July 29 2010, 03:28

From: Tom Watson MP (Tom)

Cuts to Arts Funding

I sit on the Department of Culture Media and Sport Select committee. We’ve just announced a new inquiry and have issued  a call for evidence on Funding of the Arts and Heritage. We’re inviting written submissions and requesting views on the following issues:

What impact recent, and future, spending cuts from central and local Government will have on the arts and heritage at a national and local level;
What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;
What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;
Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;
What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;
Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;
The impact of recent changes to DCMS arm’s-length bodies – in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council;
Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;
Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.
The Committee will also examine other areas of interest that are raised during the course of its inquiry. A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to cmsev@parliament.uk and have ‘Funding of the Arts and Heritage’ in the subject line. Submissions should be received by Thursday 2nd September 2010.

It assists the Committee if those submitting written evidence adhere to the following guidelines:
Each submission should:
1. State clearly who the submission is from, i.e. whether from yourself in a personal capacity or sent on behalf of an organisation

2. Be about 3,000 words in length / run to no more than six sides of A4 paper; as far as possible comprise a single document attachment to the email;  begin with a short summary in bullet point form;  have numbered paragraphs; and

3.  Be in Word or Rich Text format (not PDF) with as little use of colour or logos as possible.   Please supply a postal address so a copy of the Committee’s report can be sent to you upon publication.
 
4. You should also be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
 
5. Though there is a strong preference for emailed submissions, those without access to a computer should send a hard copy to:
 
Committee AssistantCulture, Media and Sport Committee
Committee Office
House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA
 
A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm
 
Please also note that:
·         Committees make public much of the evidence they receive during inquiries. If you do not wish your submission to be published, you must clearly say so. If you wish to include private or confidential information in your submission to the Committee, please contact the Clerk of the Committee to discuss this.
·         Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed submission, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
·         Evidence submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.
·         Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the Internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence. 
 
For up-to-date information on progress of the inquiry visit: http://www.parliament.uk/cmscom
Committee Membership is as follows: 
Mr John Whittingdale (Chair) (Con) (Maldon), Ms Louise Bagshawe (Con) (Corby), Paul Farrelly (Lab) (Newcastle-under-Lyme), Dr Thérèse Coffey (Con) (Suffolk Coastal), Alan Keen (Lab Co-operative) (Feltham and Heston), Damian Collins (Con) ( Folkestone and Hythe),Jim Sheridan (Lab) (Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Philip Davies (Con) ( Shipley), David Cairns (Lab) (Inverclyde), Mr Adrian Sanders (Lib Dem) (Torba) and me, Mr Tom Watson (Lab) (West Bromwich East),
 

Specific Committee Information:  cmscom@parliament.uk/ 020 7219 6188, Media Information: Laura Humble  humblel@parliament.uk/ 020 7219 8430, Committee Website: www.parliament.uk/cmscom ,Watch committees and parliamentary debates online:  www.parliamentlive.tv 
 
Publications / Reports / Reference Material:Copies of all select committee reports are available from the Parliamentary Bookshop (12 Bridge St, Westminster, 020 7219 3890) or the Stationery Office (0845 7023474).  Committee reports, press releases, evidence transcripts, Bills; research papers, a directory of MPs, plus Hansard (from 8am daily) and much more, can be found on www.parliament.uk

July 29 2010, 04:08

From: Mission Creep | Neil Williams (Neil Williams)

Death of the web team?

Death in The Seventh Seal



Where does responsibility for digital communications sit within a large organisation?

That used to be a fairly easy question (“In the web team of course!”) but it’s not so simple any more.

These days, it begs two rather more difficult questions: which bit of digital and what kind of responsibility do you mean?

Digital communications has evolved something like this:

  • IT. In the beginning there was code, and only the tech guys knew how to transform it into websites. Responsibility for managing the channel was theirs accordingly, but this wasn’t terribly responsive to the needs of the organisation, was poorly integrated, and not at all focused on end users.
  • Comms + IT. Databases (and later, CMSs) liberated content from code. Responsibility for the ‘new media’ transferred to the business, web teams sprung up in communications departments, while the underlying infrastructure remained with IT or got outsourced. Websites were still organisation-focused but awareness grew fast about accessibility, information architecture, and writing for the web.
  • Devolved publishers + Comms + IT. With publishing volumes increasing faster than resources, web monkeying was incrementally farmed out across the organisation,  often without much of a plan for quality, editorial oversight and skills transfer. Much vanity publishing ensued and keeping all those pages current inevitably became like painting the Forth Bridge.
  • Users + Devolved publishers + Comms + IT. Then came a growing recognition of the importance of providing a good online customer experience, with fewer, better pages and more usable transactions. Websites became more user-led, evidence-based, and search-friendly. Quality assurance and training of devolved publishing was tightened up, with more of the responsibility returning to the centre.
  • Moderators + Users + Devolved publishers + Comms + IT. Along came forums, blogs, commenting on articles and the brave new world of ‘user generated content’. New responsibilities brought in new people (with no need for pesky CMS training) to moderate, facilitate and respond to users’ feedback. User-focused web management was by now a mainstream principle, but the organisation was still in control of its message.
  • Everyone else + Moderators + Users + Devolved publishers + Comms + IT. Here comes everyone! And a zillion free tools to play with. The explosion in social interaction online created direct communications between customers and employees, and before long it will be happening all over the place. The organisation is no longer in control of where customer-employee or customer-customer interaction happens; let alone what’s being said. Digital communications is now, or will soon be, everyone’s job – listening, collaborating and responding online must become core competences for all if the organisation wants to continue to manage its reputation and meet the expectations of its customers.

So if everyone is going to be at it in future, where will responsibility for digital communications sit?  Will there be any need for ‘web teams’ at all? Could responsibility for digital become atomised like it has for Human Resources or Corporate Social Responsibility?

In both those professions, highly specialist, strategically important responsibilities once held in large central teams are now almost completely dispersed – with only a handful of experts setting the rules and giving guidance from the centre.

You could anticipate the same fate for digital. Just as HR can’t line manage for everyone, and just as CSR teams can’t be socially aware on everyone’s behalf, neither can web teams engage with all of the organisation’s many niche customer groups on many niche subjects with anything like the immediacy or authenticity that local teams and individual decision-makers can.

On the other hand, you might argue that this trend of decentralisation could lead to a stronger role for central digital teams in future – just a slightly different one.

That’s certainly my view. Not only because I have a mortgage to pay, but because ‘doing digital well’ is now of such strategic importance and involves such a complex and sophisticated mix of skills, disciplines and knowledge that it needs stronger than ever leadership from a centre of genuine expertise.

I’d even venture to say that in the past we may have devolved some of the wrong things.  It’s time for web teams to rein in control over quality of content and user experience, and let go of the local conversations – providing guidance, clear policies, support where it’s needed and light-touch monitoring where it’s not.

Rumours of the web team’s death (in the title of this blog post at least) have been greatly exaggerated. To me, the future of the web team involves a simultaneous strengthening of control by the centre and a transfer of trust and skills to the wider organisation. It’s about choosing the right bits of digital, and the right bits of responsibility to hold onto or to devolve.

The web team is dead. Long live the web team.

July 29 2010, 12:48

From: DavePress (Dave)

GovCamp 2011 – 22nd January 2011



The original GovCamp is coming back next January – which seems like a long way away, but it probably isn’t.

I’ve started scouting for venues – I’m hoping we can make this the biggest and best GovCamp yet.

Mark 22nd January 2011 in your diaries, and join the group to start talking about stuff!

Possibly related posts:

July 29 2010, 10:33

From: DavePress (Dave)

ScotGovBooze



Good news for all ScotGovCampers!

As well as Learning Pool sponsoring ScotGovCamp, we are hosting some pre-event drinks on Friday night in Edinburgh!

Kicking off at 6pm at the Apex International Hotel in the Grassmarket, it will be a great informal way to get everyone together before the event, getting all the introductions and stuff out of the way.

Learning Pool will be paying for a few rounds of drinks too, which is a bonus! Even if you can’t make the event on Saturday, feel free to pop in for a glass of pop and a natter – and invite colleagues along too, especially if the thought of spending a night in a bar chatting to a bunch of government geeks sounds like their kind of evening.

While I am at it, thanks as well to Firmstep and Huddle for putting their hands into their marketing pockets for sponsorship dosh.

Possibly related posts:

July 29 2010, 10:22

From: Puffbox.com (Simon)

NHS kills Google advertising

I noted back in February that NHS Choices had spent £2.7m in one year on pay-per-click advertising. Well, that's all changed now: a PQ answer reveals that the Adwords budget has been cut by 100%.

In line with Government policy, NHS Choices no longer has any arrangement, or pays for any search engine activity. No commitments have been made with Google or any other search provider for 'pay per click' online marketing since the moratorium on marketing spend was put in place on 24 May 2010. NHS Choices used paid search activity to ensure that it reaches the widest possible audience, and that users can easily find clinically assured health information and access the services they need from Government.

(And sure enough, other top spenders like the Act On CO2 campaign have also scrapped their Adwords activity.)

In my February piece, I looked at two specific search terms - 'stop smoking' and 'chlamydia'. The NHS site is still the top natural result for 'stop smoking'... although it comes beneath sponsored links to specific pharma products. The picture for chlamydia isn't so great: the NHS site comes well down the first page of Google results - beneath the American CDC, interestingly. Time to ramp up the SEO activity.

July 29 2010, 08:02

From: FutureGov (delicious)

links for 2010-07-29

July 29 2010, 08:02

From: chief executive SHDC (Terry Huggins)

Agreement

Agreement was reached last night for South Holland and East Lindsey to move five of our services into a jointly owned company. The new arrangement will give considerable savings to us both and help to secure frontline services through this period of public sector cost cutting. Staff transfer to the company on 1st August and will phase changes in service delivery over the next few months. Those who receive services from the two Councils should not be aware of the changes.

July 29 2010, 06:04

From: arbitrary constant (rich)

links for 2010-07-29

July 29 2010, 06:44

From: Communities and Collaboration (Stephendale)

CoP Usability and Sociability Heuristics

Google Buzz



As some of my regular readers will know, I’m involved in a major new project to deliver the ‘next generation’ community of practice platform for UK local government organisations – see previous blog posts about the ‘Knowledge Hub’. The current platform has been (and continues to be) a huge success, with over 63,000 users and more than 1,300 active CoPs, working towards various outcomes but with a common goal to improve public service. These will eventually be migrated to the new platform when it goes live early in 2011.

The new platform will use open source software and delivered using an agile development process (a series of Sprints and Scrum workshops), which means incremental but rapid delivery of features and enhancements. More about this in a future post.

Having been heavily involved in the architecture and design of the current platform, I was caused to reflect on some of the key design characteristics that need to be considered as we progress to the new platform. In fact, we should be able to learn from the mistakes (yes, there were quite a few) in the design of the original platform and ensure these characteristics are optimised for the new environment.  Not all of this is hard-wired stuff, but it should cause developers and system administrators to ponder on whether their design solution will support the usability and sociability requirements needed to encourage community engagement, collaboration, reciprocity of knowledge and an inherent trusted community space.  Understanding the users and their needs is a key starting point.

Users typically want to know whether they can find and do what they want, when they want, and that their interactions are comfortable. The eight questions that follow raise the typical concerns expressed by most users. The answer to these questions provides heuristics for developers, system administrators and community moderators/facilitators. In conjunction with guidelines, they are useful for guiding the development process and planning evaluations. They will be used as we begin the development and design for the Knowledge Hub.

User Questions Usability Concerns Sociability Concerns
1. Why should I join this community? Does the community have a clear and meaningful name? Is there a clear description of the community’s purpose? Is the content attractively presented (design, colour, graphics etc.? Will the site be updated regularly What title and content will communicate the community’s purpose effectively and attract people?
2. How do I join or leave? Are the instructions for registering clear? Is it a short procedure? Is there a statement ensuring privacy and security? Should this be an open or a closed community? How sensitive are the issues and participants?

Do we want to control who joins?

3. What are the rules? Are policies clearly and concisely worded and appropriately positioned? What polices are needed? Should a facilitator guide and enforce rules? Do we need disclaimers ort other statements of intent?
4. How do I read and send messages? Has appropriate support been defined and provides (e.g. templates, emoticons, FAQs, single messages or digests for listservers? Is support needed for newcomers? Should the system facilitate sending private and group messages?
5. Can I do want I want easily? What capabilities will best meet communications needs (e.g. different formats for information, such as Web pages , FAQs, content variation; search facilities, effective help at the appropriate level; private communication, etc.)? What is the best way to ensure that the community is a congenial place, one where people can do what they want to do? What are the communication needs of the community?
6. Is the community safe? What are the best ways to protect personal information, secure transaction processing, support private discussion, and protect members from aggressive behaviour? Will the community need a facilitator to ensure appropriate behaviour? What level of confidentiality and security is needed?
7. Can I express myself as I wish? Will users need, want or expect emoticons, avatars, content icons, a seamless link to private email, Web pages etc.? What kind of communication capabilities does a community with this purpose require, and how should they be supported?
8. Why should I come back? How often and by what method should content be changed (e.g. news, broadcast, provocateur to stimulate discussion, etc.)? What will entice people to return on a regular basis?

July 29 2010, 05:49

From: MDDA (Paul Hilton)

Zend accredited PHP programming short course at MMU 13th – 15th September

The Zend PHP II: Higher Structures advanced training course is designed to expand a beginning programmer’s understanding of the PHP language. This intermediate-level course builds upon knowledge gained in PHP I: Foundations. It utilises a hands-on approach with numerous examples and practical exercises, as well as a key development project, to enhance learning. You will also have the opportunity to use the Zend Studio IDE (Integrated Development Environment) to continue honing your coding skills utilising best practices and effective tools.

You will learn about:

  • PHP Language Concepts
  • Configuring PHP
  • Regular Expressions
  • PHP and OOP Concepts
  • Application Development
  • PHP Web Fundamentals
  • PHP Database Basics
  • PHP Application Essentials

Recommended for:

As an official Zend Training Center, this course continues where PHP I: Foundations leaves off, and is designed for novice PHP developers who want to further advance their skills in the PHP language and already know the basics of PHP syntax, language constructs, and web site functionality.

Course Outline

Please visit the MMU website for a course outline.

Cost

£600

More Information

MMU also do customised delivery models at a customer’s premises. We are mindful that it’s often impossible to release people for 3 days back to back.
Please visit the MMU website.

July 29 2010, 04:58

From: Policy and Performance (Ingrid Koehler)

Facebook campaigns: Parking in the park

The previous government proposed to introduce charges in Richmond Park, the largest enclosed park in Europe and an oasis of calm in the hustle and bustle of London.

Park users who were used to a free parking in several lots within the park opposed the plans (vehemently). Residents who lived near pedestrian and roadway gates in the park also opposed them as they feared that park visitors would use residential roads to park especially on Sundays when there’s traditionally no enforcement of parking. The surrounding councils (Wandsworth, Richmond and Kingston) opposed the charges on their behalf. The other side of the argument was that imposing charges could be used to maintain the car parks and that it would encourage use of public transport and cycling to access the park. There was a public consultation on the charges and despite overwhelming opposition from consultees the charges were to go ahead.

So naturally opposition sprang up on Facebook. Wandsworth Council started a Facebook group. And a far more popular group was also started that was associated with Zac Goldsmith – then a Conservative PPC. (As far as I can tell, the only dispute between ZG and the incumbent he beat – Susan Kramer – was an arcane procedural bun fight over who was using the best tactics to defeat the charges.)

So were the Facebook campaigns a success? Who can say? The government changed and the charges were scrapped. But the Facebook groups provided a useful point of information and opposition to the charges. And perhaps the Facebook groups were less about providing leadership than demonstrating that politicians and institutions understood the concerns of those living in Southwest London.

I was reminded of the campaign this morning when reading through my council’s magazine which included a feature on the issue. Apparently, not only are the parking charges to be scrapped, but so are any plans to re-surface the car parks. Instead they will be kept as they are ‘preserving their rural character’. Ha!

(Disclosure – I am a Wandsworth resident and park user. I opposed the charges, responded to the formal consultation and joined both Facebook groups. I don’t mind if the car parks maintain their ‘rurality’.)


July 29 2010, 04:36

From: Puffbox.com (Simon)

Directgov’s £28m/yr to be cut by a third

For those interested in the move of Directgov, and its 172 FTE staff, back to Cabinet Office control, there's loads more detail in an explanatory document published on the Parliament website. I say 'published': it's been slipped out as a PDF on the little-known deposits.parliament.uk subsite.

The note confirms that 'Directgov funding will be reduced by a third over the Spending Review period', from £28.4m in 2010/11, 'together with the funding for the digital teams based in the Cabinet Office.'

But alongside the nuts-and-bolts details of who pays for the laptops, there's an interesting perspective on what Directgov's actual role is:

Directgov‟s ongoing role is to enable government to:

  • Reduce the deficit
  • Encourage individual and social responsibility, through provision and sharing of information and services in an open and transparent way
  • Enhance the role of social enterprises, charities and co-operatives in public services

July 28 2010, 05:00

From: In The Eye Of The Storm (Alan)

Art of the Possible

I've passed this building several times in the last few weeks

201007282159.jpg

I'm keen to go in and find out what they do. And, especially, to ask why this kind of study wasn't around when I was at school.

July 28 2010, 04:55

From: In The Eye Of The Storm (Alan)

Meeting Output

Why is a whiteboard something like this so common in meeting rooms?

201007282152.jpg

It seems to me that all meetings start off with good intentions - people want structure and note-taking and discipline. Quickly, that all falls away. And what's left is like the imprint in rock of a long dead animal - evidence that something was there, some flash of inspiration, the remnants of a desire for that structure. Not, though, enough to see the DNA of the meeting and determine actually what went on.

This text was still on the whiteboard 3 days later when I was back in the same meeting room. I hope someone will use it soon.

July 28 2010, 01:32

From: Carl's Notepad (Carl Haggerty)

Location, Location, Location

I’m fascinated by the increased conversation about Location based Social Networks as i personally find them really interesting.  Back in January this year i predicted they would be big in 2010 (albeit my rationale was deeply flawed and influenced by a particular phone!!).

However they do seem to be growing in value and more and more people are seeing business opportunities and benefits from working with them. It is also interesting to see Google and Facebook both supporting Location based features of varying levels that if they see value then i guess we won’t actually get much choice. Location will just be another feature of our interaction with our friends and colleagues.

I was thinking the other day – what would happen if all of the content from TripAdvisor (ratings, feedback, pricing etc) was integrated with a location-based network like Foursquare or Gowalla. In fact there is almost a duplication of content happening at some level anyway. The power of that information is already influencing people’s decision – but if you could see that someone who actually said they liked the place had “checked in” say 10-15 times, would you believe them more than someone who checked in only once?

This is where these tools are starting to move, if businesses are savvy, and want to manage their brand they will need to understand this stuff. I say understand as it is still early days and most of the benefits and new features are becoming useful because the companies themselves are adding value by linking with other sites or companies.

But there is a dark side – isn’t there always!

Privacy is something that a lot of people care about, most people were vocal about Facebook’s dealings of privacy – so we can assume that it is an important thing to get right – it is also an important thing an individual needs to get right so that it doesn’t back fire.

An example of how weird and creepy it can get can be found on Shea Sylvia’s blog. It is the type of story that people will use to say that these sites don’t offer value and that they will only lead to bad things – well i don’t agree with that….Shea’s situation and experience is not something i’d like to go through – i’m glad she shared the story, but it does offer us all a valuable lesson and one which made me think about how all this stuff fits together.

In Facebook i have quite tight privacy controls and only (as a rule) except friends who i have actually met in person – Facebook is a place where i share photos of my family and more personal events. So i’m happy to share this with people i consider to be friends in one form or another.

On twitter, i have a public profile (i don’t protect my tweets) but i generally use this as a professional tool and only occasionally use this in a personal capacity – i do however consider a good proportion of people i follow on twitter (those i have met and some i haven’t) as friends also.

Foursquare and Gowalla – These tools don’t really do privacy that well in my opinion or at least create an illusion on privacy, yes you can accept friends but when you check in somewhere it will share that with anyone who visits that location. I can see the value in this, but why can’t you restrict you check in information to only those people you accept as friends?

My point being that when you decide to share something, it should be based on your own understanding of how you have set your privacy settings – it can’t create loop holes for your information to leak out to anyone.

I will personally be revisiting all of my privacy settings and how they interact with each other so that i can be sure who has access to the information i post to the web.


Filed under: Learning, participation, Risk Tagged: facebook, foursquare, google, gowalla, location based social networks, privacy, shea sylvia, tripadvisor, twitter

July 28 2010, 09:37

From: arbitrary constant (rich)

Eric Pickles: comedian (part 2)

After part 1 comes part 2 - a speech to the LGA:

It was a bit like local government was a fifteen year old girl with really strict parents. They let you go down the dance for the first time.

But then totally cramped your style by parking round the corner to watch what you were up to and made you go home at half past nine.

Not so much 'total place'. More like 'know your place'.

I don't want to be the Dad hanging round the corner. You can get yourselves down the dance. You can stay out all night if you want. Let your hair down - before it all goes like mine.

It's obviously just a style thing. But on a topic like Total Place (or what might replace it), which Pickles himself says is considered hugely important by the PM, the Deputy PM and the Chancellor, I'd have liked to see something more serious.

July 28 2010, 08:02

From: FutureGov (delicious)

links for 2010-07-28

July 28 2010, 08:07

From: The Great E-mancipator (greatemancipator)

Portuguese e-government

In The Great E-mancipator  I try not to restrict the view of e-government to the UK or America, and try to pick up relevant news from wherever in the world there are attempts to implement it.

In the Financial Times of July 13 2010* there appeared a story from Portugal where, whilst the Portuguese are apparently “addicted to technology”, they suffer the same paper-heavy bureaucracy that much of the world puts up with. There have been various attempts to resolve this, but it does show that there’s not much difference between Portugal and the rest, despite the love of technology!

It also shows, yet again, that technology is subsidiary to the changes in processes needed to give citizens improved services!

*You’ll have to register but it’s free!


July 28 2010, 07:09

From: Policy and Performance (Ingrid Koehler)

All systems (about to) go

Yesterday we had a meeting of the Knowledge Hub advisory group, where we unveiled our chosen supplier and gave a glimpse of the chosen solution.  But just a glimpse. And we showed the new Knowledge Hub video which really helps to explain what it’s all about.  It wasn’t the most interactive meeting we’ve had and that’s largely because we had a lot of information to present.  Some of it was about our procurement process – and it was robust and we needed to demonstrate that – but it’s not the most exciting thing to talk about.    Was the interactive magic missing from yesterday’s meeting?  Yeah, maybe.  But the magic is about to start and there will be plenty of ways for people to get involved with making it happen.

The minimum requirements

The communities of practice platform (CoP) sponsored by Local Government Improvement and Development has been by many accounts a hugely successful endeavour.  But it is not without its flaws.  It’s great for some things, but not so great for others.   It works brilliantly for online conferences for example.  I find it an amazing place to share and collaborate with practitioners around the work that I’ve done for LG Improvement and Development – whether that be on performance management, policy, customer insight or social media.  But it can be hard work to do that.  There’s very little ‘permeability’ between communities.  Conversations which would naturally span a number of practitioner communites – for example around efficiency – can only really take place in one community at a time.  The navigation is clunky in places and it’s difficult to genuinely collaborate on content.  But we’re going to fix all that.  The minimum requirements for the Knowledge Hub is to be CoP plus.  A much better space for those interested in local public services to network, share and collaborate.  Here’s a quote from one of our active users:

I’m really excited about Knowledge Hub.  The existing CoP system has already facilitated much more rapid social networking between like minded peers and practitioners than ever before in local government – delivering real value in terms of shared expertise and experience.
Jon Hyde, Programme Manager, Cheltenham BC

Much more than the minimum

But the Knowledge Hub will be much more than the minimum requirements.  It will be a place to discover a wide range of materials and content to support the development and improvement of local public services.  It will allow people to integrate the work that they’re doing across a range of platforms.   It will be a place to share and surface applications that are useful to local government, it will be a place where  – with your help – people can turn a growing set of transparency data into useful information for public sector improvement and development.

Getting involved

Over the next couple of weeks (depending on when I take some leave), I’ll be sharing plans for the Knowledge Ecology part of project – and I would love for both detailed comment and volunteers to get involved in supporting or even delivering aspects of this programme.

Basically it covers 5 areas:

1. Helping the LGA group get the most out of the Knowledge Hub – across its range of lobbying, support and improvement functions.

2. Supporting councils to use social media more effectively- this isn’t a huge programme, but it is about supporting the social media community of practice, developing interactive roadshows, an online conference and highlighting effective use through web and other resources.

3. Supporting better sharing of practice through social media – celebrating where people are sharing their practice effectively through a range of social media tools (this doesn’t have to be fancy!)

4. Supporting a culture of data – this is not so much a Knowledge Hub project, but part of a wider LGA group and partner organisation programme of support to councils on sharing open data and supporting linked data.

5. Tech as an enabler  – this isn’t about building the technical build of the platform, but ensuring that we understand users’ needs and ensure that the features including user experience and the user interface make it as easy as possible to share and collaborate.  An example of first steps we’ve taken in this area was a workshop we held with existing CoP facilitators, brainstorming things that they’d like to have and then sharing them through a tool called user voice.   If you’re a CoP user and have ideas about what could be better - you can share them here. Or vote or comment on the features that have already been added.


July 28 2010, 06:02

From: arbitrary constant (rich)

links for 2010-07-28

  • "a century after Robert Seymour's memorial disappeared, the stone commemorating him is to be unveiled at a ceremony in the back garden of 48 Doughty Street, the museum in Charles Dickens' only surviving London home. Seymour had taken his own life within 24 hours of a last meeting with the author Dickens, after completing the final illustration – named Death of a Clown – for the writer's first novel, the Pickwick Papers. Almost certainly Dickens had told Seymour he was being dropped as the artist for the serial, which when bound together would become his first runaway best seller and launch his career."
  • Fascinating stuff, as ever, from Matthew Taylor: "The latter [Labour's approach to public service reform] comprised four elements: first, strategy, accountability and funding from the top; second, choice and voice from the bottom up; third, diversity and contestability providing dynamism among providers; and, fourth, a general attempt to build capacity and confidence through the system."
  • Great article on the contradictory results of welfare reform and the intentions of the #bigsociety: "So proposals to move people off incapacity benefits will not only have a dangerous impact on their health it will also, in one fell swoop, greatly reduce the size and diversity of the pool of people Cameron expects to help deliver his big society."
  • Report from Policy Exchange: "The Commission on the funding of care and support long-term announced by the Coalition Government should not consider paying for care solely through general taxation. The report says that free personal care funded out of general taxation, as was introduced in Scotland in 2002, could cost the Government up to £106 billion each year – the equivalent to funding a second NHS. It recommends instead that the Commission considers three specific funding models: the King’s Fund partnership model; a social insurance model as used in Europe, and a hybrid model whereby the State guarantees some level of care, but people are required to top-up for their long term care through insurance or annuity backed products."
  • A speech the former Prime Minister gave at the excellent Institute for Government: "Tony Blair addressed the Institute for Government on his experience in and out of office on the importance of governance in the modern world".