The author explores the gradual evolution of citizen centric public services aided and enabled by ICT. He argues for effective evolution both the citizen and the Government need to be active participants among other suggestions
Introduction
In our earlier work we developed a model to describe how ICT is being used to transform local public service delivery (www.egovmonitor.com/node/1055). The model identified three stages in the development of ICT-enabled citizen-centric services:
1. the Responsive council
2. the Insightful council
3. the Insightful citizen.
Currently, most UK councils are struggling with Stage 1, particularly with integrating their citizen-facing systems, such as Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and websites, with their back-office systems to provide seamless transactions. Stage 2 is an as yet unrealised aspiration for most. Stage 3 represents a paradigm shift in citizen engagement and empowerment which is happening in parallel with Stages 1 and 2; often driven by forces beyond local government control including increased use of online communities by citizens for support, advice and information sharing. This article focuses on Stage 3 and describes how these forces are developing and the likely impact they will have on service design and delivery. We present an evaluation of one of the first citizen-driven systems for local public service improvement in the UK: FixMyStreet.com (http://www.fixmystreet.com). The system enables citizens to report, view or discuss local problems such as graffiti, fly tipping, broken paving slabs or street lighting, and to track their resolution by the local authority concerned.
Fixmystreet.com
FixMyStreet (FMS) went live in February 2007 and won the prestigious 2007 Civic Society New Statesman / New Media award. The site was developed by the charity mysociety and is free to use with no fees being charged to local authorities. Problems reported by citizens to FMS are sent to the appropriate local authority via email. The problem originator is contacted by FMS four weeks later to see if the problem has been fixed. At any time the originator or another citizen can post an update which is shown after the original problem post. Figure 1 shows a typical problem report.
see figure1 here
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of FMS to date, and its future potential, the views of a range of stakeholders were obtained: developers, local government officers responsible for e-government and customer services at two councils (Council A and Council B), and prospective users of the site.
Whilst FMS is very easy to use, and clearly popular with the prospective users surveyed, its impact to date has been somewhat limited. None of the prospective users had heard of the site, and only one of the five council officers interviewed had heard of it. We do not have figures for the total number of problems reported to Council A in the first year of FMS’ operation, but suspect that the 155 problems posted on the FMS site at the time of writing represent a very small proportion of these. The site needs more publicity. Not surprisingly, the local government officers interviewed voiced a number of concerns. The key concern was over the accuracy of the reports (from “bogus” posters?), and whether fixes were reported quickly by the site (or even reported at all). Because the local councils don’t own the site, they cannot get their messages across to the users, for example to explain why problems are not being fixed or to outline their future plans for the area. This is part of the management of expectations, which is seen as key by the councils – who also feel aggrieved that their good work is not being reflected in improved public esteem. Presumably a mechanism for enabling the council to post to FMS when a problem has been resolved from their point of view would be useful. This would provide the council with a “voice” in the process, without denying the citizen’s voice. Citizens would be free to disagree with the council if they felt the problem had not been resolved to their satisfaction. A further council concern is that FMS is simply duplicating existing online channels such as their own websites and the central government-supported portal Directgov.
Despite claiming that FMS “enables citizens to report, view or discuss local problems” (FMS homepage) it is clear that there is very little “discussion” taking place. Very few of the 155 problems reported to Council A invoked responses from other citizens. In contrast a number of the posts to another award-winning site, the London Borough of Brent’s BRAIN community website (http://www.brentbrain.org.uk), stimulated healthy discussions with citizens supporting each other and pooling ideas on how problems could be resolved. Anti-social behaviour stimulated particularly active debate, and, despite the understandable fear of reprisals, most posters provided their names to enable identification online. This suggests that for certain topics, a virtual community can form, enabling the “wisdom of crowds” to be brought to bear on some particularly difficult problems and encouraging individuals to work together and commit to problem resolution. Recent studies of online communities have identified factors that encourage participation. These include:
- the importance of leaders or facilitators in creating a “public conversation”
- moderators to ensure appropriate posts
- receiving a reply to the initial post
- using your own name for identification
- having a sizeable membership to ensure sufficient online activity in the face of the non-contribution of lurkers.
Without a “sense of virtual community” it is unlikely that FMS will be able to leverage the resources of the community to aid in problem resolution. Instead, the divide between the complainants (citizens) and those expected to fix the problem (the councils) will remain wide, and possibly even widen further if FMS (inadvertently) creates the impression of council failure.
Conclusion
In the recent Power of Information report, Mayo & Steinberg argue that government should pay attention to user-generated websites and fora, and should enter into “partnerships” with these sites to avoid duplication of content. Ultimately it comes down to the question of who generates the information and who controls its flow? The BRAIN website gives a pointer to the next stage in the evolution of public service websites. It supports a wide range of information, from local events and public health information to crime reports and discussion forums. It is a joint initiative between Brent council and local groups and so has the apparatus to tap into both the “wisdom” of the local community and the specialist expertise and resources of the council. Clearly, to achieve solutions that will endure, both parties need to be active and committed participants.
FMS offers a highly intuitive map-based interface, together with a direct link to the councils’ problem reporting systems. It is a national site that has the potential to facilitate comparisons between council performance across the country. BRAIN has communities, fora, and a wide range of information of interest to the public. But it doesn’t have maps, and it doesn’t have a problem reporting/fixing facility, and it is limited to one London borough. Perhaps, therefore, the next stage in this journey towards ICT-enabled citizen-centric public services is to draw on the best elements of the two – why not a single national site? And why not call it “FixOurStreet.com”? Now there’s an idea.
