Local eDemocracy National Project evaluation report

8/14/2019 Local eDemocracy National Project evaluation report

1/18

ICELE Evaluation Executive Summary 1 of 18 November 2006

Gallomanor Communications Ltd. 2006. For more information please contactShane McCracken on 01225 869413 or [email protected]

International Centre of Excellencefor Local e-Democracy

Product Evaluation

Executive Summary

and

Summary Findings

Report commissioned by:

Rita Wilson, Director, ICELE

Report researched and written by:

Gallomanor Communications Ltd.www.gallomanor.com

December 2006


2/18



Executive Summary

BackgroundIn October 2006 ICELE commissioned Gallomanor to evaluate the products it hadinherited from the Local e-Democracy National Project to help it decide what

action to take with each of the projects. Our research was based on:

1. Technical examination of National Project software and alternatives2. Discussions with suppliers of software3. Interviews with relevant Council Officers4. Interviews with users of software

This summary report outlines the overarching themes we found during ourresearch and summarises the findings for each product.

Findings

The key thing we discovered is that software is not holding back (nor particularly

moving forward) e-Democracy. Culture and knowledge are. A small number ofcouncils have both the will and the know-how to implement e-democracy tools,but the vast majority have neither. In general terms we are recommending that:

1. ICELE focuses on helping councils change the attitudes of elected membersand officers towards transparent democracy using online methods.

Officers have changed, but councillors haventCounty Council Officer

2. ICELE assists Council officers create coherent engagement strategies thatinclude the use of online methods

In the words of one respondent

you need to know you want a Chinese before choosing off themenu.

County Council Officer

At the moment the perception is that ICELE is offering a menu of e-Democracy

options.

In practical terms we recommend that ICELE:

1. Distances itself from the products the products must follow culture andstrategy

2. Helps change culture3. Helps councils develop strategies4. Promotes shared standards of software and support5. Improves presentation of existing knowledge and support

In this summary report we will pull together the argument why ICELE shouldavoid focussing on the menu (products) and more on creating the desire for themeal (the culture and strategy). The report will finish with a summary of thereports on the individual products we were asked to evaluate. Full reports on

those products are included as appendices.


3/18



Removing barriers to take-up change council culture

A problem common to several of the services we evaluated was that of poor take-up. For example: Issues Forums, and e-Petitioner both have excellent software,good learning and favourable evaluations from the National Project. They have

been promoted heavily to councils over the last 18 months, but despite all thisbeing in place, only 4 councils have used the products to date and all four wereinvolved in the National Project. We dont see this as criticism of the products butof the lack of willing councils up and down the country to embrace the possibilities

offered by e-Democracy.

Our research has indicated that the take-up of e-democracy services is being held

back by council members who are nervous of new services that promise greatertransparency.

Consequently, even when council officers are keen to make use of e-democracy

tools, elected members fail to buy in to the ideas fearing a loss of control andopening the floodgatesof unfulfillable promises.

A view held by many respondents is that the main barrier is the ignorance ofelected members. Before they will agree to use e-democracy, they need to bereassured that doing so will not necessarily endanger their position or that oftheir council.

ICELE needs a strategy to help eDemocracy enthusiasts within councils convincecolleagues and elected members of the upsides of e-Democracy and that thereare safeguards to minimise any downsides.

The recent DCLG White Paper should provide a good opportunity to engagecouncillors and officers on the subject. For example, the Community Call for

Action will encourage the use of new tools to provide evidence of communitysupport.

Officers and members should be made aware of:

safeguards - processes that provide some degree of control over e-democracy products, particularly those involving direct public participation.

For example, appropriate (i.e., unobtrusive and low-key) moderation ofdiscussion forums.

upsides - the benefits of e-democracy engagement. Some case studies,drawn from successful use of existing products both official and unofficial

(for example, the unofficial TalkSwindon discussion forum), would be a

useful tool to present to council members.


4/18



Software is not the issue Strategy and Standards

Ideas and even the enforcement of quality can flow bottom-up. And the resultsare not merely acceptable, but better...

Paul Graham. Programmer and Web Pioneer.

Our research revealed some bespoke software products that do an excellent job,and some that perform less well. But in either case, the web is bursting withalternative options. Software that might do the job just as well - or better - iseasy to find and in many cases would cost little.

The creation, development and maintenance of software is not something that we

recommend should be a focus of ICELE's ongoing strategy. Suitable softwareexists, or is under development, in the private sector. Some of it will becommercial products, some of it released under open source licences.

This issue was clear in the cases of VOICE and ReadMyDay in particular, but could

also apply to ePanels, and Issues Forum.

ReadMyDay, for example, uses a service that is very easy to find done betterelsewhere. It was the coaching side of the project that the users valued morethan anything else; this, of course, is harder to replicate.

Similarly VOICE suffered technical problems as a CMS, but also aims to be adirectory of web sites. The first function is easy to replicate. While some VOICEusers were positive about the CMS side, most were harshly critical. This is asoftware issue, and is not difficult to overcome by exploring the possibilitiesoffered by other software products.

Doing so does not mean that the VOICE project itself need suffer. By focusingenergy on a national directory, and simplifying the manner in which communitygroups can add themselves to it (a simple web form and basic database would besufficient), ICELE can allow those who like VOICE to continue using it, whileoffering potential newcomers a menu of options, including, but not limited to,VOICE.

Data is agnostic

Ultimately, data does not care where it lives. One of ICELE's stated aims withReadMyDay was to create a community of councillor webloggers, but such a

community can just as easily be created by aggregating councillor weblogs, nomatter where they are hosted or what software they are maintained with.

So long as the sites concerned are reachable and readable by search engine bots,they can be found and used by their target audience. The data doesn't care whereon the internet it is located. So few people read and remember URLs (web siteaddresses), that the same applies to them as well: most users don't care whatthe address or location of a particular site or page is. All they care about is that

they can read it, search it, and return to it in future if they wish to.

VOICE is in an excellent position to exploit this. As a directory, it offers ICELE thechance to create a worthwhile, useful hub or portal for online e-democracy


5/18



projects in the UK. If the users and creators of such projects are given the chanceto quickly and easily add their project details to the VOICE database, the

directory itself will grow. It doesn't matter where the data lives; just that it canbe indexed.

Likewise, a shift in focus of the ReadMyDay project could embrace weblogs by

any councillor, no matter where they are hosted or what software they areupdated with. It becomes an opportunity for ICELE to become an aggregator ofcouncillor weblogs.

Standards for software, standards for support

Of course, weblogs hosted elsewhere will not be under any of the controls, or

terms & conditions imposed on users of RMD. ICELE might consider establishing acode of conduct for weblogging councillors, a simple document they can link to(using a suitably designed weblog badge or icon). By doing so, the councillorsshow their acceptance of the code.

Creating a code of conduct for weblogging councillors is one step towardsdeveloping a set of standards that might be applied across the board, promoting

good design and usability.

Standards offer a means of levelling the field in situations when multiple productsare being offered by a variety of sources. Simply by taking the initiative to create

such a standards set, ICELE would be demonstrating leadership in e-Democracy.

We believe this is one way forward for several projects where the software waswell-received but take-up remained poor. Circumstances for poor take-up

included high prices charged by software vendors, or lack of flexibility and options

for buyers. Take-up of all products might improve if buyers (in the main, councilofficers) had the chance to pick from several competing products.

For example, ePetitioner was generally seen as a good product, potentially usefulto many councils. But the high price and lack of ongoing support were perceivedas barriers, scaring customers away.

In an environment where many suppliers were in a position to offer similar e-petitioning software products, with a variety of prices and feature sets, councilswould feel more comfortable about reaching a decision. They would be able toweigh up advantages of each option, and pick the one that suited theircircumstances best. It may be the case that ePetitioner remains one of the

products on offer, but in an environment where it competes with otherapplications.

The ideal would be a thriving marketplace of e-democracy software suppliers,competing to attract the business of councils with a range of products.

To bring this about, we recommend that ICELE creates a set of standards forsoftware, such that any developer would be able to create a new product that

they can be sure will be considered by council officers tasked with improving e-democracy participation.


6/18



In each case, the standards should identify what the software must allow the userto achieve.

That said, we have already stated that software is not the issue. We suspect thatany software standards, once written, would be easily met by a large number ofexisting software products.

As important are standards for support, because support was found to be lackingat almost every level of every project:

Council officers don't know what to buy; they rarely have the time orresources to hunt down best-of-breed software products in any one sector.

Council members don't know what to ask for; bamboozled by jargon and

often inexperienced in the ways of the web, they fear the possibletransparency offered by e-democracy, and new technology in general.

Users, mostly community project managers or volunteers, often don'tknow how to use web-based software; at best, they might have previously

used an MSN email account or purchased something from Tesco.com, but

their experience of using a browser for anything other than browsing islimited.

Software is not the issue; support is.

Many people that we spoke to in our research simply did not know enough about

either the products on offer, or the wider marketplace for such products. Withoutthe knowledge to explore those markets further, they were unable to form usefulopinions about particular product offerings.

Too often, council officers don't know what they want to buy. More often, thoseofficers who do identify a product they wish to use are put off by unwillingness

and ignorance on the part of elected members.

Better presentation

Our research has uncovered some enlightening positive stories about the use of

e-democracy. We have also found some "buried treasure"; useful information andexperience that is buried in over-long documents that are hard to find, anduninspiring to read.

These "golden nuggets" deserve to be pulled out and published in a moreaccessible format.

They include, but are not limited to:

The experiences of Mary Reid, Louise Alexander and Andrew Brown asweblogging councillors

Various notes and writings by Griff Wigley, relating to his experiences as aweblogging coach/mentor

Some parts of the "Deeper and Wider community engagement" document Page 52 of Issues Forum Guidebook (e-democracy.org/uk/guide.pdf)


7/18



The eTools blog is one step towards this, but even this lacks much compelling

content - the descriptions of the software products mentioned appear to havebeen pasted in from the web sites concerned. More useful still would be to writeup a review, or collate commentary and links from around the web relating toeach product.

What exactly is an e-democracy tool?

In the aforementioned "Deeper and Wider" document, e-democracy is defined as:

"Any application of e-technology that enables or improves the connectivitybetween government and its stakeholders, raising engagement and participation

in democratic processes."

Our research shows that the term "e-democracy" is being used almostindiscriminately, as a label to stick on anything on the web that is vaguely

connected with politics. While this might be accurate within the terms of the

definition above, it's not terribly helpful for ordinary people and councillors tounderstand.

We recommend that ICELE re-think the definition of "e-democracy", particularlyfrom the point of view of categorising and sub-categorising the tools underdiscussion. Some of them are democratic; some of them are merely information

about web technologies, which might have some use in relation to democracy.

For example of the list of products we have evaluated only half should beconsidered to be e-Democracy tools. They are: ePetitioner, Issues Forum,

ePanels, IM Local, ReadMyDay, and Picture Poll.


8/18



Summary of findings by product

1. ePetitioner

ePetitioner is an online

application that allowsLocal Authorities to helpcitizens to create

petitions online and topresent them to thecouncil.

Executive Summary

The Online Petition

project used ePetitionersoftware produced bythe InternationalTeledemocracy Centre

at Napier University. Both Kingston and Bristol piloted the projects and seemvery happy with the results. However, despite promoting the project for a year,no other councils have used the software, even during a period when a 3,000discount was offered.

It is difficult to find anyone with a serious objection to ePetitions. The concept iswell liked and understood amongst the people we spoke to and the specificproduct offering is well-thought of, but has room for improvement. On thesurface it is confusing why ePetitions have not taken off in councils around thecountry. The main factor would seem to be a reluctance of officers (indepartments other than Democratic Services) and Councillors to embrace theconcept of ePetitions because of fears of:

opening the floodgates

being deluged by petitions

losing control of the discussion raising expectations of the public unfairly

It would seem clear that the downsides of ePetitioning are outweighing theupsides and ICELEs main task in this area will be to redress this imbalance. The

Govt White Paper creating the Community Call to Action will help drive theconcept but will not overcome the barriers above. ePetitions need to beperceived more as part of an overall engagement strategy. They can be used todraw in citizens on a single issue and then keep them engaged on other subjectsusing other tools.

There are smaller actions that ICELE can take on such as helping improve thecurrent software offering, and improving the learning that has currently beenmade. Our recommendations include creating standards for software developersto follow, commissioning a white label hosted version of ePetitioner and licensingsupport and sales to a 3rd party.


9/18



2. Issues Forums

Once established, LocalIssues Forums provide"any time, anywhere"opportunities for local

citizens participate intheir communities on asustained basis based oncitizen interest. They

consist of onlinediscussion boards andaccompanying guidance

material to make theforum sustainable.

Executive Summary

Issues Forums are a model for community discussion groups and a piece ofsoftware supplied by e-Democracy.org of Minnesota, USA.

As a model they seem sound and successful in Minnesota and Brighton and Hoveand the software is simple and impressive.

Both the model and the software have plenty of competition with a plethora ofhosted and not-hosted discussion board software and a variety of models which

all meet the basic requirement of providing a convenient space to discuss localissues.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about Issues Forum is the lack of take-up.Nobody thought discussion forums were a bad thing, (although one respondent

was concerned about the potential for abuse), but there is a split between somecouncils believing ownership of the forum is important and those who feel thatthe council cant own the Forum. Also the need for forums to fit into a widerengagement strategy has probably held some councils back as they formulatethose strategies.

Ultimately though it would seem as one respondent put it councils are justscared of forums they cant control and dont have the resource to pre-moderate.

ICELEs role should be to help councils get over this fear. Help them to take the

risk by promoting the upsides and guiding them on minimizing the potentialdownsides.

The two main actions that we recommend for ICELE are:

1. Promote the benefits of community discussion forums to Councillorsand officers. Make it easier for Democratic Services Officers to getapproval for supporting forums.

2. Research and promote alternate ways for councils to support localdiscussion groups either through providing forums, finance, orpublicity.


10/18



3. ePanels

E-panels are aform of citizenspanel that usesnew technology

such as discussionforums, onlinesurveys, livechats, quick polls

or votes.Interaction placese-participation at

the heart of thepanel process.

Executive Summary

It seems clear that there is support for the concept of "ePanels", but there is alack of consistency over what constitutes an ePanel, how an ePanel should run,and what expectations should be for an ePanel.

At first glance conventional wisdom would suggest that an ePanel can act in asimilar way to a real-world citizens' panel, but the reality does not seem to be the

same. Tellingly, ICELE compares ePanels with Citizen's Jurys rather than Citizen'sPanels.

There are many different opinions of how a citizens' panel should work and ahandful of competing suppliers of the software required to make it happen.

We think it is clear that the initial in-depth evaluations carried out as part of theLocal eDemocracy National Project were produced too early in the life of ePanels

and it is not within the remit of this study to examine them in sufficient depth.We believe the ePanel pilots should be re-evaluated. This is critical when youconsider the importance placed on ePanels by newcomers to eDemocracy as acentral plank of their e-democracy and engagement strategies.

Note:

Although the Decide Together product was included separately on the original listof products to evaluate, we found that it had recently been upgraded and that theupgraded version was not yet being used at the time and that no online versionwas available for evaluation. We decided therefore that an evaluation wasimpractical. The same arguments about ePanels apply to Decide Together and it

is probably a worthwhile entry to the market, but more work on what market it isentering is needed.


11/18



4. IM Local

im-local.net is an onlineresource allowing youngpeople and councils tointeract and discuss

topical local issues usinginstant messagingtechnology.

Executive Summary

IMLocal (IML) offers live

web-based chat services,designed to replicate thefeel of an electedmembers' surgery.

While IML is technically well-made, the chats are conducted one to one and this

takes up a considerable amount of time and makes it impractical to run inschools.

IML is currently set-up as a solution looking for a problem. The majority of youngpeople do not have a problem with the fact that they don't have contact withcouncillors. Providing Instant Messaging facilities is not going to suddenly givethem a reason for wanting to talk to a councillor.

That said the most useful aspect of the technology may be with other groups.

People with an aversion to authority but a need to talk to them such as youngoffenders. People who would rather not meet face to face with a councillor

because of cultural and language issues may benefit. People whose hours orlocation do not coincide with councillors may find IMing a useful means ofcommunication.

ICELE should continue to promote the benefits of Instant Messaging to councillorsand officers, but IML, despite it's good intentions, has flaws as an engagementtool for young people in schools.

Most important, perhaps, would be to provide practical guidance for councillors onhow they can use Instant Messaging technology to communicate with

constituents.


12/18



5. ReadMyDay

ReadMyDay is a bloggingplatform and coachingprogramme aimed at gettingelected members and council

officers using blogs as amedium to help provide civicleadership.

Executive Summary

ReadMyDay is a civic leadershipblogging programme aimed at

Councillors and officers. The programmeas a whole has been very well receivedby users and potential users. It hasgood brand recognition in the LocalAuthority community.

The programme consists of threeelements:

Training Aggregator Publishing platform

As a training programme our respondents had nothing but praise and potentialusers saw the training as the most important aspect of the programme.

The aggregator and publishing platform were not seen as important and from atechnical evaluation point of view they are not best of class.

The aggregator (www.readmyday.co.uk) is does not give much information andmainly lists Civic Leaders from the project thereby missing out on the majority ofcouncillors who have blogs on different platforms.

As a publishing platform, ReadMyDay.co.uk (RMD) uses 21Publish, an obscure

platform aimed at communities of bloggers. The platform has some advantages

but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages and ICELE should considerpromoting other more mainstream blogging platforms in order to encourage morewidespread blogging by councillors and council officers (users).

Using other platforms will enable users to draw upon a much wider supportnetwork and allow their blogs to be more accepted among the wider blogging andinternet using community.

There are a number of alternative packages that ICELE could choose to promoteor indeed support and each has its own particular advantages depending on theuser requirements.


13/18



We recommend ICELE take the following actions:

maintain 21Publish account only for existing users and councillorsspecifically asking to use it.

expand the coaching programme to include other platforms and to enableit to reach more councilors

promote the benefits of blogging to councils and directly to councillors,

train in-house staff to teach the technical aspects of blogging

create a cost-effective online hub that aggregates all councillor's blogs tohelp provide support.

6. Picture Poll

Picture Poll is surveysoftware that allows

users to answer a polland see how theiranswers compare toother people who havetaken the poll.

Executive Summary

PicturePoll.org (PP) is a somewhat misleading title for this project as it doesn'tinvolve pictures, merely a scatter graph of results. Users are asked two questions

that are answered using a scale and are then invited to leave their gender, ageand a comment. Their answers are then plotted on a graph displaying the resultsof other respondents to the survey. So far PP has been piloted in Mansfield and isabout to be piloted in Bristol.

The product seems to be well built and works as described. It fills a gap between

simple polls and lengthy questionnaires, but respondents are not convinced thatthe gap exists, particularly at the proposed price. The one council that has pilotedthe product described it as "dipping a toe in the water of eDemocracy". They donot intend to use it again.We recommend the ICELE feature PP in any directory of products, but there is noreason to invest in the product. We also recommend that ICELE develop materialsto help officers learn the particular (non-technical) skills of conducting onlinequestionnaires.


14/18


15/18



8. Log On icons

A set of icons and sounds toincrease the participation ofpeople with learningdifficulties in e-Democracy. Aset of guidelines on how theyshould be used has been

produced to accompany theicons.

Executive Summary

The Log On icon and sound Directory wasdeveloped by a specialist company to help peoplewith learning difficulties better understand

communication material about eDemocracy. Theicons were designed in consultation with a panel

that included people with learning disabilities andthe visually impaired but the finished icons have

not been properly tested by naive users. Somewithin the accessibility community would argue thatthat visual icons do help, but opinion is divided.There were concerns raised that a large problem with the eDemocracy set is thatthe concepts being communicated are very complex and abstract and thatsymbols are not the solution.

It is not within the scope of this report to assess if icons help, or if they havebeen correctly designed, but to look at the way the icons can be used. It wasclear in the original evaluation of the Log On icon project that the symbols areonly useful "if used widely", but it would seem that publicising the icons was

never part of the project. The Communications and Accessibility Officers we spoketo were quite clear that although they are aware of the use of symbol, they arenot aware of an e-Democracy set.

The public face of the icons is a directory system where you cannot see the icons

and there is no explanation of the individual icons. We have no doubt thatspecialists in communications with excluded groups will understand the sciencebehind using these icons but if a wider audience is to commission material toinclude them then more work is required on the presentation and delivery of

them. However it is clear that the traditional ICELE audience of eGov, DemocraticServices and Communications officers do not see the use of symbols as part oftheir job responsibilities.

We recommend that ICELE do some basic work in helping to disseminate theicons amongst accessibility groups and the W3C WAI discussion groups.


16/18



9. DemGames

DemGames is a collection of fun

games that enable learning on UKdemocracy and local governmenttopics.

Executive Summary

DemGames (DG) is a web and CD-based set of 3 games designed to

help young people understand localdemocracy.

While these Flash-based games are fine and a worthwhile project, there is littleevidence that they add to the democratic process. They lack depth and do notencourage repeat playing. They are best summed up by one respondent who saidthey used them to fill a gap in another project.

Whilst DemGames are useful in that way, there are many other youthengagement tools that help educate students about democracy. These includeIm a Councillor, Get Me Out of Here, Political Speed Dating, and Being Heard.

We recommend that ICELE keep DemGames available for schools and councils touse and to promote them alongside other youth engagement tools.

10. DemWorld

A youth-site-in-a-box.

Executive Summary

DemWorld (DM) is still ademonstration site and as such is

difficult to evaluate. However fromwhat we have seen it adds very littleto democratic engagement. Our ownexperience with engaging youngpeople in local democracy tells us

that you need to give them a reasonfor participating and the simpleprovision of information, albeit in agraphical manner, is not enough unless they are actively seeking it.

Councils, such as Norfolk County Council who have successfully set up youth sitessuch as NorfolkBlurb, tend to involve young people in the overall process ofconcept, visual design and content creation, not just as a one off set up exercisebut as an ongoing programme of engagement.

We recommend that ICELE look at other best practice in the provision of youthsites and produce an implementation guide for councils.


17/18



11. BBC Action Network

The BBC Action Network hasproduced a tool that providesinformation on activities on theAction Network occurring within LAboundaries.

Executive Summary

The BBC Action Network (BBCAN) isa simple way for councils andcouncillors to keep in touch withwhat is happening in theircommunity. It currently takes the

form of a "box" that displays RSSfeeds, such as the one at the bottom left atwww.edemocracy.gov.uk.

It could have been a good way for Councils to keep in touchwith what was happening in the community but there are somedownsides:

While the user base of 30,000 35,000 users isadequate, there is little activity from those users. Feedsfrom the network would indicate that nothing is happening in the area; thetruth is that it is simply not being reported on the Network.

The feed would be out of the control of the council and therefore

potentially susceptible to abuse from a small group. This is made more ofa problem because of the small user base of the BBCAN.

Adding the BBCAN Feed box has a tendency to slow down the loading ofthe page on which it sits and therefore is unsuitable for Council homepages where it would be most useful.

We recommend that ICELE monitors activity levels in the Network, but stoppromoting the feed until levels are sufficiently high for councils to warrantincluding a feed.


18/18



12. WebCastGuide

The WebcastGuide is a guide for Local Authoritiesto implement and maximise the benefit they canget from webcasting council meetings andactivities.

Executive Summary

WebCastGuide.co.uk (WCG) is intended to be aone stop shop for all things to do with WebCasting and we find this to be areasonable concept. However the product is incomplete and lackingmaintenance.

Placeholder text remains on the live site

Comment spam is rife The intended 'community of practice' forum is unused

Not updated Poorly promoted

While we appreciate that none of this is intended, it does highlight the problem ofthe WCG in that it requires regular maintenance to make it work.

If these were corrected then WCG could over time develop into a useful resourcefor the LA community. However the question of who is best placed to maintainsuch a site is raised. In a mature market we would argue that there are sufficientpractitioners and stable suppliers to maintain such a community.

We recommend that ICELE improve the site, appoint an editorial board to make

contentious editorial and governance decisions and let the industry andpractitioners develop the webcasting community around the site to complementthe real world events that already occur.

ICELE should commit to promoting the site as the place to find more information

on Webcasting and providing top level information on benefits of Webcasting aspart of an overall strategy.

13. Learning Pool

Learning Pool is a unique e-learning service from IDeAthat allows local councils to create, share and accesstargeted e-learning for local government. There is aneDemocracy module in the Learning Pool.

Executive Summary

The eDemocracy module on Learning Pool is a useful if

not fully comprehensive introduction to eDemocracy. It needs updating in termsof links and MicroDemocracy and should be promoted much more heavily.

Local eDemocracy National Project evaluation report

Documents

Transcript of Local eDemocracy National Project evaluation report