the third distinct group of players at the table: Web Managers. Neither of them was there to assert authority over Web Managers or suggest that Web Managers should be subject to their oversight. They simply encouraged them to step up and do what Web Managers do best: deliver government online services to citizens so they are useful, usable, and effective. There are three distinct pieces to this puzzle of online government, and we citizens need all three to fit together seamlessly if we are to be served well.

So why is this significant? Well, let’s clear the air. It's no secret there have been some rubs between Web Managers and CIOs and Public Affairs Offices (where New Media Directors are emerging) over the years. If we can put those on the table, learn from them, and move on, citizens will be much better served.

Web Managers and Public Affairs Offices have grappled over “mission” versus “message” from the beginning. Web Managers are most interested in featuring top tasks – those government services that citizens want most. Public Affairs Offices are charged with promoting the agency’s and administration’s message. Where’s the rub? Sometimes there are issues over top billing, and sometimes that line between “mission” and “message” can be pretty thin.

I think the rub between Web Managers and CIOs goes back to the “E-Government” program. Congress, the President, and OMB gave the lead (and the money) for the E-Gov program to the CIOs and pretty much ignored Web Managers. In fact, you need both strong technology and strong audience knowledge and communication skills to serve the public online. So it was destined to be a problem from the get-go.

But all of that is history. The good thing about history is that you can learn from it and not make the same mistakes. Which brings me back to last week’s Web Manager Conference. Our current leaders put all of that behind us and said, basically, “we recognize that there are three pieces in this puzzle and we need all three if we’re going to create the best possible government.” Bravo! Onward and upward.

So what, specifically, should we look to each group to do?

New Media

Macon laid out three objectives for his team:

• Support the President's message,
• Use technology to introduce a new level of transparency, and
• Public participation: trying to understand how people can have an impact on their government, and how to better structure those things.

CIOs

Vivek has identified 5 major goals

• Open and transparent government
• Lowering the cost of government. Doing a better job defining requirements and making better choices about technology investments.
• Cyber-security.
• Participatory democracy. Creating meaningful ways for citizens to engage in government decision-making.
• Innovation. Finding new and less-costly ways to use technology for the benefit of all.

Web Managers

The Federal Web Managers Council – and the broader Government Web Manager Forum – has laid out this strategic plan:

“We believe the public should be able to:

• Accomplish their most top government tasks online quickly and easily
• Access government content online whenever and however they need it
• Have direct online interactions with their government
• Trust government web content to be accurate, timely, easy to understand, and coordinated across agencies

To achieve this vision, we’ve chosen one primary goal on which our community will focus: Improve how the public accomplishes their most top government tasks online.”

These are all great goals, and many of these goals are pretty distinct. But yes – there are a few areas of overlap…transparency and citizen engagement are the most obvious. Those overlaps will have to be discussed, and the groups will have to collaborate. Sure, there will still be rubs. But you know what? That’s healthy tension. Where they don’t have complete agreement (or autonomy), they’ll have to be innovative in finding ways to satisfy them all. And healthy tension normally produces the best possible results for citizens, in the end. I read a great quote recently: “Without resistance, we cannot fly!” Indeed.

So now what? Well, a good place to start would be for the leaders of those three puzzle parts to get together to agree on: what each will do, where they will coordinate, and how they will communicate regularly, so they can address any issues before they become debilitating.

What's past is past, and the future looks incredibly bright! These are the right three pieces, and – together – they can make a whole better government for you and me.

Courage, Web Managers!

Web management is not for the faint of heart – at least not in the government. You must have the courage of your convictions. You must show your passion to serve through your willingness to try – and fail. You have to bang your head against the wall over and over until you break through. You have to speak up until you are heard. No, you won’t always succeed. But you must never stop trying to do the right thing to serve the American people, including venturing into brand new territory. That takes courage.

Web management in the government has been a grassroots effort from the beginning. That mantra, “proceed until apprehended,” came legitimately. We were doing things our bosses had no knowledge of. We stepped up and took our chances, doing our best to make right guesses so no one would stop us. At first, our bosses left us alone because they really didn’t know how many people were out there seeing our websites. Eventually – and I believe this is true today – they had to rely on us because we knew more about web management than they did. You know what? There’s nothing wrong with that. But it is such a foreign concept in government where control is the culture. And not every boss is comfortable with the risks involved.

I’ve been reading the notes from the recent Government Web Managers Conference – oh, I am so happy for and proud of my former colleagues! – and two things jumped out at me.

• Though some web managers are still stymied by their bosses – and wish there would be top level endorsement/push, telling their bosses to listen to them and/or get onboard – most understand they have to take the lead and are willing to try, risk, proselytize, be fearless, and act on their passion to serve.
• Top experts, both within and outside of government, were consistent in their advice: try it; risk failure; do the right thing to serve the public. Don’t wait to be told what to do – just do it. Figure it out. Make it happen. Oh, I do so love this way of thinking! But it takes enormous courage for a government employee to act on this advice. This is NOT the way government works, normally.

One colleague recently told me that, indeed, he did proceed…but he was apprehended. That does happen, and I am not diminishing the impact of those roadblocks nor the honest fear they generate. Government lawyers can be formidable. But they also can be reasonable. Government bosses can make bad decisions – but they also can change their minds if they are convinced that it’s the right thing. Sometimes you have to table an idea and wait for more favorable conditions to try it again. Sometimes you have to wait out a boss or some other obstacle. But don’t give up. Look for the opportunities. Muster your courage. And squeak! You might be surprised who will show up with that can of oil.

Government web managers, as a whole, have enjoyed way more success than they have suffered setbacks, in large part due to their courage. That the Federal Web Managers Council published two White Papers and got those in the hands of the new administration is testimony to their courage. That this Government Web Managers Conference took place, with high level administration officials from the White House, OMB, and GSA wanting to be there, urging web managers to be innovative, respecting your enthusiasm and ideas, and applauding your moxie…oh my gosh…that’s a huge tribute to your courage.

So my message is this: if there ever was a time in government web management to step it up, it’s now. You have more high level support than you’ve ever had. If you hit that wall, start looking for the way around it. If you are certain that something is the right thing to do, find a way to do it. If you get scared or beat down or over-ruled, “pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start all over again.” Use the web manager community to help you. Don’t let fear and isolation paralyze you and prevent you from moving forward. Your colleagues are a huge resource. Collaborate. Partner. Work together.

If you take risks to do the right thing, others will, too. So be brave. Show your courage. We citizens are counting on you to stand up for what’s right for us.

“A great leader's courage to fulfill his vision comes from passion, not position” - John Maxwell

“Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do” - John Wooden

When Web Managers Gather, It's Good For You and Me

Note: I posted this blog piece just before the last annual government Web Managers Conference, in May 2008. That wonderful conference is being held again this week, and I think it’s worth it to voice these thoughts again and cheer on my former colleagues.

This week, some 500 government web managers from across the country will gather in Washington to hear new ideas from administration leaders, network, and build energy toward implementing the initiatives that come with a new President. This annual meeting of government web managers is a terrific use of their time, as far as the public is concerned, because – for a few hours – they are government web managers – not HUD web managers or State Department Web Managers or Indiana web managers or Chicago web managers. And when web managers start thinking and acting collectively, their power – and their results – increases exponentially.

For those couple of days, they raise their heads and look around at all that they have in common. They hear from thought leaders. They share ideas. They nod at common problems and common goals. They make notes about new ideas they want to try. They seek out one another at lunch or after a session to talk more about possibilities or get more “how to’s.” They form alliances and talk about working together to make all government websites better. They take time to think about those they serve: the public. They get re-charged…they get excited. That’s a good thing for you and me, fellow citizen.

If you’re one of those smart web managers going to the Web Managers Conference, have a great time! Soak it all up. Meet your colleagues. Seek collaboration. Get on board with top tasks and social media and all the other challenges and opportunities ahead. Go home inspired! And stay connected with your peers, after the conference. Strengthen those ties. You serve us best when you serve together.

Oh – and if you weren't able to attend this year (the conference is sold out!), be sure to sign up early next year. This is a “don’t miss” opportunity! It’s good for you. It’s good for those you serve.

Can’t We Have One Federal Government – At Least Online?

The public views the federal government as “one.” They say, “I pay my taxes to THE government”…not to “THE HUD” and “THE EPA” and “THE HHS.” Yes, I know…there are thousands of federal agencies and sub-agencies, and you are not accustomed to working together to present a united face to the public. But from a citizen’s point of view, you are THE federal government. So can’t you act like one, at least online?

Why should you act as one? Well, citizens don’t know which agency handles what; and frankly, we don’t care. We just want you to do it or fix it or answer it. We don’t like getting redundant or conflicting information, depending on which agencies we talk to. We want one answer – the right answer - and we want it fast. We don’t want to have to bounce from one agency to another to accomplish a task. We want seamless public service. We want you to tell us where to start and what to do next. We want you to connect the dots…don’t make us figure it out. You may be physically located all over the place, and you may report to different agency heads. But at least on the web, you should be one.

OK – you get it. So, what could the federal government do to look/act like “one,” at least online? Most of you have already figured this out. Do across government what many agencies already have done across the agency:

• Organize content by topics – not by organizational components
• Move to one common design
• Establish one style guide (publication rules) that covers all content

Consolidate content around topics

We who managed government websites in the early days learned very quickly that citizens want content by topic – not by organizational segment. Today, I couldn’t find a single major government website designed around organizational components. Yet citizens have to navigate through multiple federal agencies to get all there is to know from THE government, on a subject. And they have to do their own analysis of all that content to figure out what works for them, filtering out duplication and – sometimes - even conflicting information.

Government web managers have talked about consolidating content by topic for many years. In fact, there have been some preliminary efforts in this direction. Certainly, one of the main goals of USA.gov is to aggregate content across government, by topic. But USA.gov is a directory of links. It does not attempt to consolidate and prune “like” content or tell citizens which links are better than others or tell you where to start and where to go next. Pick just about any topic page on USA.gov, and you can see the problem. Way too much content…way too redundant…way too hard to figure out which is best for you.

Create cross-agency content groups on major topics (housing, food, health) convened by staff at USA.gov, to sort it out…eliminate duplication…put it in logical sequences. Post basic information about a topic right on USA.gov and then link to more specific or esoteric information on agency sites, organizing it in logical sections or sequences and using good link text to tell citizens exactly what they’ll find or what to look for when they get there.

Move to one common design

On this point, some of my colleagues are rolling their eyes and shaking their heads. In fact, this particular subject – adopting a common design across government - was so contentious when I was on the Federal Web Managers Council that we had to table discussion. But look what agencies are doing. They’re going to one common design. Even a huge agency like USDA has implemented a common design. Why? Well, it saves millions in designing and testing separate sites - money and time that could be used in much better ways…like making the writing more citizen-friendly and services more efficient. It makes the agency look like “one.” And – most of all – it makes it easier for the public to use all parts of the agency’s website(s). If it works across an agency, why shouldn’t it work across government?

In his report,” State and Federal Electronic Government in the United States, 2008,” Darrell West notes: “The most striking discovery while researching state and federal websites was the importance of consistency. States that had websites that were completely inconsistent from one agency to the next were harder to navigate, because each site seemed like an independent entity. Sites that were consistently formatted, however, were much easier to use because one knew where to find certain links with the prior knowledge of their relative locations on other state sites.”

Develop a common template. Do it through a partnership between the USA.gov staff and the Federal Web Managers Council. Let agency web managers have their say. Test it to death for usability - get it right. Then use it both for agency sites and USA.gov. Make it easy for citizens to use all government websites. Make the federal government look like “one” online.

Establish one style guide (publication rules) that covers all content

What am I talking about? A good style guide or set of publication rules would help bring consistency and quality to online content, across government. It will make you look like “one.”

A good style guide tells web writers and editors how to do everything from formatting telephone numbers (do we use dots to separate phone numbers or dashes? Do we use parens around area codes?) to using the conversational second person (“you”) in writing to using key words strategically to help search engines.

The Federal Web Managers Council already has begun developing best practices in publication procedures/style guides. Many agencies have developed more extensive guides that can serve as prototypes. Coming up with one standard style guide/publication rules shouldn’t be a big stretch. Mandating its use governmentwide might be harder. It should come from OMB or the White House Office of Communications or GSA's Office of Citizen Services and Communication, based on the recommendation of the Federal Web Managers Council.

Getting everyone under one set of content rules would be a huge step toward making the federal government look more like “one” online and making it easier for citizens to use all government websites.

Citizens think they have one federal government. It’s time to act like one – at least online. Come on, folks. Make it easier for citizens to interact with THE federal government.

The 5 “R’s” of Governance – Get It Right…Get It Done

Web governance has perplexed government web managers for years. Because web management has been – basically – a grassroots effort in the government (many government websites were born bottom-up…not top-down), web managers have struggled to get the attention of higher-ups to get the right pieces in place.

What are the right pieces? I think of it in terms of the 5 “R’s" of governance: Roles, Responsibilities, Relationships, Rules, and Review.

• Roles: who, by job, must be included in the governance structure so that websites are managed and coordinated properly? Web managers. Public Affairs Officers. CIOs. Program heads (responsible for content on their programs). Contracting Officers (to make sure contracts for websites or content that will go on the web comply with agency web policies). A top management official (who has authority to issue policies all parts of the agency must honor). And others.
• Responsibilities: what must each person do? What functions, related to web management, are they responsible for?
• Relationships: with whom must each person interact and when? For example, if the CIO is planning to do maintenance on the servers, he/she should coordinate with the Web Manager far enough in advance to warn the web audience of outages.
• Rules: what are the policies, procedures, and standards that keep web management moving along efficiently and effectively? How do you manage web content? How do you manage all the other activities that support the website?
• Review: how do you evaluate performance, of the website and of the people with the various responsibilities for the website, of web governance? How do you make sure all the roles, responsibilities, relationships, and rules are being used? How do you know where there are problems in the governance structure so you can fix them?

In Spring 2008, I did a very quick and dirty survey of 14 web managers at the Cabinet agencies and select independent agencies, asking questions about governance. I was preparing to teach a Web Governance course, and I wanted to get a feel for the problem areas. I learned that most agencies have a way to go to get good, solid governance in place. For example:

• 58% had not documented their governance structures. If the structure isn’t documented, how can you be sure that all the players know what they’re supposed to do (in fact, they may not even know they’re part of the governance structure!). Write down and communicate what you have – the roles, responsibilities, and relationships - even if it’s imperfect. Then make it better.
• Most agencies (83.3%) had documented web policies. But only about half had documented publication procedures and/or a style guide that describe the rules for managing content. Only about half had documented operating procedures…how you run other web functions like training and marketing and analytics and communications and all those other functions essential to good web management. You need to write down what you do and how you do it. Everybody needs to know the rules to play by.
• 70% had not documented management controls (though I suspect most have them). Management controls are a critical part of the rules. You have to protect the agency and the public from fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement (see OMB Circular A-123). How do you make sure that only authorized people post to the website? How do you make sure that content is correct? Write down your controls, and make sure you’re using them.
• Most agencies measured customer satisfaction (81.8%) and site traffic (90.9%). But less than 2/3 did usability testing. Usability data is your best indicator of site effectiveness and top task efficiency…and one of your best justifications for improvements. Only about a third had performance measures that tie the website to mission achievement and/or public service. You need to have meaningful review processes to make sure your site is performing well.

The Federal Web Managers Council has encouraged agencies to work on web governance; and – hopefully - things have improved. Strong governance is a must, if you want to provide the best possible public service through the web. Governance needs to be reviewed periodically, to make sure all the right “R’s” are in place. That’s especially true as the new administration takes up the reins and new players (including New Media Directors, who should be part of governance) come onboard.

Take the time to get this right now – you’ll save yourselves a lot of grief later. And you'll serve the public better.

Related links
HUD's web governance structure and policies
HUD's web publication standards and style guide
HUD's web management operating procedures