Transparency. Leadership.

Much talk in the UK about how government can be made more 'transparent'. Frankly? I'm yet to be convinced of much real follow through on this subject with new fangled digital techniques, exciting as they may be.

But if you want an example of how to lead in this, here it is:



When have you ever heard a UK politician talk like this?

Barcamp rocks

The BarcampUKGovweb09 event was, first and foremost, fun.

The format of everyone contributing and the 'controlled anarchy' contributed to this feeling.

Wikipedia:
Barcamp = user generated conferences — open, participatory workshop-events, whose content is provided by participants.

I had two ideas. Tying together blog posts I've done on 'How Obama does it' and 'How Labour isn't'. I ended up sticking this with a 'politics 2.0' workshop idea which was far more prepared (and mostly went over/past my head) and just checking in my 2p worth.

Source Paul Clarke

Thoughts:

• Yes, UK politics is different but American developments has a wicked way of making their way across the pond. There is definitely nothing but value in looking'n'learning at the mechanics and politics of how this experiment is panning out.
• Much if not most of the participants were focussing on how social media feeds back to decision making, organising and policy. But if new tools allow decision makers to get metrics from how the UK-wide social media discussion is playing doesn't that trump how certain interests and players attempt to intervene?
• Yes, we do need a UK version of the Huffington Post.
  

My second contribution was my old chestnut: discount aka guerilla usability testing. I first presented on this back in 2006 and used the exact same presentation!

It went somewhat against the tide of contributions and, as a mate said, 'ow, something about the web!'

It wasn't a big crowd (grand total, seven) but consisted of some VIPs in this small egov world. It was also almost a collaborative presentation as people chipped in with their ideas and experience. Which was great!

As well, a guy from the Office of the Qualifications and Examinations Regulator, Philip McAllister, attached his presentation idea to mine (this is how Barcamps work) so we got some fascinating stuff at the end of the hour about his work on qualitative analysis of his site. This fitted well as it was, again, not a 'black art' but simple to do, with vital results generated for understanding how your website (aka brand) comes across.

Thoughts:

• One thing I've learnt from doing this in practice is the importance of social skills by people trying it.

As I said, the day was lotsa fun. But there are a coupla issues.

• This format doesn't work so well for the less confident, unless this is managed. I can think of a few people I know with much to contribute (I'm thinking of you, GoogleMaps genius man) but far less skills to allow them to do it.
• Boystown. Male, male male. Summed up by the changing of the notice above the feeding area from 'Would you expect your mum to clean this up?' to 'Dad'.
• The great mix of inside/outside/across government was welcomed by everyone I spoke with. Therin lies a nerve to work.
  

And this note:

• The Barcamp format has other, practical, uses in egov. See this past post on the Toronto Transit Camp.

And this to-do:

• Join Twitter. Sigh.

~~~~~~~

Simon Dickson has a good round up here. (And it was lovely to finally meet you too :} )

He talks about this stuff from DirectGov, which very much interested me. I haven't posted this before, but they have widgets on the way — something I've been carping on about for, owh, two years? Though more from a marketing angle than from the angle BarCamp would take.

Here's all the tagged content.

BarcampUKGovweb09

The first BarcampUKGovweb took place in January 2008 for those working in and around, or simply interested in, UK government online. It was an opportunity for people with a wide variety of skills, experiences and perspectives to share their knowledge and get to know each other.

The event was a big success.

Well another one has been organised and here's the blurb and contacts!

Since last January an awful lot has happened - such as great examples of using social media tools and initiatives to make better use of government data. This second government online barcamp will be an opportunity to share some of the learnings of the last year and gain some ideas about what to do next.

This event should be of interest to all who work in the UK government digital media community: permanent civil servants, contractors, consultants, agencies, advisers, supporters, observers, and critics.

If you think you've got something to contribute to improving how government organisations use the web, then this event is for you.

There's a Google Group that was set up for last year's event where you can find out more.

How to do egov - US gov webbies have a plan

President in waiting Barack Obama owes his victory in significant part to the internet, and he has spoken often of how he wants to use it to change government for the better.

As part of the transition process the US Federal Web Managers Council has written a white paper 'Putting Citizens First: Transforming Online Government'.

The council is an interagency group of almost 30 senior web managers from the federal government, that includes web directors from every cabinet-level agency, several independent agencies, and representatives from the judicial and legislative branches. It serves as the steering committee for the Web Content Managers Forum, a group of nearly 1,500 government web managers across the country.

Their paper is an absolutely spot-on summary of how-to-do-it, which hits all my nerves. Many of its key points relate to past posts on this blog as well of those of many of my egov colleagues. Because it's so damn good, I'm reproducing it in full.

That such a document could exist is soley because webbies in US government are organised and have a voice. 'Webbies' meaning professionals with web specific skills, those which have emerged over the past 15-20 years.

It's language could only come from webbies. We have nothing anywhere close to this document in the UK.

~~~~

Putting Citizens First: Transforming Online Government

Introduction

This White Paper recommends specific strategies for revolutionizing how the U.S. Government delivers online services to the American people. It was developed by the Federal Web Managers Council, comprised of Cabinet agency Web Directors.

The current state of government online communications

The importance of the Internet has grown exponentially over the last decade, but the government’s ability to provide online services to the American people hasn’t grown at the same pace. Building this capacity will present one of the biggest challenges—and most promising opportunities—for President-elect Obama.

We need to build on the groundswell of citizen participation in the presidential campaign and make people’s everyday interactions with their government easier and more transparent.

It won’t be an easy task.

There are approximately 24,000 U.S. Government websites now online (but no one knows the exact number). Many websites tout organizational achievements instead of effectively delivering basic information and services. Many web managers don’t have access to social media tools because of legal, security, privacy, and internal policy concerns. Many agencies focus more on technology and website infrastructure than improving content and service delivery.

Technology should not drive our business decisions, but rather help us serve the needs of the American people. Here’s the result when communication takes a backseat to technology:

“Often I can find the page on a government site that’s supposed to contain the information I need, but I can’t make heads or tails of it. I recently tried to Google a specific requirement for dependant care flex accounts. Although I got to the correct page, it didn’t answer my question. The links took me to the typical, poorly written tax guidance. Where did I get the answer to my question? On Wikipedia.”

We’re working to address these problems. We’ve built a network of over 1,500 federal, state, and local web professionals across the country to share best practices; we created a large-scale training program for web managers; and we’re working to support the use of social media while also addressing important privacy, security, and legal implications.

While our efforts have been very successful, a high-level mandate from the new Administration is needed to quickly and radically transform government websites.

A bold, new vision for the future

President-elect Obama should be able to promise the American people that when they need government information and services online, they will be able to:

• Easily find relevant, accurate, and up-to-date information;
• Understand information the first time they read it;
• Complete common tasks efficiently;
• Get the same answer whether they use the web, phone, email, live chat, read a brochure, or visit in-person;
• Provide feedback and ideas and hear what the government will do with them;
• Access critical information if they have a disability or aren’t proficient in English.
  

The recommendations below are designed to help the new Administration increase the efficiency, transparency, accountability, and participation between government and the American people. Some of these changes can be implemented quickly and at minimal cost.

Others will require significant changes in how agencies conduct business and may require shifts in how they fund web communications.

Establish Web Communications as a core government business function

One of the biggest problems we face in improving government websites is that many agencies still view their website as an IT project rather than as a core business function.

Many government websites lack a dedicated budget. Only a minority of agencies have developed strong web policies and management controls. Some have hundreds of “legacy” websites with outdated or irrelevant content.

With limited resources, many find it difficult to solicit regular customer input and take quick action to improve their sites. While there are many effective government websites, most web teams are struggling to manage the amount of online content the government produces every day.

• Agencies should be required to fund their “virtual” office space as part of their critical infrastructure, in the same way they fund their “bricks and mortar” office space.
• Agencies should be required to appoint an editor-in-chief for every website they maintain, as do the top commercial websites. This person should be given appropriate funding and authority to develop and enforce web policies and publishing standards, including ensuring that prime real estate on government websites is dedicated to helping people find the information they need.
• The Office for Public Management (OPM) should develop standard job descriptions and core training requirements so agencies can hire and retain highly qualified experts in web content and new media — not just IT specialists.
  

Help the public complete common government tasks efficiently

The U.S. economy loses millions of hours of “citizen productivity” every year when people can’t efficiently accomplish basic government tasks online, such as filling out a form, applying for a loan, or checking eligibility for a government program. This adds to people’s dissatisfaction with their government.

• Agencies should be required and funded to identify their core online customer tasks, and to develop service standards and performance benchmarks for completing those tasks. If the core customer tasks are not yet online, agencies should determine whether or not those tasks can be made available online, and if so, develop a plan for making them available online within one year.
• The Government should use social media, not just to create transparency, but also to help people accomplish their core tasks. For example, agencies could post instructional videos on YouTube to explain how to apply for a small business loan or learn about Medicare benefits. To do this, the government must ensure that federal employees who need access to social media tools have them, and that these new ways of delivering content are available to all, including people with disabilities.
• The new Administration should develop government-wide guidelines for disseminating content in universally accessible formats (data formats, news feeds, mobile, video, podcasts, etc.), and on non-government sites such as YouTube, Wikipedia, and SecondLife. To remain relevant, government needs to take our content to where people already are on the Web, rather than just expecting people will come to government websites. Having guidelines will ensure that we’re part of the larger “online information ecosystem,” without compromising the integrity of government information.
  

Clean up the clutter so people can find what they need online

President-elect Obama will inherit thousands of U.S. government websites. We have too much content to categorize, search, and manage effectively, and there is no comprehensive system for removing or archiving old or underused content.

Some agencies have posted competing websites on similar topics, creating duplication of effort and causing confusion for the public. Much government web content is written in “governmentese” instead of plain language.

• The Government should set stricter standards for approving new, or renewing existing, government websites. All federally owned, managed, and/or directly funded websites must be hosted on .gov, .mil or fed.us domains. Where agency missions are related, a lead agency should be appointed to coordinate the online “information lane,” and all other agencies should defer to the lead agency for posting comprehensive government information on that topic. This will reduce duplication, save money, and help consumers find accurate information.
• Agencies should be required and funded to conduct regular content reviews, to ensure their online content is accurate, relevant, mission-related, and written in plain language. They should have a process for archiving content that is no longer in frequent use and no longer required on the website.
• Agencies should be funded and required to follow the latest best practices in web search. This will improve the quality and findability of online government information, and help agencies deliver the services most requested by their customers.
  

Engage the public in a dialogue to improve our customer service

Agencies often don’t have resources to effectively manage customer input. For those that do, they must go through a clearance process before they can survey the public (requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, which was enacted before many agencies even had websites).

Many web pages are developed without regular feedback or testing with customers. When people do provide feedback or ideas, they often never hear what the government will do with their suggestions.

• Agencies should be required and funded to regularly solicit public opinion and analyze customers’ online preferences – just as Amazon, eBay, and other top commercial websites do. This can be done on an “opt-in” basis and without tracking personally identifiable information by using blogs, online surveys, a “Citizens Insight Panel” (such as that used by the Canadian government), or similar tools. Agencies should be required and funded to do user testing before undertaking major improvements to any current website, or launching a new website.
• Agencies should use their website to publish a summary of common customer comments and explain the actions they are taking in response to the feedback. Doing so will create better transparency and accountability.
  

Ensure the public gets the same answer whether they use the web, phone, email, print, or visit in-person

Agencies communicate with citizens via many different “delivery channels,” including web, email, publications, live chats, blogs, podcasts, videos, wikis, virtual online worlds, and more. But it’s difficult to ensure timeliness and consistency when various delivery channels are managed by different divisions within an agency.

• Agencies should provide multiple ways for people to contact them and ensure that information is consistent across all channels. They should be funded to coordinate all types of content targeted to the general public (web, publications, call center, email, common questions, web chat, etc). Agencies should be rewarded for delivering consistent information, both within agencies and across government.

Ensure underserved populations can access critical information online

Agencies are required to provide online information that’s readily accessible by people with disabilities, as well as to people with limited English proficiency. However, few agencies have the funding, training or resources to meet these obligations.

• The government should establish standards and guidelines for multilingual websites, and agencies should be funded and staffed with qualified bilingual web content professionals who can create and maintain them. This will help newcomers learn about the rights and responsibilities of living in the U.S.
• Agencies should receive adequate resources to make their websites fully accessible to people with disabilities and meet requirements of the Rehabilitation Act. The new Administration should invest in government-wide solutions, such as captioning software to make videos and webcasts accessible to people with disabilities.
  

Conclusion

By harnessing the collaborative nature of the web, the new Administration has the potential to engage the public like never before. The web can foster better communication and allow people to participate in improving the operations of their government.

By listening to our customers we can provide better services, focus on their most pressing needs, and spend their tax dollars efficiently.

We’re confident that President-elect Obama will appoint leaders who will invest in the web as a strategic asset and make these goals a reality. The millions of Americans who interact with their government online expect and deserve no less.

~~~~~

Current and former members of the Federal Web Managers Council who contributed to this paper: Bev Godwin, General Services Administration/USA.gov (Executive Sponsor); Sheila Campbell, General Services Administration/USA.gov (co-chair); Rachel Flagg, Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (co-chair); Melissa Allen, Dept. of Interior; Andy Bailey, Dept. of Labor; Les Benito, Dept. of Defense; Joyce Bounds, Dept. of Veterans Affairs; Nicole Burton, General Services Administration/USA.gov; Bruce Carter,
Social Security Administration (retired); Natalie Davidson, General Services Administration/USA.gov; Kate Donohue, Dept. of Treasury; Brian Dunbar, NASA; Tim Evans, Social Security Administration; Kellie Feeney, Dept. of Transportation; Sam Gallagher, Dept. of Housing and Urban Development; Colleen Hope,
Dept. of State; Ron Jones, Dept. of Commerce/NOAA; Tina Kelley; Dept. of Justice; Gwynne Kostin, Dept. of Homeland Security; Jeffrey Levy, EPA; Beth Martin, Dept. of Health and Human Services; Leilani Martinez, GSA/GobiernoUSA.gov; Suzanne Nawrot, Dept. of Energy; Russell O’Neill, General Services Administration/
USA.gov; Tom Parisi, Dept. of Treasury/IRS; Vic Powell, USDA; Rezaur Rahman, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; Eric Ramoth, Dept. of Housing and Urban Development; Rand Ruggieri, Dept. of Commerce; Richard Stapleton, Dept. of Health and Human Services; Kim Taylor, USDA; Kirk Winters, Dept. of Education.
We welcome your questions and comments. Please contact the Federal Web Managers Council co-chairs, Sheila Campbell (Sheila.campbell at gsa dot gov) and Rachel Flagg (Rachel.flagg at hud dot gov).

'E-democracy' and, er, democracy

Jakob Nielsen has produced for Pew a very interesting usability study of voter information websites from all 50 united states and the District of Columbia.

Some points of interest. He identifies these neglected usability aspects:

• Homepage usability
• Search
• Accessibility
• Web presence (that is, how users get to content from outside the site, or "usability-in-the-large")
  

And makes this spot-on comment on his results:

there's a negative correlation of r=-.1 between homepage usability and accessibility ... the negative correlation indicates that designers aren't treating accessibility as a component of user experience quality. Most likely, government agencies are focused on complying with legalistic accessibility regulations instead of trying to make the sites easy for people with disabilities to use.

As an observer of 'e-democracy', where's usability in the mix? Well it's nowhere - because it's simultaneously nowhere in egov. That's true of the UK and - Nielsen suggests - the US also.

Not very democratic, I'd venture to suggest.

According to E-Access blog, Robin Christensen now of AbilityNet and formally of the RNIB reviewed the FAB! NEW! WEB 2.0! Number 10 Downing Street website and found it wanting:

While relatively accessible in many ways, still has various untagged links which read simply ‘click here’ [sic], offering the audio browser no clue as to what lies behind. The website also features auto-start videos, with unlabelled control buttons, so that blind users are confronted with video noise drowning out their own audio controls and cannot work out how to turn it off.

A very polite way to put it. Picture the scene ....

Again with the not-very-democratic.

Sez Jakob:

There's a reason that we have a "total user experience" concept to encompass everything that users encounter. It's not enough to have a great design for part of the user interface. Good navigation, say, is certainly a necessity for a great user experience, but it's not sufficient. Offer a bad homepage, and users might turn away before they even start navigating.

We can liken a website's user experience to the metaphorical chain that's no stronger than its weakest link. If any one usability attribute fails, the overall user experience is compromised and many users will fail.

It's all very obvious, really - auto-start videos FCS!! Unless one is sitting inside a walled garden ....

Postscript: How not to do video about recycling

My post on 'How not to do video about recycling' was reproduced by PSF. This provoked a rather negative but, n'est ce pas, expected response.

Here's how I responded to the commentator's points.

"Firstly: Why is every council doing this separately? Simple. Every council's bin and recycling arrangements is different"

But they're not. Many are the same or pretty much so. What is the efficiency loss in not sending out similar messages? - for one thing. And where can councils connect with other councils doing the same and share cost - for another thing? Answer? Nowhere. That's my point.

Plus there's isn't even one central (web based) resource point where even more generic messaging resources are available.

This is very inefficient when most British people spend lots of time online.

I wish the audit office would focus on shit like this rather than the stuff PSF is currently highlighting ... [NB: Most PSF content is behind a firewall, this comment refers to how the audit office believes council staff are all "potential fraudsters" and thus want their bank details].

"Councils have been given great big dollops of central government money to spend solely on recycling publicity"

Er, this just speaks to the first point I'm making and you expand on this - use of amateurs etc. I found this when looking for centralised resources around marketing around recycling. Including video. The EU actually has a good video (past blog post), but Whitehall?? Whitehall tips on online marketing around recycling? Hello?

"I have to disagree on the Allerdale video"

Point taken, as it's not viral yet. But I was trying to get to the different dynamic which works in this space. What you think of as crappy might actually end up going viral. Allerdale made me laugh - that's a plus.

"All these things require skills that only come with professional training and years of practice"

This is absolutely not true for viral video! C'mon! have you seen utube lately? I have seen enough viral video to recognise in Allendale's a potential viral. It actually looks like some of the professional virals I've seen, who - shock - attempt to evoke amateurism.

Like with most things web I was pointing at entry points, things you can do, to get some audience for video rather than just post it and wait for an audience (which is, truth, what most are doing). But yes, it would probably actually pay - i.e. have an ROI - to hire someone who has-a-clue to promote and advise on what you're making.

But don't confuse this with film-making or other skills. What works in online video is a whole other ballgame and really it's - in what we're talking about here - simply putting your efforts in front of as many possible eyeballs as possible and keep doing it and keep honing. This we just don't do.

"What makes some council officer decide he can stand in a stupid suit and green make-up and be an actor for the day, instead of... er... doing what the council tax-payers expect them to do."

Like what? Excuse me but this is a bit patronising. I would never criticise someone for trying, just offer some tips about how they might get their point over and seen by more people. I'd like to see you face the opprobrium of doning a green monster suit in an effort to stop people littering :] This (poor) guy just needs more tips on how to get that message across. (for one, the vid should be half the length at least, which is pretty easily achieved using cheap video editors).

I would say that UK online video, from what I can see, is still in the 'taking off' stage compared to elsewhere (like, er, France). But having looked around it's clear that the potential audiences - yes, including localised audiences - are huge.

It's another channel with mass potential. I s'pose, given how we're barely if at all in others it might seem a little pointless but with viral video it's amazing how quickly something pops up which, er, 'hits the spot'. and I would be the last to be shocked if this actually came from some enterprising council officer prepared to make a fool of himself. And in a good way!

SEO tips for egov/NFP

I've kindof blogged this stuff before but here's a MarketingSherpa 'inspired' helper to getting your stuff viewed (I'm thinking of egov and community stuff). And search engines will drive 50%+ of your traffic in nearly all instances. Y'know it!

#1 issue in SEO is links. They are ca-ru-cial. All search engines will rank you in their particular algorithm based in some fashion on links. #1 algorithm is Google's (80%+ UK traffic). The more 'authoritative' a link is the better. Think local press, think national brand. And an authoritative site is always popular and always relevant.

1. Have great content
   What this means is something worth linking to.
   In the commercial world this would be considered 'Link baiting'. We (eGov/nonprofit) don't actually need to 'stoop' . We just need to do good PR - tell 'them' you have something worth linking to.
   Describe yourself properly (aka 'keywords') and use said keywords in your content. Here's a good example, instead of 'abandoned vehicle' how about 'abandoned car'? N.B your blogs actually act as ''link baiting''. Blogs seem to be extremely good at boosting Google rankings!
   
   
2. Research your market
   If it's about X service who are the X targets? Where do you want a link from?
   In LOTS of service areas there's someone leaching off it - where are their links coming from?
   On Yahoo! Site Explorer type in the URL of someone doing something around your service, click “explore”. Click “inlinks”. Click “show inlinks: Except from this domain” to exclude internal links. Click “to: Entire site” to see links to every page on the site. You’re then given a list of every page that links to your competitor. Dig through the list to find sites that might link to you.
   
   
3. Select good targets
   MarketingSherpa rates a 'link value' based on:
   

   Content on the page
   Topic of the site
   Number of outbound and inbound links
   Amount of advertising
   Reputation with search engines
   Website age

   OK. What this means is what sites are relevant to the topic and have a high Google rep. For Whitehall that means a limited number of relevant UK sites per topic. For Lgov that means a limited number of local/localised sites - many of which may actually be one-person productions, but they're highly relevant in specific areas. Directories are also relevant because many of them have been set up to capture traffic in specific geographic or subject areas. Talk to them - literally. There's usually a quid pro quo here. Just reject anything which asks for a posting fee, as search engines do the same.
   
   
4. Partners
   Commercial sites set up relationship with people like newspapers - why not you? NB: they may need some help (!), i.e. pages to link from, what content should be on the page, and where the link should target. Think shortcuts. Or making sure the homepage is primed. And pick up the phone!
   
   
5. Get well-built links
   This is a tekkie note. KEYWORDS: Write good anchor text. The words used in your links’ anchor text (the text users click) will affect your search rankings. The more links you have with the anchor text, the more likely you will have good search results. You want your target search keywords in your link’s anchor text. Also, it's not just the homepage, 'deep links' are most of your traffic. + search engines are likely to give better rankings to pages that attract links over time, rather than only recently or in the past. This is another reason why link building needs to be ongoing and (actually) why most egov sites start from an inbuilt advantage.
   
   
6. PR
   Every single bit of PR should include a link to your site. Always ask for a link.
   
   
7. Strategy
   Lots of tools out there which will track incoming links, record contacts. Allying this with analytics helps with understanding keywords and search terms and what actually drives your traffic and helps refine strategy.
   

HT: MarketingSherpa
and here's their useful links

• Sherpa 101: How to Use Digg to Go Viral -- 10 Strategies
• Problogger: 20 Link baiting techniques
• Google Webmaster Guidelines: Link schemes
• Yahoo! Site Explorer
• SEO Book
• SEO for Firefox Extension

Big org goes guerilla

At # 7 in my 'ten point plan' is cheaper usability methods. This means so-called guerilla usability, as championed by Jakob et al — and resisted by the 'experts'.

Just to elaborate, this doesn't mean the expert have no role, Shit, no. Just that we (egov) can't always afford them. So applying 'usability' in practice has to mean systematic engagement with audience and specific engagement with experts rather than handing over everyrthing to experts. And the only way to do that is to use guerrilla methods. My (debated at length) bone with Nomensa.

So let's just say I was 'most pleased' to read that my favourite 'internet radio station' used self-described 'guerilla' methods to interrogate their new designs. last.fm did it. Worth shitloads to US MSM last.fm did this. Guerilla HCI is mainstream, proven methodology.

Grabbing a seat at the nearest café with wifi, I arranged to meet a few people in the area (long-time users who’ve been with us for years; new users still discovering what we do; friends and relatives; random people off the street; anyone with a spare twenty minutes, really) to show them beta.last.fm and watch them having a play with it. Loose, informal user testing — or, to use its technical term, ‘chatting to and watching people try out our new ideas over some free coffee and cake’ — is fascinating, great fun to do, and, combined with our other feedback-recording methods, as I believe Mr. Matthew Ogle, Esq. will discuss, reveals fantastically rich layers of information that really help us improve the Last.fm experience.

Doh! Yeah, this has 'value'. Doh! Yeah, you need basic people skills to conduct. Doh! Yeah, it yields "fantastically rich layers of information". Doh! Yeah, it's not as easy as it looks but you can learn how to do it. Basically, PEOPLE engagement is the key. Geeks locked away from audience ain't good. Guerrilla usability is but one tool to get over the barriers, force people to truly engage, and break the cycle. It's all good. It'd not complicated and doesn't require complication.

And this has no relevance to egov?

Transference in egov

Here's one tale you'd have a hard time novelising, but it's true.

Top government mandarins are paying £480 to be lectured, amongst other things on poker strategies by someone called Caspar Berry, who used to work alongside Ant & Dec. PSF has the story.

Last week (or, possibly the week before) leading Departmental representatives were asked to attend a 'special one-day conference' on 'transformation, innovation and delivery' chaired by David Bell, DCSF Permanent Secretary and 'designed primarily for senior civil servants and equivalent levels across the public sector.'

As a recipient of the missive put it:

'… at a bargain price of £480 senior staff can pay to hear their Ministers and colleagues speak about what they’d like to see their Department doing; listen to examples of how this has been done and also apply professional poker strategies to their work.'

There's form on this gravytrain. Emma Mulqueeny didn't exactly rave about him in May.

The agenda for this session introduces Poker Master Berry thus:

'A dawn of new professionalism needs to emerge where sufficient incentives are in place to ensure appropriate levels of risk are taking place across the public sector. In this session, leading poker player Caspar Berry will illustrate how the public sector can become less risk averse. In particular, how do we manage risk in a sensible and proportionate way by bringing about a change in approach to risk? How do we reduce the cost of risk management and do more with less?'

Berry describes himself as:

A highly distinctive speaker within the corporate world with a unique and challenging message that forces people to question many of the things they took for granted.

Why they're not going to the source and hiring gurus/'motivational speakers' from either India or California I don't know ...

By the by, here's an interesting quote from Rob Preece's book 'The noble imperfection', that warns about the naiveté amongst Westerners as to the nature of the guru/devotee relationship:

When we transfer an inner quality onto another person, we may be giving that person a power over us as a consequence of the projection, carrying the potential for great insight and inspiration, but also the potential for great danger. In giving this power over to someone else they have a certain hold and influence over us it is hard to resist, while we become enthralled or spellbound by the power of the archetype.

Now I know I've mentioned breaking down egov's walled garden and inviting 'industry' expertise ... this wasn't exactly what I meant ... Jakob Nielsen would be a tad more apt.

myid innit

Both ElReg and PSF have covered the comically noteworthy MyID (youth ID - tell us what yah thinking, yah, for when one is questioned about one's age, innit) site launch by - note, remember this name - an outfit called virtualsurveys (that's a link to their inept 'yofftube' page) for the Home Office. (Webshite, they do 'research 2.0', innit. Also they have a link to a 'accessible site').

PSF flavour (a .gov.uk firewall beckons):

However little did the Home Secretary know that this carefully-scripted PR 'quick win' was about to mutate at internet speed into a horrendous, humiliating and increasingly out-of-control PR catastrophe ...

We contacted Mr Comley [VirtualSurveys man-o-the-moment] for comment and put to him that as access to the site is restricted to 16-25 year-olds only, whether it was not slightly disingenuous for him to be using 'yoof-speak' and posing as a 'buddy' to other users, not to mention his comments about being encumbered with a student card. His response on that later ...

Within hours of the Home Secretary's fanfare launch, word had got out among anti-ID card campaigners who then flocked in large numbers to the site. By lunchtime a horde of protesters had effectively taken over the site, with the MyLifeMyID forums now consisting – to huge embarrassment for the Home Office - almost entirely of comments criticising, denouncing and condemning the ID scheme in no uncertain terms.

For some reason I find the accompanying video cringe-worthy hysterical (yas thinkin' 'David Brent'?). Jacqui looks like she's talking to five year olds, 'now children'. Not. A. Natural @YouTube (unlike Mike Gravel). Plus the filming is way far from flattering. Where were the minders demanding the lighting be, er, altered?

Couple of points which skipped the, natural, opprobrium:

They broke the ethical code - you should say what use information supplied on sign-up will be put to (why it says elsewhere 'we won't resell your email address')



This from an outfit which self-describes thus:

"Virtual Surveys, founded in 1998, was the first full service agency in Europe to specialise in online research. As well as recognised experts in website research, Virtual Surveys are one of the leading exponents of conventional research online.

The company has grown by 45+% per annum for the past 3 years. Our success can be attributed to our experienced research team, providing high quality online research and website expertise to a range of the UK's leading organisations."

The Home office is mugs, thinkest thou.

Oh g*d, how much did this cost?

Seriously, how much did this this cost?

Secondly, last week I was getting a 'you must register' message on clicking on 'more information on ID cards'.

Now I'm getting 'The following information has been copied from the Home Office Immigration & Passport Service website'. Literally. It sez this. Innit.

And youse has to register to click onda poll.

And is asking 'To which ethic group do you consider yourself to belong'?

Inept? Comedy? Where doth one start? We have so many options. Press attention, where ist thou?

I'm sure some bean-counter will attempt to spin this as a sucess but - pa-lease - do us all a favour and document where you went wrong. Seriously. It would help. But I really don't expect this to happen and, I guess, that's the problem.

IT rules? No, no Mister Steel

| View | Upload your own

[Presentation reproduced with permission]

At the PSF event in June to discuss Better Connected, SOCITM's president Richard Steel presented 'Why we should no longer distinguish web from ICT'.

Some of this made me applaud madly, some made me inwardly groan.

It was deliberately provocative and Richard comes from a strong base with his argument; his borough, Newham, is doing some great, ground-breaking stuff (including free wireless, no fixed desks including Chief Exec.) for this deprived part of London. In his presentation he laid a lot of that out, but what I completely disagreed with was his conclusion: that web must be 'run' by IT, they are 'indistinguishable'.

What made me applaud was his line that, basically, senior managers who don't understand the basics with IT no longer have the requisite skills to do the job, they should go. He, like me, is sick of senior people who wear their ignorance 'like a badge of honour'. I also liked that he was arguing that services must take more day-to-day responsibility for what they do online and that government gains from being subject to the same forces as business.

He was looking to the future convergence of technology and especially the coming growth of web access through mobiles or other devices: a 'network of networks'. Government is about services and information and as web access becomes more ubiquitous what matters is that we provide information in a way that can be easily pushed through these channels and found. What he cited as key technologies were identification and data integration.

Here's part of his presentation about his vision of this from three years ago:

By 2012 (Olympics) mobiles morphed into ‘personal communicators’

Technologies like ‘smart chip’, biometrics and GPS, will enable:

• authenticated ‘e’ order & payment
• e-tickets for chosen events delivered to your device.
• e-directions to venue/your seat
• your ID and ticket electronically checked,.
• commentary provided in your own language
• option to follow a particular team or athlete
• view instant playbacks of exciting moments
• personal calls/messages delivered plus appointment reminders.
• remote control of home environment also likely

Device selects the most appropriate combination of fixed and wireless networks - balancing task, cost and performance.

A couple of quotes he used talked about 2018, ten years from now, when this convergence should be in full throttle.

Let's look back ten years and see what's changed: yes, everyone has a website and yes, services are 'online'. But as I've noted in other posts on my blog, there are still many things we, government, don't do and as a sector we are walled off from influences from wider web development - a primary driver for change - or any sense that we are in a competitive environment, online.

I don't see anything suggesting that in another ten years either of these factors will change, that we will be doing the things we don't or that we will be absorbing the right influences. However we will probably be in a more competitive environment simply because many more businesses will be in our territory - people selling recycling bins, people promising to better handle your passport enquiries, people trying to make money from your health enquiry, other services like charities. When this is happening, how do customers find you and steer past the commercial providers?

Richard's ideas come entirely from one part of what makes a web presence and it's not surprising: all websites have come from a few sectors other than IT but that's, largely, where government websites have grown out from.

Take 'content' for one other source of websites - newspaper websites are built on content and the IT development entirely revolves around servicing the editor's needs, rather than the other way around. There it has to be a partnership but you couldn't argue 'Why we should no longer distinguish web from ICT' because there it's understood that 'web' largely means content - which needs it own skill base - supported by IT. Richard's proposition doesn't make sense. Same goes for websites which have grown out of marketing and sales departments, there it's a partnership but there's another primary skill base than the IT one.

Why do we think we are different from other websites, especially when there's little evidence customers behave radically differently with us? I would say this is because we live in our own world without the sort of influences which would shake us out of it. Other sectors largely don't; they absolutely have to understand their customers and hire the right skill base to create a web presence which will meet needs in a rapidly evolving and competitive environment. Doesn't sound like us does it?

Another difference is that the web is becoming more central to businesses, meaning that all aspects of the business have to take it seriously and skill up. Here, this does connect with one of Richard's points about the vital need for engagement by government services - the pointy end - rather than being disempowered (although that's not how he puts it).

The problem with Richard's proposal is not just where it's coming from - as I commented to him, he and the analysis come from IT as opposed to, say, sales - but the impact.

Web skills are very specific, you need to be across a lot of terrain. You need to understand SEO, usability, web content, have good people skills, be across various and ever changing IT, visual design, accessibility, marketing, PR ... Even the very best IT managers don't have this skill range so they can't make informed decisions or informed choices across the range of issues which constitute good and most importantly successful web. In his presentation Richard alludes to this when he talks about the problems in benchmarking, take-up and engagement.

I understand that Richard's forward focus is 'non-web', or 'post-web', thinking of mobile devices for example, but I see no future in which all the other skills involved won't be any the less vital in making a successful, used and useful service/product for government online.

What we need is exactly the opposite of Richard's argument: ICT needs to be in its place and web needs to be raised. It needs to be properly understood as a new profession, a unique skill set and assume its place at the table in government. Because at the moment it doesn't have one.

Welsh Assemby sacks blogger

I wonder if the new social media code for civil servants has any effect and or meaning in a devolved authority? His blog is now 'by invitation only'.

Sacked blogger’s taking case to tribunal

Jul 9 2008 by Martin Shipton, Western Mail

AN Assembly Government civil servant who was sacked for running a political blog is taking his case to an Employment Tribunal.

Last night a former AM who himself is a regular blogger said he found the decision to dismiss the civil servant “heavy handed”.

The former Assembly Government employee, whose real name has not been disclosed but who ran a blog called Christopher Glamorganshire, provided what readers saw as a neutral running commentary on last year’s coalition negotiations involving Labour and Plaid Cymru.

An Assembly Government spokesman said: “This issue regards a former Welsh Assembly Government employee who was dismissed for activities related to the Glamorganshire Blog that contravened the Civil Service Code. The case went to the Civil Service Appeals Board, which we won, and it is listed for Employment Tribunal in Cardiff later this year.”

It is understood the elements of the Civil Service Code regarded by the Assembly Government as relevant to the case come under sections headed “integrity” and “rights and responsibilities”.

Under integrity, the relevant clauses read: “You must always act in a way that is professional and that deserves and retains the confidence of all those with whom you have dealings,” and: “You must not misuse your official position, for example by using information acquired in the course of your official duties to further your private interests or those of others.”

Under rights and responsibilities, the clause considered to have been broken states: “This Code is part of the contractual relationship between you and your employer. It sets out the high standards of behaviour expected of you which follow from your position in public and national life as a civil servant. You can take pride in living up to these values.”

Last night former Conservative AM Glyn Davies, a regular blogger, said: “The Christopher Glamorganshire blog was on my list of ‘my favourites’. It seemed to me to be written in a sensible and rational manner.

“Clearly, if his contract of employment said he was not allowed to blog, he doesn’t have much of a case.

“But if it is simply a question of supposedly contravening the code, I think sacking him is very harsh and heavy handed.”

He added: “This all smacks of the heavy hand of the state.”

Postscript: Matt Wardman has an extensive report and backgrounder. He says:

The approach is slightly out of kilter in a country where only this week Hazel Blears was talking about giving more leeway for Council Officers to participate in the political process.

He also has a comment from Christopher Glamorgan:

A thousand apologies!

It is very kind of you to notice, but I am afraid that the blog has had to be taken ‘offline’ for the time being. I am still an avid reader of other blogs and am chomping at the bit as I type.

Hopefully normal service will resume very soon ;>D

And the reaction from a leading Welsh political blogger, Miss Wagstaff (whose blog is apparently blocked on Assembly government computers).

This all seems unfair to me, but best of luck to you 'Christopher'. Like any large organisation, the Assembly Government will - without a shadow of doubt - put their whole legal team behind the case, and solicitors are costly, so I fear that you'll need more than fair play, luck, and common sense on your side.

Is there a witchhunt? There's a story here saying that he is the fourth blogger sacked by the Assembly government. And this comment:

I can't remember a post by Christopher that was either reveling or controversial, certainly nothing that would appear to justify his dismissal from public service.

As well as this one:

The Welsh Assembly Government recently allowed a member of staff to resign after being found guilty in court of sexually harrassing a colleague.

The man in question was even allowed to stay in the workplace while an investigation was underway.

This post give a further suggestion of a witchhunt, saying that he was a Conservative. Conservative Welsh MP David Jones weighs in here.

What the new social media code for civil servants does not cover is if civil servants have any right to an opinion and how this tallies with 'freedom of expression' rights. Perhaps that is too big a can of worms to open but since 'civil servants' is sometimes taken to mean all public servants (and not just employees of parliaments or ministers) of which there are millions, perhaps this case should be taken up as a chance to add some more definition here?

Postscript: Are the Mail trawling for another blogging civilserf story? Matt Wardman notes the Christopher Glamorganshire sacking story cut and paste Promotional Tour

Postscript: Ian Cuddy at PSF noticed something I managed to miss (ahem) - that blogcatalog has the first lines archived of Christopher's posts. An example:

"I'm off early as I am the boss even though there is a big "issue" developing. You will stay here and work late as you are not senior enough to enjoy a work-life balance. Also used by senior managers as a way of sounding PC..."

The description Christopher offered of his blog is:

"Wales, the Welsh, politics, humour, general philosophical commentary, and gossip... Oh! and the professional bloggers down the Bay (but spare a thought for the Kingdom that is United for we are joined at the hip and rightly so)"

Ian also discovered his Blogger profile which reads: "Will today be a nine-to-five lunch break interrupted by an hour of work or will something substantial fall on my desk?"

As well as according to Wikipedia (which must be true), Christopher is "currently a philosophy student of the University of Wales, Lampeter" and trying to create a Wikipedia entry for Assembly Members and other Welsh politicians.

Yet more searching uncovers Christopher commenting and linking to his blog on the BBC Wales political blog, a flavour of who he may have pissed off

egov bloggers and news sources

Dave Briggs has started publicsectorblogs.org, (and included me, thanks ;] ) and had a lot of suggestions to add to the site.

These are the feeds I've got in my Reader - and Dave's post + comments following mean I have a number of others to add. (There are some sources without feeds - shock - which are in my links list in the right column).


Getting very hard to keep up ;{ I certainly have ones I make a point to check (hey Dave!) but some mechanism to float more interesting stuff to the surface is definitely needed. I can't really see a way of automating this, it needs a human editor.

This is kindof what egov Victoria does, maybe somewhere like Public Sector Forums (only not just .gov.uk accessible?) could do it sustainably? Would be terribly useful!

Wouldn't it be better if...

Way back in March I sent off 'an idea' to a project called 'Mind the gap - Re:Designing the public sector', which comes from thinkpublic and Ideal Government.

I hadn't actually heard back from them! but my alert picked up that they'd published it. Here it is:

Wouldn't it be better if...

Instead of being sent down 'channels', those channels found you — online.

What do I mean? Things like widgetising existing services, most of which are easily widgetisable.

So, to pick somewhere at random (cough! injoke), Netmums would actually have government widgets on it where you could sign up there (rather than following a link) and be informed by auto-email or txt when you could register your kid online for school.

Or another example might be something like bin collection times or bus routes or Google mapped services - offer them to other websites like your local newspapers or some of the newer, very local, sites or community group websites.

Some sites like Transport Direct already do offer a widget but that's about it.

Something simple like this gets around the issue of 'findability' for services. For most, unless you know the exact title, they aren't bang at the top of Google search, which is the starting point for most. And internal search for government sites is usually not brilliant (because it's hard to get right).

All along these existing 'journeys' you are losing people — so go to where they already are, the audiences for specific services, online. Plus offline marketing and banner advertising is expensive and hit and miss. Proper, broad terms, search marketing can be expensive, especially where there is competition. Plus you could imagine other websites all wanting to be able to do this ('win-win'). Plus you're not as reliant on whatever others choose to 'mash-up'.

These suggestions are along the lines of how online marketeers get more clicks and more eyes for their products: go where the audience is and not just hope they'll find you.

For the potential payback in take up, strikes me as an 'easy win' which wouldn't cost very much at all.

Cheers

Paul Canning

NB: I have blogged a fair bit about these ideas.

~~~~~~

There are a few more on their website, including Tom Steinberg about the unusability of HMRC's website.

For the week before the tax payment deadline the HMRC webpage should be replace by three HUGE links: "Pay your tax", "File your tax return", and "Find out other stuff about tax". When you click on "Pay your tax" it should take you directly to a page where you can enter your tax reference number, and your credit card details. Really not so hard when you come to look at it that way is it?

I Liked this one from Neil McGuire as well:

Wouldn't it be better if everyone had a PO number which moves with them when they move house avoiding misdirected mail and removing the need to change your address on everything every time you move etc.

And this one from Nick Leon (Richmond actually does something like this):

Wouldn't it be better if pubs, restaurants, coffee shops and fast food outlets were part of a scheme to help the city with the shortage of toilet facilities in London? What if everyone could literally cash in their pennies (which are largely unwanted) for credit on an Oyster card type system? Cash in your pennies to spend a penny as it were. Some of the money would go to a worthwhile charity some of it to cover costs for materials and cleaning. Any establishment taking part could have a sign on their window clearly stating they support the scheme and thereby supporting the citizens of their city.

Spanner in works

In their review of the use of vote counting machines in the London elections, Open Rights Group (ORG) have thrown a huge spanner in the works:

"There is insufficient evidence available to allow independent observers to state reliably whether the results declared for the May 2008 elections for the mayor of London and the London Assembly are an accurate representation of voters' intentions."

The company involved are Indra and The Register reported the very visible issues a while back from their observations at the poll count - not fraud but a lack of transparency.

As well, some of the issues sounded like those experienced during the 'electronic counting fiasco' at the Bedford poll count last year - counting blank ballots as valid votes, jams in the scanning machines and system freezes.

The margin of error ORG thinks there may be would affect some of the declarations for positions in the London Assembly - not the Mayoral vote.

One of the main issues raised by ORG was value for money: is it actually cheaper to do it all by hand? Their three recommendations are:

• London Elects should perform a full cost-benefit analysis of e-counting against a properly costed manual count of similar scope.
• There should be time for formal consultation at national and local levels before e-counting is used in an election.
• There should be long lead-in times, at least 18 months, for the procurement and implementation of election technology.

More about this on Kable

Postscript: Ella Taylor-Smith posted to the UKIE-EDem list, reminding me of the other botched example of electronic voting and answering the point made by James Gilmour that "because the Scottish Parliamentary elections in 2007 were counted electronically, the Scotland Office has made voting data available at polling district level (subject to a minimum of 200 voters). This has never been done before in the UK. That information is of very great value to the political parties.".

"While the data may well be of value to political parties they don't pay for the elections, which, in the case of Scotland 2007, cost nearly £40 million compared to £17.5 million in 2003. Both were parliament and local government elections."

More on this from The Scotsman, though Ella notes that they "are not unbiased in this matter".

Paul Canning’s 10 point plan

Well it wasn't meant that way but 'the plan' has now been picked up and echoed (this is now a few more echoes than I may have 'planned' for, if I was 'planning'). Jeez, I love the web somedays ...

The original post was a response to Minister Watson's question 'so what should we be doing then?' Some sort of web exchange provoked the question (lost). Literally off the top of my head I thought of ten things. This has now become a 'plan'. Er, Hokay ...

'The 10 point plan'

1. Findability
2. Disengagement from the wider web and those damned walled gardens
3. Engaging the industry
4. Marketing
5. Widgetising services
6. Engaging the local
7. Cheaper usability methods
8. Content
9. Fixations on ‘engagement’
10. Utilising reputation

Details in the original post.

The next move for PSWMG

For those public service webbies interested in forming an interest group representing us, please have a look at the PSWMG site and contribute to the debate about the next moves.

If you've not joined the Board, please register (NB: approvals should take a few hours).

Please note that this means all the public sector and includes people working with it but not employed full-time within it. The debate will cover what role we'd like the latter to play in any new organisation.

The topics I've initially suggested need hammering out are:

• AGM organisation
• Membership
• Purpose
• Collaboration
• Funding
• Online organisation

NHS website - how much?!

I don't know what the NHS website costs but given their IT expenditure is in the multi-billions you would expect it's a lot. Maybe it's actually minimal. I don't know if this has bothered the Public Accounts Committee.

What I do know is that it appears to not contain any information about medical/doctor's certificates - those things which come in various flavours and require a visit to the GP. Definitely not 'a page' which contains 'the official info'.

Here's what happens when you type in 'certificates'.



Nowt of any use to anyone.

Actually another thing that happens is that a list of suggestions pop-up which are all about types of illness - obviously the site is geared around 'prevention'. This is pretty damn obvious from the homepage as well, as it yells 'FIVE A DAY MEALS ' at you.

The actual reason I was looking for 'certificates' was to provide information to people who needed to know something about the different types of them and what they meant. Y'know 'joined up government', 'do it online' and all that.

Plus it was people who were online anyway - looking at something I was attempting to link from - and in the particular case probably hadn't much clue about the way the system works. So, yes, talking to someone like a GP would help them but aren't we supposed to be saving government's money by doing more of the info provision online?

A fair bit of what the rest of government does is linked in some way to 'health'. Is this a case of dem silos? I would note that in my egov networking NHS people seem to be strangely absent ...

Postscript: turns out that info on medical certificates is on the DVLA website. Makes sense? Not.

Directionless gov part 573

PSF reports today that LocalDirectGov, primary hate object for local government webbies, is to be revived after a twelve month 'hiatus'.

Like a delicate flower gently awakening from a long dark Winter's slumber, Local Directgov made its return last week – and immediately announced plans for another of its famous national link-gathering exercises (famed mainly for having cost millions and delivered next to nothing), this time involving around 150 councils in England.

Cameroon? Osboon? Millions (and it really was millions), wasted? LibDems? Scandal? Anyone?

Presumably the first job will be to correct all the now broken links after the 'hiatus' ... Only it won't be a Whitehall bureaucrat doing this but a far more expensive so-called method involving people with far better things to do.

Any thoughts Minister Watson? Thought not.

• My past posting: Yet more birth pangs of government 2.0

More: in that past post (August 2007) I discussed the DCLG's then new web 2.0 efforts. I just clicked through and there's nothing about localdirectgov in their highly controlled and pretty empty forums and a grand total of one blog.

Ads on local council websites?

Lincolnshire have started running banner adverts today on their website, in what they claim is "a nationwide first for any local authority."

They're not the first actually! I was surprised when researching this to see quite a few other councils are already doing them.

• Flyde is running Google text ads.
• Nottingham is selling banners (see their media pack- PDF).
• Hampshire are doing ad packages which includes web advertising. Their sponsorship policy.
• Weymouth and Portland will be doing sponsorships.

Others are considering it and there's probably some I don't know of.

One thing Andy Key of Hampshire noticed which also rang true with Lincolnshire was that the public never complained - only the council staff. In fact Lincolnshire has reported public applause for imaginative monetisation.

There are other possible revenue streams as well.

• Linkage from any .gov.uk address has value
• Income from amazon or other links - for example where you are already effectively choosing one business over another, e.g. Google over multimap etc.
• Rent out server space for small business/sole traders
• Recommending and linking to specific suppliers, insurance agencies for example, or in specific sections local attractions like swimming pools other than the council ones

But there are numerous issues. Andy Key posted at PSF about some of the problems they discovered that are involved with advertising on .gov.uk and they seem to be general, across others thinking about it.

• They found ads on council sites a hard sell, who uses the site? You need solid stats
  
• In general, the web ads market is still relatively small, don't expect riches
  
• The ads must be content specific - in which case the business section may be the most lucrative
• Adverts may be sought to give the appearance of a council endorsement, similarly you may end up with potential competitor advertising (e.g. in arts/leisure)
• Advertisers must be vetted by trading standards
• You must have a member agreed policy

Other issues and negatives include:

• Sponsorship will offer more control than auto-generated ads (Google AdWords) which may be inappropriate (similar to the COI experience on Facebook) i.e. 'get a loan' 'debt advice' etc.
• There may be some potential for a negative impact on web budgets, or web budgets increasingly forced to 'outsource'
• Like with staff, some members may be strongly opposed - so a resident survey would be extremely useful for any proposition
• There aren't any Whitehall guidelines on web ads for local government

It's also worth mentioning that I don't recall ever seeing an advert on a US government website - which says something I think.



MK web (Milton Keynes) doesn't carry ads in the 'council channel', but they do use skyscraper ads for council services in the style of the rest of site. This is probably a mistake because users have learned to tune out ads in general - they probably think this draws more attention to services they're cross-selling when in fact it's probably less.

I'd also have a similar issue for the method chosen in Lincolnshire. They're animated, rather than static, banner ads which I think does detract from the content. Thank god for AdBlock.