Web-based project management
.16.12 | 1 Comment »
December 16th, 2004 by Alex
As part of my ongoing love-in with 43 Things, I looked into its development environment, something called Ruby on Rails. Ruby is a programming language that claims to be easy for even a new programmer to learn. Rails is a web application framework for Ruby; it sounds like it may make the process of developing web applications much faster and more efficient.
I gather than Ruby on Rails was developed simultaneously and symbiotically with Basecamp, a very intriguing web-based project management tool. It looks like a very usable, economic tool for managing internal communications, project timelines, and task allocation and completion.
Holiday drink recipe: the Consultini
.16.12 | No Comments »
December 16th, 2004 by Alex
Q: What’s in a consultini?
A: What do you think should be in a consultini?
43 Things
.16.12 | 2 Comments »
December 16th, 2004 by Alex
My new favourite web site is something called 43 Things, which I discovered through Nancy White’s blog.
You can’t find out what 43 Things is if you don’ t have an account, and you can’t get an account without an invitation. No wonder I just HAD to get in. Happily Nancy White invited me to join her in exploring how 43 Things can be a social change tool. If you want to join the exploration, ask me for an invitation.
Scottish Parliament site hacked
.14.12 | No Comments »
December 14th, 2004 by Alex
In the course of my online travels tonight, I discovered that part of the Scottish Parliament’s web site had been hacked:
HACKED BY DR_TROX BU SITE CEZA’YA MAHKUMDUR …
It’s hardly a security crisis for the Parliament’s webcasting functions to go offline for a little bit. But I do think that these kinds of security breaches are more troubling for their potential impact on the trust that participants must have in the security of online consultation systems.
Without that trust it will be very difficult to elicit participation on topics where participant anonymity matters. Considering that the capacity for true anonymity can in some cases be essential for the integrity of a process — think about the UK’s consultation a few years ago on domestic violence, as discussed in Sarah Pearce’s 2001 (pdf) paper — it’s crucial to put the security of consultation systems on the same level as the security of any government database.
E-consultation gets official nod
.10.12 | 1 Comment »
December 10th, 2004 by Alex
New DO-Consult subscriber Katherine Beavis points out that e-consultation has now been enshrined in the Canadian government’s official communications guidelines.
The new (revised) Government of Canada communications policy was released today. One of the only changes was a new requirement to post public consultation sessions on the web.
Are there other countries or governments that have adopted similar requirements?
The art and science of bookmarks
.10.12 | No Comments »
December 10th, 2004 by Alex
Like anyone whose work not only uses the Internet, but actually concerns the Internet itself, I am really dependent on bookmark management to keep track of my work and resources. As a Mac user I’ve recently returned to using URL Manager Pro, a client-side tool that does a very nice job of organizing bookmarks in a flexible, accessible, annotateable form. While that addresses my own bookmark management needs, it doesn’t provide a way of sharing my bookmarks with colleagues and collaborators.
For that job, I’m exploring a new tool: del.icio.us, which bills itself as a social bookmarks manager. Andy Budd has a nice explanation of its virtues.
Part of the appeal of the social bookmarking idea is that it’s not just a productivity app; it actually has some value added for those of us working in the field of online collaboration and cooperation. Social bookmarking is still relatively new, so I’ve yet to hear of anyone using it as a civic engagement or collaboration tool. But it won’t be long.
A summary of online consultation approaches
.9.12 | No Comments »
December 9th, 2004 by Alex
AmericaSpeaks has produced a very handy chart summarizing different approaches to online engagement around the world.
Geeks for world peace
.6.12 | No Comments »
December 6th, 2004 by Alex
Here’s a great use for your favourite young techie:
NetCorps Canada International offers young Canadians the opportunity to participate in exciting volunteer information and communication technology internships in developing countries….NetCorps Interns are placed with host organizations in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors for up to six months. During their assignments, interns may provide technical support and training in software use, database development, Web site design and network configuration. Each assignment differs depending on the needs of the host organization.
H20’s rotisserie discussion tool
.6.12 | No Comments »
December 6th, 2004 by Alex
I did some treasure hunting today on H20, an innovative online exchange sponsored by the Berkman Center for the Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. H20’s self-description says it:
aims to apply Internet technologies to the underlying aims of the academy — the free creation and exchange of ideas and the communities formed around those ideas — both within and beyond the confines of the traditional university setting.
In practice this seems to mean that H20 has proven particularly popular as a medium for courses on Internet-related topics. But part of its underlying tech seems very interesting for those of us experimenting with online discussion tools. H20’s version of discussion boards is what it calls a “rotisserie”:
The Rotisserie implements an innovative approach to online discussion that encourages measured, thoughtful discourse in a way that that traditional threaded messaging systems do not. The basic concept of the threaded messaging board is to enable broadcast-to-broadcast communication among a group of people, meaning that every participant in the conversation receives every post from every other participant. This mode of discussion inevitably leads to the domination of the discussion by a few very verbal participants and silence by the lurking majority. The Rotisserie breaks this mode by assigning every post within the conversation to another, specific participant for response. The resulting conversation guarantees that every post will be responded to by at least one other participant and that every participant must respond directly to the post of another participant.
I can see how the direct-response approach could be very constructive in a class setting, where there are explicit or implicit sanctions for failure to respond as required. I wonder how effective the same technique would be in other discussion settings — like government policy consultations. I imagine that in a closed group with some sense of mutual accountability, it could work well. But in a wide-open setting, it might actually feel a bit menacing to be tapped to respond to someone’s post, simply because you’d joined a group.
Business gift story in today’s Toronto Star
.6.12 | No Comments »
December 6th, 2004 by Alex
Today’s Toronto Star has my story on the best business technology gifts for this holiday season.
E-commerce comes to Canada
.5.12 | No Comments »
December 5th, 2004 by Alex
After years of being marginalized by the online marketplace, Canada is finally getting access to a wide range of online retailers — thanks to Borderfree, a service owned by Canada Post. Borderfree lets online retailers easily sell their products in international markets, including Canada.
Evaluating civic engagement projects
.5.12 | 1 Comment »
December 5th, 2004 by Alex
A recent discussion on DO-Consult turned to the question of how we can evaluate the success of electronic citizen engagement projects. One list member pointed out that the issues probably aren’t too different from the challenges of evaluating off-line engagement efforts, which inspired me to pull together some resources on how to evaluate citizen engagement.
It turns out that the Hewlett Foundation has funded a joint research project on evaluating dialogue & deliberation, jointly undertaken by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium and the National Conference on Dialogue and Deliberation (the NCDD’s web site is a great resource for general consultation and deliberation issues).
The project has gathered 50 assessment tools, reports and papers, some of which will soon be available on the NCDD’s resources page. To access the full set of resources immediately, you need to access the archives of the NCDD’s listserv on evaluating dialogue and deliberation (which requires you to register with the NCDD site — a very quick & easy process that will be initiated when you try to access the archive). Visit the NCDD’s e-mail list page and click on the “Evaluating Dialogue & Deliberation” list.
The NCDD’s web site also includes a paper by Angie Boyce of the Boston Museum of Science that offers a very nice review of the evaluation literature. See excerpts below; those who would find it useful to read the literature review in full (3 pages of a 9-page paper on “Evaluating Public Engagement: Deliberative Democracy and the Science Museum”) can download the paper in Word format.
The Canadian government has a report on “Evaluation and Citizen Engagement” that seems to be aimed at public servants trying to build evaluation processes into their own engagement projects. The report includes an annotated bibliography on the subject, much of it focused on “subject-centered evaluation” — i.e. evaluation by participants.
From Boyce, “Evaluating Public Engagement”, 2004:
[T]he evaluation literature on public participation and deliberative democracy is still in its infancy. Evaluation is only beginning to be considered a critical component in the development process (Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Einsiedel, 2002; Abelson, Forest et al., 2003)
Webler develops an evaluative framework based on two “metacriteria”; competence, which he defines as “psychological heuristics, listening and communication skills, self-reflection, and consensus building” and fairness, which occurs when “people are provided equal opportunities to determine the agenda, the rules for discourse, to speak and raise question, and equal access to knowledge and interpretations” (Webler, 1995). Webler qualifies competence and fairness as criteria by identifying conditions under which they are most likely to occur….
Rowe and Frewer…divide evaluation criteria into two parts: acceptance criteria, which refer to how the procedure is constructed and implemented, and process criteria, which are related to how the public will accept the procedure….
Einsiedel’s work….developed evaluation criteria from the literature on constructive technology assessment (which is front-end and design focused) and deliberative democracy (Habermas’s rules for discourse). She divided evaluation into three components: institutional/organizational criteria (which focus on how the opportunity for public participation emerged and was shaped), process criteria (which focus on what procedures were used as part of the participatory process), and outcome criteria (which focus on the impacts on participants, the community, the larger public, and the policy process in general).
… Perhaps one of the most extensive evaluation efforts that has been published to date is by Horlock-Jones et. al in their evaluation of the GM Nation? public debate sponsored by the British government on genetic modification. They used three sets of criteria: the aims and objectives of the Steering Board (in charge of implementing the debate), normative criteria (transparency, well-defined tasks, unbiased, inclusive, sufficient resources, effective and fair dialogue) and third, focus on participant views of success using surveys (Horlock-Jones, Walls et al., 2004). By using three different sets of criteria, they show that normative criteria must co-exist with stakeholder goals and participant perceptions.
…Joss describes several approaches to evaluating consensus conferences: efficiency (organization and management), effectiveness (external impact and outcomes), formative study (concurrent look at structure and process with possible intervention), cross-cultural studies (wider cultural context comparisons), and cost-benefit analysis (cost-effectiveness) (Joss, 1995).
… Interestingly, while scholars have developed different evaluative frameworks, the methodologies used in evaluation are largely similar. They look at discourse, documentation, and social relationships, using some quantitative but mostly qualitative methodologies. Indeed, it could be said that evaluation has taken an ethnographic turn. Webler advocates discourse analysis with a particular focus on the participant perspective. Einsiedel conducted participant observations, collected materials used by participants, distributed questionnaires, recorded questions to the facilitator, and did interviews with randomly selected citizens and experts of interest. Horlock-Jones used some of the same methodologies as Einsiedel as well as conducted media analysis and public opinion surveys. In addition, they divided their observations into structured observations (looking for specific behaviors) and ethnographic recording. Joss listed his methodologies the most specifically out of the scholars reviewed in this paper; he used multiple methodologies including: keeping a log book and document/files archive, conducting group discussions, handing out questionnaires, conducting interviews, asking participants keep diaries, conducting a literature search, monitoring conferences in other settings, and audio-taping all of the procedures. Future evaluation work should discuss the merits and drawbacks to methodologies used in order to inform and improve methodological procedures for the evaluation community.