Measuring the Impact of Social Media in Government

Measuring the Impact of Social Media and Determining Next Stepsand Determining Next Steps

Advanced Learning InstituteSocial Media for Government Conference

A d K i k A i H og

Social Media for Government ConferenceMarch 26, 2009

Andrew Krzmarzick Senior Project Coordinator

The Graduate Schoolhttp://www.graduateschool.edu

Ari HerzogOnline Media StrategistAri Herzog & Associates

http://www.ariherzog.com http://www.graduateschool.eduhttp://generationshift.blogspot.com

Twitter: @krazykriz

http://www.ariherzog.comBlog: http://www.ariwriter.com

Twitter: @ariherzog

1. Paper or

S h d d ?

2. Laptop3 IdSo what… do I do now? 3. Ideas4. Rank4. Rank5. Share

Source: Flickr - Khalid Almasoud's Photostream

AGENDAAGENDA

d l l1. Introductions

2. Base Camp

6. Potential Template

7. Application

3. Web 1.0 Measurement

W b M t

8. Next Steps

Fi l Th ht4. Web 2.0 Measurement

5. Survey Results

9. Final Thoughts

10. Gov 2.0 Camp and Beyond

INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS

Name

Agency/Organization

E iExpectations

BASE CAMPBASE CAMPCurrent/Potential How Do You Web Activities Measure Success?

ROI*It’s all about ROI**So who is this ROI anyway?

BASE CAMPBASE CAMP

ROI ?ROI = ?

Return on Investment?Return on… Investment?

What is ROI?What is ROI?• Coined in 1920s for General Motors to measure investment return in industry

• Digital parallel needed»Investment»Insightg»Information»Influence»Influence»Interaction»Implementation»Implementation

“ADVANCING SOCIAL MEDIA” SURVEYADVANCING SOCIAL MEDIA SURVEY

• 10 questions•4,000 potential respondents

• Web Manager’s ForumG L• GovLoop

• GovTwit Directory•International Contacts

• 105 responses

• 7 countries


Questions

1. What enables or hinders you from using social media? y g

2. What social media tools does your agency use?

3 Rate tools per value/importance in achieving mission3. Rate tools per value/importance in achieving mission.

4. Do you establish metrics prior to implementation?

5. If yes, for which tools and what variables do you measure?


Questions

6. Is privacy, security and monitoring social tools important?p y, y g p

7. How often do you use social media in your job?

8 Thoughts re: gov standards w/browsers software etc ?8. Thoughts re: gov standards w/browsers, software, etc.?

9. Is CTO/CIO actively involved in social media initiatives?

10. Where are you from/what agency do you represent?

bl i d d hResponse

1. What enables or hinders you from using social media?

Answer OptionsEnables Hinders Depends Other

Response Count

Knowledge level (manager) 31 31% 37 37% 30 30% 2 100

Knowledge level (staff) 38 38% 35 35% 27 27% 1 101

Management support 32 32% 36 36% 29 29% 2 99

Available resources 25 25% 50 50% 24 24% 1 100Available resources 5 5 50 50 4 4 00

Connection to mission 55 57% 12 12% 28 29% 2 97

Other (please specify) 30

d ianswered question 101

Most Believe Gaining Top‐Down Advocacy from Upper Levels Will Spur Action Toward Widespread Gov 2.0 Strategy

The best way to spur action at our agency/department toward implementing a more widespread Gov 2.0 strategy is:

43 0%Gaining top-down advocacy from the upper levels of our agency/department

43.0%

41.9%54.4%

31.5%

10.3%An increase in our IT budget14.5%

20 2%13.3%

7.6%10.4%

8.1%

A grass-roots campaign that starts at the lower levels of our agency/department

P bli f tit t

20.2%

9.3%

14.7%

5 9%

5.9%

Public pressure from our constituents

8.6%Hiring more IT workers who are knowledgeable

about Web 2.0 techs and the power of collaboration

12.4%

13.7%

5.9%10.5%

9.3%

Total RespondentsFederal Government

State Other

A singular event that requires action (e.g., an election, a natural disaster, etc.)

collaboration

4.4%12.1%11.4%

4.4%9.0%

4.4%4 8% GovernmentLocal

Government

Other 4.8%4.0%

1 Paper orHow

1. Paper or2. Laptop are they

3. IdeasR k

connected 4. Rank5. Share

to your5. Share

mission?

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11280943@N04/1504440991/

WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENTWEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT

1. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study

2 Forrester Website Benchmark Survey2. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey

3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index

4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports


1 Brookings Institution E Government Study1. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study

Since 2000:

•> 1,500 state and Federal government sites

•0 – 100 point scale



Since 2000:

•> 1,500 state and Federal government sites

•0 – 100 point scale


1 Brookings Institution E Government Study1. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study• Advertisements (lack of)• Audio clips

• Pay via credit card• PDA/handheld device accessibility• Audio clips

• Commenting• Databases

• PDA/handheld device accessibility• Personalization of the website• Premium fees (lack of)

l• Digital signatures on transactions• Disability access• E‐mail contact information

• Privacy policies• Publications• Security policies

• E‐mail updates• Foreign language access

y p• User fees• Video clips

4 points per feature (72 total points) + 28 more for frequency



You got itYou got it…or you don’t.y



• User Goals

• Value

• Navigation

• Presentation

T• Trust



ValueValue

• Does landing page provide evidence that user goals can be

hi d?achieved?

• Is essential content available where needed?

• Is essential function available where needed?

• Are essential content and function given priority in display?



NavigationNavigation

• Are menu category/sub‐category clear?

A t t d f ti l ifi d l i ll ?• Are content and function classified logically?

• Is the task flow efficient?

• Is wording in hyperlinks/controls clear and informative?

• Are keyword searches comprehensive and precise?



PresentationPresentation

• Does site use language that’s easy to understand?

D th it hi i d b l “ “ ?• Does the site use graphics, icons, and symbols “ “ ?

• Is text legible? Text format/layout support easy scanning?

• Are form fields and interactive elements placed well?



TrustTrust

• Does the site present privacy and security policies?

D l ti i t th ?• Do location cues orient the user?

• Is contextual help available at key points?

• Does the site help users avoid and recover from errors?



Trust theexperts?


3 ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index



E‐Gov – What is it?

• Measures 94 e‐gov sites on:

1 Navigation

• Key question:

How satisfied are citizens?B d U i i f Mi hi ’1. Navigation

2. Functionality

h

• Based on University of Michigan’s

American Customer

( )3. Search

4. Look and Feel

Satisfaction Index (ACSI)





E‐Gov Outcomes as of Q1 2009E Gov Outcomes as of Q1 2009

• All‐time high: 74.1% satisfaction overall

M t f l it• Most successful sites:

• Citizens find information quickly and easily

• E‐Commerce and Transaction functions



E‐Gov Top PerformersE Gov Top Performers

• http://www.ssa.gov/estimator (Score: 89)

• http://www.cia.gov/employment (Score: 81)

• http://www.niams.nih.gov/index.htm (Score: 82)

• http://medlineplus.gov (Score: 86)



E‐Gov AdvantagesE Gov Advantages

• Savings of time and money for government

B tt i f iti d b i• Better service for citizens and businesses

• Accountability, transparency, active participation

• Streamlined bureaucracy and reduced redundancy



The The customers’ customers always yright?


4 OMB E Government Initiatives4. OMB E‐Government Initiatives

E‐Government Act of 2002

“To enhance the management and promotion of electronic

Government services and processes by establishing a Federal Government services and processes by establishing a Federal

Chief Information Officer…and a broad framework of

h i i b d i f imeasures that require using Internet‐based information

technology to enhance citizen access to Government

information and services, and for other purposes.”


4 OMB E Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)


4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)4. OMB E Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)

GOAL:

“…to be the best manager,

innovator and

Really?

Do weinnovator and

user of information,

i d

Do we believe it?

services and

information systems If so,

let’s do itin the world.”

let s do it.


4 OMB E Gov Report Jan 20094. OMB E‐Gov Report ‐ Jan 2009

FIVE PORTFOLIOS

• Government to Citizen• Government to BusinessGovernment to Business• Government to Government• Internal Efficiency and Effectiveness• Cross‐Cutting• Lines of Business



• Business.gov

• Regulations.gov

• USALearning.govg g

• Grants.gov

• FedBizOpps govFedBizOpps.gov

• Recreation.gov

USAJOBS g• USAJOBS.gov



• 28/28 agencies have implementation plans28/28 agencies have implementation plans

• 87% of milestones met


4 OMB E Gov Report Jan 2009)4. OMB E‐Gov Report ‐ Jan 2009)

Opportunities for Continued ImprovementOpportunities for Continued Improvement

a) Improve Information Security Management

b) Improve Information Privacy

c) Increase IT Workforce Competency

d) Improve E‐Gov Initiatives Performance Measures


4 OMB E Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)

d) Improve E‐Gov Initiatives Performance Measuresd) Improve E Gov Initiatives Performance Measures• Adoption/Participation – Is the relevant community participating?

• Usage –What’s the level of use by the target community?• Usage –What s the level of use by the target community?

• Customer Satisfaction – Is the community satisfied w/ products/services?

• Cost Sa ings/A oidance Wh ’ $ l f / i i ?• Cost Savings/Avoidance – What’s $ value for government /citizens?

• Efficiency ‐ Any decreases in time and/or increases in productivity?



4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)4. OMB E Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)

Peer Pressure?

WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT

1. Paper or How What measurementapproach could youp

2. Laptop3. Ideas4 Rank

are they

connected

approach could youadapt from “Web 1.0”?4. Rank

5. Shareto your

mission? What would motivate your key y y

stakeholder(s)?You got it… The customers’ gor you don’t.

Trust the Peer

The customers’ always right?

Trust theexperts?

Peer Pressure?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pablography/2415832354/

2.0

1 01.0

“IMPACT FOR GENERATIONS”IMPACT FOR GENERATIONSGenerations Explained

Generation Name* Birth Years, Ages in 2009 % of total adult population

% of internet‐using population

Gen Y (Millennials) Born 1977‐1990, Ages 18‐32 26% 30% Gen X Born 1965‐1976, Ages 33‐44 20% 23% 9 5 97 , g 33 44 3Younger Boomers Born 1955‐1964, Ages 45‐54 20% 22% Older Boomers Born 1946‐1954, Ages 55‐63 13% 13% Silent Generation Born 1937‐1945, Ages 64‐72 9% 7% G G i B 6 A % %

58%

G.I. Generation Born ‐1936, Age 73+ 9% 4% Source: Pew Internet & American Life Project December 2008 survey. N=2,253 total adults, and margin of error is ±2%. N=1,650 total internet users, and margin of error is ±3%.

*All generation labels used in this report, with the exception of “Younger ‐” and “Older ‐” Boomers, are the names conventionalized by Howe and Strauss’s book, Generations: Strauss, William & Howe, Neil. Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069 (Perennial, 1992). As for “Younger Boomers” and “Older Boomers”, enough research has been done to suggest that the two decades of Baby Boomers are different enough to merit being divided into distinct generational groups.

Source: Flickr – lyzadanger’s photostream


’ “ b ”1. IBM’s “Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government”

2. UN E‐Government Survey

3. Rutgers Digital Governance Study

F d l W b M ’ “P tti Citi Fi t”4. Federal Web Manager’s “Putting Citizens First”


1 IBM’s “Leveraging Web 2 0 in Government”1. IBM s Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government

What could we measure?

Engagement

1) Usability

Effectiveness

1) Objectives1) Usability

2) Extent of engagement

1) Objectives

2) Benchmarks


1 IBM’s “Leveraging Web 2 0 in Government”1. IBM s Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government

Examples ToolsExamples

• Number of visitors

• Number of links

Tools

• Feedburner

• Google Analytics• Number of links

• Number of comments

• Creation of new knowledge

• Google Analytics

• Technorati

• Creation of new knowledge

• Increase in solutions

I i ll b ti• Increase in collaboration

WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENTWEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT1. IBM: “Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government”

Findings• Gov needs to meet citizens where they are online

• Citizens are willing to be interactivew/ gov online

• Role of intermediaries will increase

• Gov needs to rethink content and service design

• Gov must embed authority in web‐based services

• Citizens trust gov with personal data, but not efficiency

• Gov must measure its Web 2.0 initiatives


1. IBM’s “Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government”g g

Recommendations

1. Just do it

2. Develop gov‐wide inventory of common Web 2.0 issues

3. Rethink how you deliver your mission

4. Reconfigure Internet info/services: component‐based4 g / p

5. Ensure authenticity of gov information and services

6 Learn and keep an open mind6. Learn and keep an open mind

WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT

“From E‐Government to • 192 member nations, 189 online2. UN E‐Government Survey 2008

From E‐Government to Connected Governance”

9 , 9

• Broadband is crucial– US in 4th, after Sweden, Denmark, Norway

• eParticipation is crucial– US in 1st, followed by South Korea, FR/DK

• Connect the silosInfrastructure integration transformation– Infrastructure, integration, transformation

WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT2. UN E‐Government Survey 2008

2 0 Connected

Transactional: G2C

2.0

(pay taxes, renew licenses,2-way comm, 24x7)

Interactive(download forms apps(download forms, apps,

and portal)

Enhanced( hi d li k t l ti t l tt )

1.0(archived links to regulations, reports, newsletters)

Emerging(website links static)(website, links, static)

Top 10 UN Member NationsTop 10 UN Member Nations1. Sweden

GOAL2. Denmark3. Norway

GOAL:

“…to be the best manager, 4. USA5. Netherlands

bl f

g ,

innovator and

f i f ti 6. Republic of Korea7. Canada8 Australia

user of information,

services and 8. Australia9. France10. United Kingdom

information systems

in the world.”g

USA vs DenmarkUSA vs Denmark

Connected: 78% vs 93%Connected

Connected: 78% vs 93%

Transactional: 65% vs 80% Transactional: G2C

(pay taxes, renew licenses, 2-way comm, 24x7)

Interactive

Interactive: 90% vs 89%

Enhanced: 98% vs 97%

Interactive(download forms, apps,

and portal)

Enhanced(archived links to regulations,

t l tt )Enhanced: 98% vs 97%

Emerging: 100% vs 100%

reports, newsletters)

Emerging(website, links, static)

Total: 85% vs 89%

UN: Best PracticesUN: Best Practices• EU's Debate Europe

http://europa eu/debateeurope/index en htmhttp://europa.eu/debateeurope/index_en.htm

• Brazilian House of Representatives ‐ online debateshttp://www2.camera.gov.br/popular

• Iceland Ministry of Social Affairs ‐ online chathttp://www.felagsmalaraduneyti.is/radherra

• Ireland ‐ gov procurement portalhttp://www.e‐tenders.gov.ie

• Malta Health Ministry online health card apps med ency anim lessons• Malta Health Ministry – online health card apps, med ency, anim lessonshttp://www.ehealth.gov.mt/article.aspx?art=90

• Netherlands e‐Citizen Charterh // h / / i l / 8http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/104894

WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT3. Rutgers Digital Governance in Municipalities Study

• Joint biennial survey of Rutgers & Sungkyunkwan• Co‐sponsored by the UN Division for Public Administration Co sponsored by the UN Division for Public Administration

and Development Management & American Society of Public Administration

• Conducted in 2007, with data from the International Telecommunications Union

• Evaluated 100 cities with populations > 160 000 Evaluated 100 cities with populations > 160,000 • Ranked gov systems according to:

‐Privacy ‐ Service

‐Usability ‐ Citizen Participation‐Content

WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT3. Rutgers Digital Governance in Municipalities Study

• 86 of 100 cities had official websites

• New York was 4th in 2003 2nd in 2005 9th in 2007• New York was 4th in 2003, 2nd in 2005, 9th in 2007

• New York scored 6 on participation vs Seoul with 16

• 10 N.A. cities: NYC, Guatemala City, Mexico City, Toronto, Kingston (Jamaica), Port‐au‐Prince (Haiti), San Jose (Costa Rica) San Juan (Puerto Rico) San Salvador (El Salvador) Rica), San Juan (Puerto Rico), San Salvador (El Salvador), and Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)

• 70% of N.A. cities had official websites, vs 100% in Europe, 70% of N.A. cities had official websites, vs 100% in Europe, South America, and Oceania

WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT

S l' C b P li F i t “ id

3. Rutgers Digital Governance in Municipalities Study

• Seoul's Cyber Policy Forum aims to “provide citizens …to understand policy issues…facilitate discussions…encourage citizen participation… d c o e co ge c e p c p oobtain feedback…reflect citizens’ opinions…”

• http://www e seoul go kr Korean Chinese • http://www.e‐seoul.go.kr ‐ Korean, Chinese, Japanese, English, French, Spanish

l k d d• Hong Kong, Helsinki, Singapore, Madrid

Internet Soul in Seoul: 9/2008Internet Soul in Seoul: 9/2008• 796 online services

• 35 000 civil petitions submitted every year • 35,000 civil petitions submitted every year

• 680 public documents available for reading/applying

• 63,000 license apps for 11 depts & 70 agencies

• Pay e‐taxes; stored on gov servers for 5 years y ; g 5 y

• Gov mtgs synced w/ live TV broadcasts & web streaming

f l ff d d /• 40 free internet training classes offered; podcasts/VOD

• 11,000 emails sent to mayor; w/ personalized response

• 42,000 online reservations: 540 gov svcs & 25 agencies

WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT

4. Federal Web Managers Council: “Putting Citizens First”

• Need to easily find relevant, accurate, and up‐to‐date info

• Understand information the first time they read it• Understand information the first time they read it

• Complete common tasks efficiently

D li it b h il li h t i t i• Duplicity: web, phone, email, live chat, print, in‐person

• Provide feedback and hear how government will respond

• Access key info despite disability and English proficiency

WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT4. Federal Web Managers Council: “Putting Citizens First”Th W b C M Ad i C il h d h T B The Web Content Managers Advisory Council has posted the Top 10 Best Practices for Government Websites on its website, webcontent.gov:

1 Meet all laws requirements policies and other directives 1. Meet all laws, requirements, policies, and other directives for public websites

2. Document your governance structure, including roles, relationships, responsibilities, rules, and review processes

3. Develop, document, and implement a strategic plan that both incorporates visionary changes and corrects problems both incorporates visionary changes and corrects problems with web content

4. Focus on top tasks5 Create and manage content effectively and efficiently5. Create and manage content effectively and efficiently

WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT

4. Federal Web Managers Council: “Putting Citizens First”

6. Collaborate within your agency and across government to manage content and eliminate g gduplication

7. Follow usability best practices7 y p

8. Evaluate the effectiveness of your website

9 Make sure the public can find your content9. Make sure the public can find your content

10. Create opportunities for the public to interact h hwith their government

Credit: Jeremy Caplan, Dept of Commerce

Sylvia Sweets Tea Room, y ,corner of School and Main streets, Brockton, Mass.

• Uploaded January 8, 2008 with assorted notes, subjects, call number, etc.

• 20+ comments from Jan 2008 to last week

Library of Congress on FlickrLibrary of Congress on Flickr• Internal meetings began early 2007

Z t ff b k d f ll ti thi j t!• Zero staff members worked full‐time on this project!

• Purchased a Flickr Pro account at $24.95/year

• Developed a custom upload app w/ java and marc4j

i f h f h i• 1‐time cost of 222 hours of tech programming over 6 months

U l d d h t i J 8• Uploaded 3,100 photos in January 2008

• Ongoing costs involve a 7‐member team, equivalent to g g , q1 FTE (including tracking LOC photo usage on external blogs, communications, etc)

24 Hours Later 9 Months Later:…24 Hours Later• All 3,100+ photos viewed

…9 Months Later:

• 5,621 photos as of 3/19/09

• 392,000 views on the photostream

6 i f h t

• 10 Million+ views

• Site averages 500,000 views a h• 650,000 views of photos

• 1.1 million total views on LOC account

month

• 7,166 comments

• 420 photos had comments

• 1,200 photos were favorited

• Flickr members favorited 79% of photos

• Between Jan ‐May 2008, average LOC PPOC b it 20% , p LOC PPOC websites rose 20% per month, compared to 2007

“Increasing the ability to engage andIncreasing the ability to engage and connect with photos increases the sense of ownership and respect that people feel for these photos.”feel for these photos.

“L l d f thi j t“Lessons learned from this project provide guideposts to the type of p g p ypexperience that people would like to have with our collections ”have with our collections.


R lt !Results!

Advancing Social Media in Government

Do you establish metrics prior to implementing any of the above social media tools at your agency?

Response Response

Answer Options

Response Frequency

Response Count

Yes 43.8% 46

No 56.2% 59No 56.2% 59

answered question 105skipped question 0

“…we don't have benchmark data,

nor do we have measurable objectives

f f lfor any of our tools.

We basically just put them out thereWe basically just put them out there

and hope they work. p y

It's kind of annoying.”

Advancing Social Media in GovernmentIf you answered YES for #4, what tools are you measuring?

O iResponse F

Response C tAnswer Options Frequency Count

1 Blogs 60.4% 292 E-mail 58.3% 283 Twitter 56.3% 273 Twitter 56.3% 274 RSS 43.8% 215 YouTube 33.3% 166 Facebook 31.3% 15

2 0% 27 Podcasts 25.0% 128 Mobile devices 16.7% 89 Wikis 14.6% 710 Delicious 8.3% 410 Delicious 8.3% 4

11 Z-other social networking (e.g. Flickr, Govloop, LinkedIn, Ning) 8.3% 4

12 LinkedIn 6.3% 313 Z-other video sharing (e.g. Hulu, Vimeo, Viddler) 6.3% 314 Z-other social bookmarking (e.g. Digg, StumbleUpon) 4.2% 215 Gaming 2.1% 116 MySpace 2.1% 117 Second Life 0 0% 017 Second Life 0.0% 018 Z-other virtual worlds/3D Web (e.g. YooWalk) 0.0% 0

answered question 48skipped question 57

GENERAL

• Views

Number of views/page

BLOGS• Posts

• ViewsPODCASTS/p g

Time on site/page

• Visitors

UniqueGoogle

Analytics

• Comments (quantitative)• People

• Complaints• Comments (qualitative)

PODCASTS• Subscriptions• Downloads • Visits

Overall

Paths to site

Paths on site

Geographic distribution

y

WIKIS

• Subscriptions• Paths

• Links elsewhere?

Geographic distribution

Searches

Satisfaction

Comments

•Users•Adoption rate•Edits

RSS• Subscriptions

TWITTER•Followers

•GrowthLi k li k h h ( h h fYOUTUBE/VIMEO •Link click‐throughs (when, what types of content)•Retweets•Rankings (Twinfluence, Twitter Grader)C i t i il i ti

YOUTUBE/VIMEO• Views• Comments • Downloads• Page placement traffic •Comparison to similar organizations

•Friends•Conversations

• Page placement traffic• Ratings• Click‐throughs

“Metrics only tell part of the story...

it is difficult to directly measure “influence”,

so we use roundabout metrics

( i / h f t k(size/reach of our network,

incoming links, g ,

content being syndicated)”

“ diffi l k b f h d“Very difficult to know beforehand

what metrics really matterwhat metrics really matter,

and what success/failure looks like.

Often we get cornered

into continuing with social mediainto continuing with social media

as we don't really know if it is "working"

and are too conservative to "turn them off"

(and don't know how to give them a respectable funeral)”(and don t know how to give them a respectable funeral)

Is privacy, security, and/or monitoring of social tools important at your agency?

Answer OptionsYes No Depends Response

CountpPrivacy 70 70% 12 12% 18 18% 100Security 80 80% 9 9% 11 11% 100Monitoring 69 70% 13 13% 17 17% 98

• Google Analytics, WebTrends, WordPress

• Session cookies, legalities

• Tracking: email, website, twitter

FeedbackFeedback

• SNS blocked either 100% or by peak timeSNS blocked either 100% or by peak time

• SNS security threats, reduce productivityy , p y

• Parent agency blocked YT/FB access; unblocked g y ;after learning of biz presence

• Google Analytics contrary to Patriot Act?

POTENTIAL TEMPLATEPOTENTIAL TEMPLATE

Photo Credit: DryIcons: http://flickr.com/photos/dryicons/2213575431/

BEFORE YOU BEGIN…BEFORE YOU BEGIN…

1 Why? Ti t i i g l bj ti d g1. Why? Tie to mission, goals, objectives, needs, gaps.

2. Who? Champion, contributors, constituents.

3. What? Content is the key to success.

4. How? Decide which tools best meet goals.

5 When? C t h d l t i l t d l t 5. When? Create a schedule to implement and evaluate.

BEFORE YOU BEGIN…

1 Why? Ti t i i g l bj ti d g

BEFORE YOU BEGIN…

1. Why? Tie to mission, goals, objectives, needs, gaps.

• Recruitment• Transparency

• Accountability

Recruitment

• Retention

Effi i• Participation

• Efficiency

• Communication

BRAINSTORMING/APPLICATIONBRAINSTORMING/APPLICATION1. Why? Tie to mission, goals, objectives, needs, gaps.

2. Who? Assign owner/contributors; define audience.

3. How? Decide which tools best meet goals.

4. What? Content is the key to success.

5. When? Create a schedule to implement and evaluate.

Bl gBlogs

Mobile Comm

Podcasts

RSS

Goal (Tied to Tool): _______________

Objective(s) ActionSteps

Target Date

Measure of Success

Champion,Creator

Social Bookmarking

Social Virtual Networking

Videos

Virtual Worlds (Second Life)

p

1. _______ 1.11.2

2. Virtual Worlds (Second Life)

Web‐Based Calling

Webcasts/Webinars

Wikis

_______

3. _______

IN CLOSINGIN CLOSING

Wh k h fl h ? What makes the flag on the mast to wave? What makes the elephant charge his tusk

in the misty mist or the dusky dusk?

Courage!

Courage!in the misty mist, or the dusky dusk? What makes the muskrat guard his musk?What have they got that I ain't we all got?

Courage!Courage!

y g g

Courage!g

RESOURCESRESOURCES1. Ari Herzog: http://www.ariwriter.com, @ariherzog

2. Andrew Krzmarzick: http://generationshift.blogspot.com, @krazykriz

3. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study: http://snurl.com/crpxn

4. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey: http://www.forrester.com/cxpbenchmark

5. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index: http://snurl.com/crpyu

6. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Report: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e‐gov/

7 Social Media and Government (Jeffrey Levy): http://snurl com/crq0x7. Social Media and Government (Jeffrey Levy): http://snurl.com/crq0x

8. Federal Web Manager’s “Putting Citizens First:” http://snurl.com/crndj

9. IBM’s “Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government”: http://snurl.com/crq3e

10. Air Force Blog Assessment: http://is.gd/eAYo

Date post:	17-May-2015
Category:	Technology
Upload:	andrew-krzmarzick
View:	5,038 times
Download:	2 times

Measuring the Impact of Social Media in Government

Technology