This post has been on my mind for a while now, and a recent article on the topic from Policy Horizons Canada finally brought this to the top of my “blog topics” list (which seems to have a leaking hole in it these days…sorry about that).

As always, I like to start with a definition:

“Gamification is the use of game design techniques and mechanics to solve problems and engage audiences. Typically gamification applies to non-game applications and processes in order to encourage people to adopt them. Gamification works by making technology more engaging, by encouraging users to engage in desired behaviors, by showing a path to mastery and autonomy, and by taking advantage of humans’ psychological predisposition to engage in gaming. The technique can encourage people to perform chores that they ordinarily consider boring, such as completing surveys, shopping, filling out tax forms, or reading web sites. Available data from gamified websites, applications, and processes indicate potential improvements in areas like user engagement, ROI, data quality, timeliness, or learning.” – Wikipedia

For anyone involved in the field of social marketing or the field of behaviour change communication, gamification is something you should treat seriously and fully consider adding to your current efforts. In fact, you may already be doing so without knowing it, as the premise is not new. What is new, is the potential of gamification for inducing behaviour change now that world smartphone penetration and growth rates are through the roof (developing countries included). If you like cliche buzzwords and phrases, gamification is about to hit the “tipping point”.

The Policy Horizons Canada article I mentioned above has lots of great links for you in terms of gamification examples. However, today I’d like to talk about two specific examples from my personal experience. Both of these examples have actually changed my behavior in a relatively short period of time. It doesn’t look like i’ll be reverting back to my old habits either.

Example 1: My FitBit  

At first glance, the FitBit (shown in the photo above)  looks like a souped up pedometer. The magic however is in what happens with the data it collects. Essentially here’s the low down on how it works:

• I started off by getting a FitBit and filling out my personal profile (including fitness goals) on the FitBit website, which syncs to my device.
• The FitBit application then created targets for me (caloric intake, activity level , etc…)
• I wear the little FitBit everyday, everywhere I go, even when I sleep (no questionable wireless signals are transmitted unless I’m near a computer).
• When I am near a computer, the FitBit automatically syncs with my profile on the FitBit website which resides on the cloud
• It tracks my sleep patterns, calories burned, steps taken, distance,  floors climbed, and a few other things
• I input what I eat and drink every day into my FitBit profile on the cloud via any device connected to the internet (FitBit has convenient , easy to use smartphone apps for this, I use the iPhone one)
• The data is aggregated and can be filtered, mashed-up and easily compared to anyone in the FitBit community who is also sharing their data

So where is the gamification element?

• Every time I refill the gas in my car I reset the meter tracking my fuel efficiency.
• As I drive the display shows my actual fuel efficiency along with my average fuel efficiency since the last re-fueling
• I now compete with myself (or my wife if she’s driving) every week to see if I can attain a lower average.
• As I drive if I notice i’m above the average in that moment or my average is higher than last week, I will consciously modify my speed or driving style to be more efficient.

I have only included open-ended questions. You can see the complete question list here.

What could be done to make it easier for you to find and use government data provided online?

The creation of a central government data portal is key. Data.gc.ca is a good start but it needs to have a “Google-like” (i.e. easy to use) user interface and machine readable data sets in a consistent format. This means more resources will need to be spent on the actual cleaning up of data before it is uploaded to the site. Separate sections for end-users and developers should be made as well. Avoid techie jargon as it tends to scare people away.

How would you use or manipulate this data (note: I was given a list of data sets)?

This would fully depend on what I am trying to accomplish at any given moment in time. It’s kind of like asking the question: “How would you use Google?”. Answer: To quickly find the www content I am looking for. In the case of open data, it would be to quickly and easily be able to manipulate and mashup data from a trusted source (data.gc.ca), rather than looking for it first. For example, if I am working on an anti-smoking health initiative I would love to be able to mashup the last 5 government ad campaign spends with the actual smoking rates in Canada over time.

What could be done to make it easier for you to find government information online?

A central portal just like data.gc.ca is for open data. Perhaps openinfo.gc.ca ? Remember that usability will be crucial. Think Google.

Do you have suggestions on how the Government of Canada could improve how it consults with Canadians?

Instead of spending $2.8M on advertising to tout the second phase of the Economic Action Plan this summer, merely a fraction of a fraction of that could have been spent to very effectively promote the open government consultations via social media (including psychographically targeted advertising).

Are there approaches used by other governments that you believe the Government of Canada could/should model?

Every government is unique. The U.S , U.K, and Australia have made some great strides in this area but have also had their fare share of setbacks. I’m just thrilled to finally see the Canadian government taking Gov 2.0 seriously. As a side note, it would be great if you could start sending some key senior”decision making level” delegates to future Gov 2.0 conferences so that there is more than one “Canadian” table at lunch. It has been quite embarrassing to date.

Are there any other comments or suggestions you would like to make pertaining to the Government of Canada’s Open Government initiative?

As mentioned in my previous responses, I am very happy we are finally moving forward with this. Please don’t  just  let the findings of these consultations collect dust. Act on them asap.

Since this will likely be my last post for 2011, I have decided to write it in the form of a wish for 2012; The Jester is due for a comeback.

What is a Jester?

“In ancient times courts employed fools and by the Middle Ages the jester was a familiar figure. In Renaissance times, aristocratic households in Britain employed licensed fools or jesters, who sometimes dressed as other servants were dressed, but generally wore a motley coat, hood with ass’s (i.e. donkey) ears or a red-flannel coxcomb and bells. Regarded as pets or mascots, they served not simply to amuse but to criticise their master or mistress and their guests. Queen Elizabeth (reigned 1558-1603) is said to have rebuked one of her fools for being insufficiently severe with her.” -Wikipedia

Where should the Jester work?

Specifically I think Jester’s should be employed by all senior public servants

Why do we need to bring back the Jester?

1. There is far too much ego in the senior cadres of the public service
2. Rank is taken far too seriously in the public service in general. Senior leaders are humans. They go home at night to their families.
3. The most senior ranking public servant in the room is almost never challenged (this problem occurs at every level)
4. “Group think” is dangerous. Someone needs to be hired whose job it is to  play devil’s advocate in a senior leader’s office, full-time.

In the screenshot below I have compared search volume for the term “social media monitoring” (green) over the last 5 years, to three other related terms:

• online reputation management (blue)
• personal branding (red)
• digital footprint (yellow)

The term personal branding (red) has been dominating this search space, likely because it is often used in the marketing / communications world speaking circuits. Many people are interested and/or concerned about the permanence of the web and what publishing “what some may deem” private content in a public space means  re: their identity, reputation and privacy. This is indeed a fascinating topic, which I frequently speak on myself. That being said, I find that with many bricks and mortar, command and control work environments, the term doesn’t resonate well as it puts the individual ahead of the organizational brand. In some cases people don’t like/understand the word “brand” , which is often thought of as something to do with logos. Further still, I find that a good junk of the workforce still has a fixation on separating “business” from “personal”, not realizing that it is no longer black or white (whether we like that or not, it’s the truth). Therefore building a “personal” brand makes no sense to them unless it’s during their 9-5 work hours, but that’s a topic for another day…This term seems to be leveling off but it is here to stay in my opinion.

The term digital footprint (yellow) is significantly less popular however I personally love it because it can apply to organizations or individuals, is a great visual metaphor and doesn’t alienate the non-marketing/comms folks. It seems to be slowly on the rise. Unfortunately, many current senior level execs find it a bit too “hippy” so it doesn’t yet get the seriousness it deserves.

Which leads me to the final term. One of the major shifts in the nature of my client work over the last few years is that I am now often asked to deal directly with the most senior heads of organizations as opposed to branch or program level executives. By far the #1 thing they are interested in is how social media engagement (or monitoring as a start) can help them manage their organization’s reputation. I strongly believe that this is what’s leading to a growth in popularity for the term online reputation management. I find that the term resonates very well with senior management, even when it is not yet fully understood. It may not be as popular as the other terms, but from a business perspective it will quickly rise in my opinion.

What do you think?

Here is an excerpt from Tony’s speech:

“Web 2.0 tools provide additional means of interactive communications between government institutions and Canadians. These tools are the modern-day equivalents of town halls. They can be used for various purposes including recruitment, emergency communications, and service delivery. They also help provide valuable information to the public, stakeholders, and act as tools for consultations.

The Guideline for External Use of Web 2.0 is designed to provide specific guidance to public servants on the use of social media. It also includes practical advice to help departments make informed decisions about how to meet their existing legislative and policy requirements when using those tools. People all over the world are adapting to the pace of unprecedented technological change that impacts how they communicate, consult, collaborate, manage data and share information…This is about enhancing our productivity which, in turn, makes Canada more competitive in the global economy.”

Why is this a big deal?

I can tell you personally from the people I know were behind this, that this is the result of a lot of blood, sweat and tears. If you’re a public servant, please do not dismiss the effort that went into the development and subsequent release of this guideline.  It’s not perfect, it likely never will be, however I have been told that it will evolve over time. In the meantime I truly feel it represents a giant leap forward for the entire public service. There is simply no longer an excuse for not taking social media platforms seriously and thinking strategically about how best to leverage them as a public servant.  It should be noted that the guideline itself is not new. It’s based in large part on various guidelines created by departments and branches that refused to wait and took a chance by creating their own over the last few years. The latest draft has actually been sitting on GCpedia and thus has been accessible to every public servant for almost a year now. The issue however (aside from the fact that GCpedia is still an alien term to most public servants) was that most senior level public servants have been waiting for something “official” to come out. I’m saying this out of personal experience dealing with consulting clients on this topic from nearly every federal department over the last 6 years.

Will this guideline be criticized?

Of course it will. I can see a whole slew of negative comments already coming in:

• it’s too long
• it’s ambiguous
• it doesn’t tell me exactly what to do
• it’s overly polished
• it’s too restrictive