The current discussion related to eGovernment and participation is deteriorating continuously, as it focuses on the present primary use of social media: a “Like” or short Tweet with a maximum 140 characters.

However, the much spoken of and desired participation means more than that.

Wikipedia defines (political) participation as follows:

*The term political participation defines all actions by citizen(s) (alone or in a group) striving to influence political decisions at all levels of the political system. Distinctions are made between conventional (legally ensured and regulated, in writing), unconventional (not in writing) as well as between illegal and legal forms of participation.

Conventional forms of participation which can easily be quantified are participation in elections, participation in political parties or interest groups and the acceptance of political offices in parliaments and governments. The unconventional, less institutionalized or at times illegal forms of participation are more difficult to assess and research. This includes citizens’ political consumerism, participation in citizen initiatives and / or in the new social movements, in petitions, public discourse, demonstrations and strikes.   

E-participation on the basis of Web 2.0 is also mentioned.

*This is a translation of the German language Wikipedia entry.
Assuming that citizens are mature, they should be able to participate in and shoulder responsibility for the (political) system as a whole. Part of this co-responsibility consists of concrete content and actions, which cannot be reduced to a “Like” or Tweet. It is therefore high time to put the brakes on social media euphoria and to focus on real content again. These media can be used for real participation insofar as they can enhance acceptance and topical identification, but that alone is not enough by far.

Hence supplementary platforms with detailed information structured by topic, collaboration platforms for various citizens and institutions, voting and electing possibilities and much more should be made available. Responsibilities also foster obligations (such as secure IDs, traceability) which are neither compatible with the large number of fake identities and accounts, nor with the short life span of social media.

Therefore, we have a long way to go before real Internet-based participation comes true.

As current cloud, mobile and social trends show, users are facing significant changes in information technology. The classic desktop era, which began its success story in 1995, has for some time now been stagnating. For several years sales figures have been recording a significant trend towards notebooks. Sales of tablet-PCs are currently skyrocketing (Gartner forecasts the sale of 119 mio mobile devices in 2012: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1980115)

However, the sale of appliances alone is no solution. It is essential, in paving the way to progress, that certain obstacles be removed.

Security is considered the greatest risk, especially with cloud and mobile technology, which are the essence of this new market. This is naturally a genuine concern when considering the large number of security problems. This should not, however, serve as an excuse. A survey by the renowned OVUM-Group, for instance, shows that organizations with no practical experience of cloud services frequently regard them as insecure, whereas organizations having hands-on experience in using cloud technology have fewer problems with security issues.

Increasing globalization and cross-organizational collaboration also call for ways of enabling secure business transactions in a global environment. This requires either opening up existing systems to additional users and/or the utilization of cloud services that target these collaboration needs. The combination of cloud and mobile technologies in particular clearly indicates that the time for a new era has come, which allows for the seamless integration of mobile devices into a globally accessible system. This means the classic in-house corporate IT department is facing major challenges. For users, it no longer matters whether these systems are used from a desktop or notebook, or on mobile devices via web browsers and apps. The content is what matters; the systems are merely tools – or they will become parts of who you are, as Forrester analyst Brian Hopkins puts it in his blog.

So what happens if one chooses to simply ignore these trends? In such a case – and many organizations have already witnessed this phenomenon – the data are simply saved in other systems; as e-mail copies, for instance, or on insecure file hosts. It will be obvious to everyone that this is a significant risk, and a step in the wrong direction.

Hence the motto: Let us face the new era, regardless of what we decide to call it.

Fabasoft has already taken the first steps towards mobility with the Fabasoft eGov-Suite, both as regards client access and access for internal and external staff.

1. This article deals exclusively with the accessibility of software programmes and web services.

2. Furthermore, it is restricted to legal requirements and compulsory directives in Austria, Germany and Switzerland.

History and development

Everything started in the USA, back in the 1960s, with Europe following suit in the 1970s. Inspired by the civil rights movement, the disabled people’s movement was created, demanding:

• The right to a self-determined life,
• The right to equal treatment as so-called non-disabled persons (persons whose disability is not immediately evident),
• A ban on discrimination based of disabilities, and much more.

Naturally, the organizers and implementers of the fight for the rights of disabled people were themselves disabled. The next 20-30 years were characterized by public protests, occupations of government buildings and street demonstrations. In addition, experts were continuously working on the formulation of new proposals for legislation.

The major breakthrough took place in 1990, when the first equal treatment act for people with disabilities, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
was passed in the USA.

Soon thereafter – in 1995 – Great Britain passed the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). The Act was revised in 2010.

In addition to disability activists and organizations, the European Commission, through manifold initiatives, also applies continuous pressure on its member states. Nearly all EU member states passed their own equal treatment act for people with disabilities within the first decade of the 21^st century, whereby important parts and/or even separate laws regulate accessibility within the new information and communication technologies. The regulations primarily apply to web services and applications in the areas of

• Public information
• eGovernment.

In Germany, the equal treatment act for people with disabilities was included to substantiate the equal treatment for people with disabilities incorporated in the federal legislation in 2002. In Switzerland this took place in 2004 and in Austria in 2005.

Guidelines for accessibility

Disabled persons have from the beginning been among the users of software programmes and web applications. Users with only slight disabilities are just about able to work by adjusting the available software options accordingly. Many others cannot manage, however, without special hard and software – so-called assistive technology – such as screen readers, screen magnifiers etc.

Software/web content with either of these access modes must not be difficult to access for disabled persons – with or without assistive technology. Access difficulties are for instance

• Too small a font which cannot be enlarged
• Insufficient colour contrast between foreground and background
• Buttons with no alternative explanatory text, etc.

In the 90s the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) created an open global platform for accessibility experts. The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) group of W3C was born, giving rise to the most important technical specifications on how to create accessible software and contents. There are guidelines for the development of authors’ tools, web browsers, web applications etc. However, the most important are the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

Germany
All web content by the Federal Administration, both Internet and Intranet (when available to the public), must, as a matter of principle, be accessible. This is ensured by a federal regulation which is an extension of the equality act: the Barrierefreie Informationstechnik-Verordnung (BITV). This regulation neither affects the lender’s public pages nor commercial or private web services.

The first  version of the regulation was published in 2002; the most recent version in 2011.

The new regulation is based on the  Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 by the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) sub group W3C. In a mode similar to the old regulation, the new regulation defines two own test criteria instead of three. It also contains some minor amendments.

General requirements largely correspond to conformity in accordance with WCAG2.0 AA. However, it would go beyond the scope of this blog to elaborate on the technical details.

Switzerland
In Switzerland, an additional regulation (BehiV) relates to the accessibility of web services. This regulation was published together with the Behindertengleichstellungsgesetz (BehiG) (Act on equal treatment for people with disabilities) in 2004. Accessibility for people with disabilities is ensured for all public web services at the federal, cantonal and council level. This also applies to the services of companies which collaborate with the authorities.

For this purpose, a special standard for Switzerland – P028 Richtlinien des Bundes für die Gestaltung von barrierefreien Internetangeboten – was created. The most recent 2011 version of these guidelines calls for conformity with priority AA of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.

Additionally, accessibility of all incorporated .pdf documents is an express demand.

Austria
The national objectives, which are part of the federal constitution, such as

• Equal rights for the disabled
• A ban on discrimination
• Integration into society and the working world

were stated more precisely by the Austrian state in 2005 in several laws, known as the Behindertengleichstellungspaket. § 6 Section 5 of the Federal Act on the Elimination of Discrimination against People with Disabilities defines that (…) technical appliances, information processing systems and areas of life are accessible when they can be used by disabled persons in the customary fashion, without any particular difficulties and without the need for assistance. The WAI guidelines are used as criteria for Internet services, without specifying the version or the conformity demanded with a specified level of priority. On the one hand, this simplifies work for the legislator as any revised version of the guidelines is automatically taken into account. On the other hand the interpretation is problematic, as those responsible may always assume the lowest level of conformity (priority A).

The law states expressly that all authority web services available to the public must be accessible. This also applies implicitly to all sites providing relevant information and services. However, as any doubts are resolved on an individual basis, this remains something of a problem

The legal consequence of discrimination is damages to the injured party in accordance with § 9 BGStG. A lawsuit is preceded by an arbitration process. (Read more on the Platform Digital Austria).

Accessibility of eGovernment sites in Austria is regulated by the eGovernment Act.

“In implementing this federal law it must be ensured that public websites providing information or electronic processing support are designed in such a way as to meet international standards on web accessibility also as regards accessibility for disabled persons.”

Parliamentary documents refer to the WAI guidelines by W3C as international standards.

Many thanks to Ms Edith Vosta, academic expert on accessible web design, for the following message:

“The Federal Chancellery, Federal Press Office and eGovernment recommend the usage of the current standard WCAG2.0, priority level AA to evaluate website and web application accessibility. My department VII/5 in the Federal Chancellery –  Internet Koordination und Redaktion, uses WCAG2.0 level AA as standard.”

Conclusion

• Based on these three neighbouring countries we can conclude the following:
• Legislative demands are converging towards WCAG2.0, level AA
• However, the level of priority demanded for web services and parts thereof varies
• The ratification of updated guideline versions is very slow
• Important parts of the contents, such as pdf documents, are not always taken into consideration
• Legislation is mostly vague, thus a certificate based on adherence to set standards is not possible.

The shortcomings listed above apply to all EU member states.

From Fabasoft’s perspective, wishing eventually to market its eGovernment and Cloud products across Europe, EU-wide uniform legislation regulating the accessibility of software and web content would be ideal. For developers, the current differences result in an enormous additional amount of work and expenses. From the user’s point of view, these differences are incomprehensible and senseless; accessibility is exactly the same for a blind Austrian user as it is for a blind user residing in Germany or Switzerland.

Many CIOs will continue to regard these trends as mere prognoses. However, a second glance will reveal that these topics specifically have the potential for essential changes reaching far beyond the existing IT structures.

Neither Cloud, Mobile nor Social Media are classic IT trends; on the contrary, they are content-related technology-based trends, and as such are the opposite of the ‘good old’ IT.

Although the content requirements are provided by the respective company, Cloud Computing, regardless of whether it is used as Platform as a Service (PaaS), Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) or Software as a Service (SaaS), serves as direct service facilitator ‘from the cloud‘. This frequently either circumvents the classic IT department or alternately confronts it with a ‘fait accompli’. As the available budget is not duplicated, this leads to a corresponding reduction of the (internal) IT budget.

For Mobile issues, the odds were in favour of the internal IT departments. But due to the long-standing resistance against mobile user scenarios by many internal IT departments, development such as “Bring your own Device” (ByoD) have led to increased consumerization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerization), which in turn means that the control of these devices is increasingly no longer in the hands of IT departments (http://www.computerwoche.de/management/it-strategie/2370497/). And there is a significant boost in the pipeline for this area, as the use of tablets in the US federal government is expected to triple by 2013. (http://www.govtech.com/wireless/Tablets-Expected-to-Nearly-Triple-in-Federal-Government-by-2013.html).
However, the loss of control is followed by a loss of budgetary resources!

It is unnecessary to mention that Social Media are completely removed from IT control and that blocking access to these portals hardly affects staff, as in this environment there is, anyway, more confidence placed in self-owned mobile devices.

This leaves only Big Data, which does not so far pose any significant financial challenge to IT departments. However, should no solutions be forthcoming one can expect the next requisite trend to follow.

So what does this mean for large organizations – public administrations for instance?

The growing utilization of trustworthy Cloud solutions bring about significant
improvements, especially in the field of collaboration, as the current explosion in some organizations of collaboration islands for 5-50 users would be unmanageable, both from a financial and from a security perspective.

As far as mobile devices go, it is now high time to act – as the alternative to allegedly insecure mobile devices are data copies on private accounts on insecure sharing and mail platforms – definitely not a pleasant outlook for organizations.

So we can expect to see a lot of action and competition!

Should you ever need a guide to conduct a tour group through an entirely dark environment, I’m at your disposal. I am completely blind. I can also show you how to use software without a screen – but only when the software in question meets accessibility standards of course.

“Accessibility is the usability of the interactive user interface of a product, service, environment or facility by people with the widest range of capabilities” (ISO 9241-171, definition 3.2).

But first things first: I realize that, having lectured at the university for so long, I tend to use too many general definitions and gobbledygook! So from now on, first things first, in simple and comprehensible terms:

Examples for accessibility
I will attempt to illustrate accessibility in the following three examples. As you will see, it is not limited to people with special needs.

Example 1: I, a blind user of MS Outlook
The trick is that all functions in MS Outlook can also be performed with the keyboard.

• CTRL +1 is the shortcut to the mail list
• CTRL+2 to the calendar
• In all lists the arrow keys enable me to move between objects
• I can open the focused entry with the Enter key, delete with the Delete key, etc.
• And I can do it all very fast.

Example 2: Inge in the Internet
Inge gets tremors, e.g. her hands tremble and she has problems positioning the mouse exactly. However, an accessible Internet site makes her feel efficient and satisfied: the buttons are of a sufficient size and spaced well apart. She is able to activate ONLY the options she wants to and doesn’t lose time and patience trying to aim correctly.

Example 3: A driver using a browser
This is still science fiction: Fritz is a truck driver and constantly on the road. He likes to read Wikipedia articles for entertainment. While on the road, Fritz uses his hands and eyes exclusively for driving. He operates the Internet browser with verbal commands and listens to the language editions of the entries. The site must have a high level of accessibility.

Who profits from accessibility?
The user profiles that profit from web and software accessibility vary considerably:

• People with limited motor skills
• People with limited sensory skills (blindness, deafness, impaired hearing, visual impairment)
• People with cognitive impairments and learning difficulties
• People with temporary impairments (e.g. with a fractured arm)
• People in specific situations or environments (driving a vehicle, working in a loud factory)
• Search machines (as special virtual users).

What makes software / web content accessible?
A very good summary of the necessary measures is found in the document Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 by the working group Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the W3 consortium.

All content and elements of the user interface (buttons, selection boxes etc.) must be perceivable, operable and comprehensible.

The following presents a number of selected user cases for these three main categories.

Content is perceivable
The perception of all content that is not strictly text related is always subject to sensory skills. A blind person cannot see images, a deaf person cannot listen to the audio track of a video.

The appropriate solution for these problems consists in alternatives that are equivalent to the non-text related content. For instance, the paper basket icon is supplemented with the alternative text “paper basket”. This enables assistant technologies such as screen reader software to interpret the function behind the icon and to read the text, or issue it as a Braille line.

Subtitles are a suitable alternative to the audio track. Thereby the text must capture all items of dialogue and allocate them to the respective speaker, including all relevant sounds (doorbell, telephone etc.).

All functions are operable
Most users operate software and websites with a mouse. For blind, visually impaired or motor impaired users this is highly inefficient, if not impossible. Operability requirements for software demand that all functions can also be utilized with keyboard commands, if the supported appliance possesses a keyboard. Mobile touch-screen devices must additionally implement an amended operational logic enabling intuitive usage with screen reader software. The iPhone and iPad, with the integrated ScreenreaderVoiceOver, are wonderful examples of successfully implemented accessibility at the appliance level.

Comprehensible content and user interface
The importance of comprehensible content as an accessibility requirement varies according to the group of users.

For users of screen reader software this mainly implies that the software reads the content correctly in different languages. CORRECTLY means in the language setting of the selected language.

For persons with cognitive impairments, comprehensible means that the texts are easy to read. The main characteristics of easily readable texts are:

• short sentences
• using active instead of passive forms
• focussing only on one idea per paragraph
• using a minimum of abbreviations and (this is essential) explaining all abbreviations when used for the first time

Accessible software, web content and documents also enable us, users with a broad range of skills, to work in a satisfactory, sufficiently productive and efficient way.

Whereas increasing mobility presents a continual challenge to data security, current processes are largely based on the requirements of the past. The reason for this is that most companies attempt to construct mobile solutions around a core IT structure in order to enable Internet connectivity and mobile access, thus maintaining their IT systems in place as ‘safe havens’. This may serve to explain the lack of confidence in Cloud solutions as opposed to traditional trust in conventional solutions, along with permanent references to insecure mobile devices – regardless of whether they are Apple or Android products.

However, I think this is a fallacy.

In contrast to legacy applications, modern Cloud-based solutions are designed for mobile Internet access. Hence, they come fully equipped with state-of-the-art technology and functions which facilitate access for designated users whilst limiting its scope as required.

The introduction of web based extensions of existing solutions in a DMZ (perimeter solution) is often performed with copies (or partial copies) of the original data to minimize risks. But does it matter whether it is the electronic original or the electronic copy that is stolen? I was personally affected by such a situation last year, as I received a ‘nice’ letter from a company asking me to check my account, as my data ‘had been lost’. In this particular case it was a partial copy, as it ‘only’ affected those customers who had used the website forms during the past 3-5 years.

I also don’t agree with the argument that data are stolen but cannot be manipulated, as it will be possible to amend the data in most cases and these changes would be incorporated into the central system again.

Another underestimated risk is the theft of notebooks containing copies of confidential information. This nightmare for any secret service came true when NASA lost a notebook with control codes for the international space station ISS. And, given today’s high storage capacities on Smartphones and tablets, these losses are likely to continue.

The way I see it, it is therefore high time to adjust the strategy and redefine the objective:

1. Online access to a central, well protected original, which is only available via secure interfaces at data record level.
2. Usage of secure electronic IDs.
3. Online connectivity of mobile devices storing only the minimum required data on the mobile device!
4. Permanent monitoring and improvement of data center and mobile systems and technologies.

Incidentally, the first point isn’t new; it was called for in conference keynotes ten years ago by Oracle’s boss Larry Ellison.

I am aware that the mobile devices currently available on the market have many, quite serious security issues. But as there will be no way to stop the trend towards mobile devices, the goal must be to eliminate these security issues.

In an interesting approach to system monitoring, the Federal Office for Information Security has published a traffic-light catalogue of weaknesses sorted by products and manufacturers

The article only reflects the author’s personal opinion, but maybe you are of the same mindset…

A closer look and comparison within Europe confirms this positive trend.

With the exception of the northern European countries, Germany is among the leaders in the EU in Internet usage. In this context the European north-south divide, also familiar from the economic perspective, becomes evident. Southern Europe still has to reach the Internet age.

The introduction to the study by Hannes Schwaderer (COE of Intel GmbH and president of Initiative D21) at least indirectly confirms the linkage: ‟Digital infrastructure has meanwhile developed into a major component for the success of a national economy and the continued development of society‟.

However, when comparing these numbers with the findings of the ‟eGovernment-MONITOR‟ study, it becomes evident that Internet usage is not directly comparable to usage of eGovernment services. Even Sweden, which with 91 % Internet usage is one of the leading countries in this regard, ‟only‟ reaches 69 % ‟eGovernment customers“. The ratio in Germany is similar: out of 80 % Internet users, some 40% make use of eGovernment services.

This shows that although the trend towards Internet usage is unstoppable, there is still significant scope for efforts to improve citizens’ and companies’ acceptance of eGovernment.

And the need to act is becoming increasingly urgent: 97.7 % of German students are Internet users. In parallel with this, the number of Smartphones with Internet access has doubled since 2009 – and current sales figures indicate a further boom. The generation of ‟Digital natives‟ will sooner or later demand online solutions for nearly all situations in life – including administration.

Hence it is high time to start working on solutions and on and helping to accelerate acceptance, in order to modernize the administration and boost eGovernment usage.

If, in addition to citizens and companies, governmental administrations also wish to profit from eGovernment, concrete action is required!

A project by the Chamber of Commerce/WIFI Upper Austria, where 500 online users registered within the first month, demonstrated that eService /eGovernment offers are in demand. Initiatives such as ‟Apps4Deutschland ‟ are further proof that the need was recognized.

Currently, however, the topic by no means sells itself – that will require large investments in terms of intelligence, time and money, as well as improvements in basic infrastructures.

• Open Government creates transparency,
• Open Government enhances citizen orientation,
• Open Government enables citizen participation,
• Open Government provides free data,
• etc.

But is this really true, or only an illusion?

Let us examine a few points in detail:

The demand for transparency is increasing, not least because of the numerous scandals, the ongoing financial crisis and the details published in their wake. Although perfectly understandable, this issue is not a new one. In the USA for instance the Freedom of Information Act allows for the disclosure of information and documents controlled by the US Government; in Germany, access to federal data is regulated by the Informationsfreiheitsgesetz. In practise, however, these rights to access information are used very sparingly. The US has been exemplified as a pioneer in Open Government issues since the beginning of Barrack Obama’s presidency, but a glance behind the scenes reveals a different story. For instance, there is an internal handbook issued by the Department of Justice which gives advice on how to best reject such enquiries.

Participation is an important means of involving citizens in decision-making. It is also an opportunity for politicians to receive feedback and suggestions for improving their work. However, it should be made clear that in this case it’s the politicians, and not the administration, that should be the contact persons for citizen participation. It is highly desirable to carry out a dialogue in modern online fora about new rules and regulations, or better still, about redundant regulations, in order for politicians to act accordingly. However, arguing with the administration is largely useless, as it needs to abide by existing legal provisions. Participation, such as a discussion about whether I pay my taxes or not, is unproductive.

Furthermore, Open Data and increased transparency cannot be put into practise within existing organizations and infrastructures, but moreover require investments both in personnel and in technology (see article in Government Technology). Although this is a known fact, many of those involved are still surprised when the cost issue arises in budget discussions. And the costs are disproportionately high, especially for smaller organizations. This becomes evident when considering the pioneers in Open Data, which are nearly all located in large city councils (for instance the City of Vienna and the City of Munich).

There are also other issues relating to Open Data. On the one hand everybody would like free access to them, but on the other hand, for instance statistical data overlaps with services provided by analysts and market researchers, which are certainly not free of charge. And what about the popular argument over competitiveness? But are Open Data which are only available commercially still Open Data? That could open up an interesting discussion.

Now, what are our conclusions from the above? Open Government is a great opportunity, but one that will only achieve its full potential through fact-based discussions as well as concrete, and if possible cross-regional measures. Furthermore, Open Government should be taken into account in all ongoing projects. Organizations with great Open Government objectives and old hard copy-based processes will not appear credible. Despite the oncoming holiday season, Open Government should not be regarded as an endless Christmas list. Its implementation should continue with concrete measures, or it will fade into oblivion and become a mere illusion.

However, for small administrative units, such as small councils, online services quickly prove a financial drain.

At first glance, providing several expensive systems for only a few users in a cost-effective way hardly seems possible, as the introduction of new technologies and appliances require significant investments in infrastructure and personnel resources. But stagnation is not an acceptable alternative.

Finding solutions in this context will necessitate the removal of existing rigid structures and replacing them with more flexible ones. I will be demonstrating this in a few examples.

A clearperspective on this dilemma is offered by Cloud Computing, not only from the infrastructural, but also from the organizational point of view. Today, Cloud solutions such as Fabasoft Folio Cloud are flexible and can be expanded by individual apps. Individual client software however is not permitted. The blog by Ing. Roland Ledinger, Head of the IKT strategy department in the Federal Chancellery and CEO of the platform digital Austria, entitled “Cloud und E-Government: Synergie oder doch nur Hype?“ (Text only in German available), outlines the Cloud options. Another possibility for achieving benefits from shared services, and/or increasing the number of users to facilitate cost-effective implementation and operation of these services, are structural changes. This term has been increasingly popular over recent decades as the need for structural reforms and the reduction of administrative levels have been on the agenda in all European countries, at least since their accession to the EU. I personally feel that, so far at least, this has hardly produced any concrete results, and I dare say there are others of the same opinion. There are already distinctive developments seen in other areas.

Should structural reforms not be desired, or should they not be implemented for political reasons, there is a third possibility for limiting costs at the service and administrative levels and for achieving synergy. I would call this third option ‘process oriented administrative cooperation’. In other words, several administrative organizations with similar service offers collaborate, committing themselves to uniformly implement and consolidate this process from a technical and organizational point of view. In Austria, the project “ELAK im Bund“ is an example of this. Despite the clearly expressed wish for individualization and individual budgets, a standardized file management system, as well as standardized processing and standardized guidelines were introduced in all ministries. A similar initiative was initiated on the federal level in Switzerland, and there are now first signs of such an initiative in Germany, both in the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development and in the Federal Ministry of Health.  The Internet services provided within the prototype project “Single Government Domain“ in the UK can also be mentioned in this context.

Previous IT outsourcing projects cannot be mentioned as examples for necessary structural changes, as these merely targeted cost reductions through relocating IT systems and/or IT services, without taking the necessary organizational aspects or potential synergies into consideration.

No matter which combination of the above-mentioned options is selected, it will need to include every possible aspect, as the deadline is almost here for the commencement of planning and implementation measures. The improvement of cost effectiveness and further development of the standardization of services are essential requirements for every organization in today’s age of Web 2.0. Only swift and concrete measures will ensure the timely and cost effective integration of current and future technologies, for instance in the mobility sector, into the administrative portfolio.

And the development doesn’t exclude the public sector. This summer, for instance, the Japanese town Takeo moved its entire Internet site to a Facebook page (info).

Does this mean that Facebook will be deciding the age of Social Government in the future?

According to my assessment, the answer to this question is a definite no.

This is partly due to the fact that Facebook will hardly be able to retain its dominant position, but more to the point it is because Social Government should encompass so much more than a technical web platform.

Facebook currently reports 800 mio. global users and is thus clearly leagues ahead of other social platforms in this environment. However, there are more and more frequent signs, not only since the start of Google+, indicating that Facebook is past its prime. It is hard to obtain actual figures, but many statistics indicate current Facebook growth being based on new markets, whereas the usage in existing markets is declining slightly, as is user satisfaction (see the article in german Spiegel).

The second aspect, however, is more essential. If you try to define the term Social Government – and I can’t think of any other way of expressing this right now – it should mean socially efficient collaboration between politics and administration on the one hand, and citizens and commerce on the other. And this should relate to participation and transparent business processes, and not be reduced to a technical platform.

So what is actually needed to facilitate Social Government?

There are different levels of requirements. At the level of client-administration communication, and considered from the client’s point of view, this also includes participation as well as, subject to the situation, the provision of information and/or services. And participation requires a platform offering access to the information, as well as to the services and results, for all interested parties, while also providing an opportunity for them to have their say.

Speaking of access, this must also be provided in the technical sense. Taiwan has launched an important initiative (more information here), which goes beyond current council initiatives, by setting up more than 2,500 free WiFi-hotspots. Such initiatives are important in order to avoid a two-class society (keyword “digital divide“).

Whether the communication platform is a social website (for instance Facebook), an online administrative transaction platform, or an App on a mobile device makes no difference to its content. From a technical point of view there are various innovations, some of which are advertised quite emotionally. This is not of much interest from the users’ point of view though, as many studies clearly demonstrate that the usability of a platform determines its worth, and that even a technologically advanced platform is not accepted without usability.

However, the second level – the internal administration view – is of equal importance. In order to achieve concrete usability on a communication platform – regardless of what it ends up looking like – administration staff have to perform. For this, the persons in the so-called back office require systems which support and document fast, efficient and transparent business processes while enabling effective participation. So anybody associating Facebook with Social Government is only scratching the surface!

Generously interpreted, these topics can also be identified in the German IT planning council memo, which defines the strategic objectives for the implementation of eGov projects.

However, Singapore’s eGov 2015 Masterplan already places much more emphasis on service and user orientation.

From my point of view, the question ‟Social Government – is it all about Facebook?” which I have already answered negatively, is joined by the question: is there is something like Social Government in the first place?. For my part, I am assuming that Social Government is already included in a consistent and ongoing development of eGovernment and use of available technology.

Looking forward to your feedback!

Please fill in our form to get  an impression, what government websites should contain.