Search

Measuring the Impact of Social Media in Government

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

0 comments

Post a comment

    Post a comment
    Embed Video
    Edit your comment Cancel

    Notes on slide 1

    6 Favorites & 1 Event

    Measuring the Impact of Social Media in Government - Presentation Transcript

    1. Measuring the Impact of Social Media  and Determining Next Steps Advanced Learning Institute Social Media for Government Conference March 26, 2009 Ari Herzog A i H og Andrew Krzmarzick   Ad  K i k   Online Media Strategist Senior Project Coordinator Ari Herzog & Associates The Graduate School http://www.ariherzog.com http://www.graduateschool.edu Blog: http://www.ariwriter.com http://generationshift.blogspot.com Twitter:  @ariherzog Twitter: @krazykriz 
    2. 1. Paper or 2. Laptop 3. Ideas 3 Id So what…  o I do now? S h dd ? 4. Rank 5. Share Source: Flickr - Khalid Almasoud's Photostream
    3. AGENDA 1. Introductions d 6. Potential Template l l 2. Base Camp 7. Application 3. Web 1.0 Measurement 8. Next Steps 4. W b   M Web 2.0 Measurement 9. Fi l Th t Final Thoughts ht 5. Survey Results 10. Gov 2.0 Camp and Beyond
    4. INTRODUCTIONS Name Agency/Organization Expectations E i
    5. BASE CAMP Current/Potential  How Do You  Web Activities Measure Success? ROI* It’s all about ROI* *So who is this ROI anyway?
    6. BASE CAMP ROI = ? ROI   ? Return on Investment? Return on…
    7. What is ROI? • Coined in 1920s for General Motors to  measure investment return in industry • Digital parallel needed »Investment g »Insight »Information »Influence »Interaction »Implementation
    8. “ADVANCING SOCIAL MEDIA” SURVEY ADVANCING MEDIA  SURVEY • 10 questions • 4,000 potential respondents • Web Manager’s Forum •G L GovLoop • GovTwit Directory •International Contacts • 105 responses • 7 countries 
    9. “ADVANCING SOCIAL MEDIA” SURVEY ADVANCING MEDIA  SURVEY 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 mission. 3 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?
    10. “ADVANCING SOCIAL MEDIA” SURVEY ADVANCING MEDIA  SURVEY 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? 
    11. 1. What enables or hinders you from using social media?  Response  Enables bl Hinders id Depends d Other h Count Answer Options Knowledge level  31 31% 37 37% 30 30% 2 100 (manager) 38 38% 35 35% 27 27% 1 101 Knowledge level (staff) 32 32% 36 36% 29 29% 2 99 Management support 25 5 25% 5 50 50 50% 24 4 24% 4 1 100 00 Available resources 57% 55 12 12% 28 29% 2 97 Connection to mission 30 Other (please specify) answered question d i 101
    12. 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% 43 0% Gaining top-down advocacy from the 54.4% 41.9% upper levels of our agency/department 31.5% 14.5% An increase in our IT budget 10.3% 13.3% 20.2% 20 2% 10.4% A grass-roots campaign that starts at the 14.7% lower levels of our agency/department 7.6% 8.1% 9.3% 5.9% 5 9% Public P bli pressure f from our constituents tit t 12.4% 10.5% 9.3% Hiring more IT workers who are knowledgeable 5.9% 8.6% about Web 2.0 techs and the power of 13.7% collaboration 9.0% A singular event that requires action 4.4% 11.4% (e.g., an election, a natural disaster, etc.) Total 12.1% Respondents Federal Government 4.4% 4.4% State Other 4.8% 4 8% Government 4.0% Local Government
    13. How  1. 1 Paper or are they 2. Laptop 3. Ideas connected  4. R k Rank to your 5. Share mission? 
    14. Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11280943@N04/1504440991/
    15. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 1. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study 2. 2 Forrester Website Benchmark Survey 3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index 4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports
    16. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 1. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study 1  Brookings Institution E Government Study Since 2000: • > 1,500 state and Federal  government sites • 0 – 100 point scale
    17. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 1. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study 1  Brookings Institution E Government Study Since 2000: • > 1,500 state and Federal  government sites • 0 – 100 point scale
    18. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 1. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study 1  Brookings Institution E Government Study • Advertisements (lack of) • Pay via credit card • PDA/handheld device accessibility • Audio clips • Personalization of the website • Commenting • Premium fees (lack of) • Databases • Privacy policies l • Digital signatures on transactions • Disability access • Publications • E‐mail contact information • Security policies yp • E‐mail updates • User fees • Foreign language access • Video clips 4 points per feature (72 total points) + 28 more for frequency
    19. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 1. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study 1  Brookings Institution E Government Study You got it… You got it or you don’t. y
    20. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 2. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey 2  Forrester Website Benchmark Survey • User Goals • Value • Navigation • Presentation •T Trust
    21. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 2. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey 2  Forrester Website Benchmark Survey Value • Does landing page provide evidence that user goals can be  achieved? hi d? • Is essential content available where needed? • Is essential function available where needed? • Are essential content and function given priority in display?
    22. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 2. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey 2  Forrester Website Benchmark Survey Navigation • Are menu category/sub‐category clear? •A   Are content and function classified logically? t t  d f ti   l ifi d l i ll ? • Is the task flow efficient? • Is wording in hyperlinks/controls clear and informative? • Are keyword searches comprehensive and precise?
    23. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 2. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey 2  Forrester Website Benchmark Survey Presentation • Does site use language that’s easy to understand? • D  th   it     Does the site use graphics, icons, and symbols    “     “    ? hi  i   d  b l     “     “    ? • Is text legible? Text format/layout support easy scanning? • Are form fields and interactive elements placed well?
    24. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 2. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey 2  Forrester Website Benchmark Survey Trust • Does the site present privacy and security policies? • D  l Do location cues orient the user? ti     i t th   ? • Is contextual help available at key points? • Does the site help users avoid and recover from errors?
    25. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 2. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey 2  Forrester Website Benchmark Survey Trust the experts?
    26. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index 3  ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index
    27. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index 3  ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index E‐Gov – What is it? • Key question: • Measures 94 e‐gov sites on: How satisfied are citizens? 1. Navigation  1  Navigation  • B d   U i Based on University of Michigan’s i   f Mi hi ’ 2. Functionality American Customer  3. Search h Satisfaction Index (ACSI) ( ) 4. Look and Feel
    28. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index 3  ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index
    29. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index 3  ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index E Gov Outcomes E‐Gov Outcomes as of Q1 2009 • All‐time high: 74.1% satisfaction overall • M t  Most successful sites: f l  it • Citizens find information quickly and easily • E‐Commerce and Transaction functions
    30. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index 3  ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index E Gov Top Performers E‐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) 
    31. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index 3  ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index E Gov Advantages E‐Gov Advantages • Savings of time and money for government • B tt   Better service for citizens and businesses i  f   iti   d b i • Accountability, transparency, active participation • Streamlined bureaucracy and reduced redundancy
    32. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index 3  ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index The  customers   customers’  always  y right?
    33. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 4. OMB E‐Government Initiatives 4  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  Chief Information Officer…and a broad framework of  measures that require using Internet‐based information  h i i b di f i technology to enhance citizen access to Government  information and services, and for other purposes.”
    34. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009) 4  OMB E Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)
    35. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 4. OMB E Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009) 4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009) GOAL: Really? “…to be the best manager,  innovator and  Do we  Do we user of information,  believe it? services and  i   d  If so, information systems  let s do it. let’s do it in the world.”
    36. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 4. OMB E‐Gov Report  ‐ 4  OMB E Gov Report   Jan 2009 FIVE PORTFOLIOS • Government to Citizen • Government to Business • Government to Government • Internal Efficiency and Effectiveness • Cross‐Cutting • Lines of Business
    37. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 4. OMB E‐Gov Report  ‐ 4  OMB E Gov Report   Jan 2009 • Business.gov • Regulations.gov • USALearning.gov gg • Grants.gov • FedBizOpps gov FedBizOpps.gov • Recreation.gov • USAJOBS g USAJOBS.gov
    38. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 4. OMB E‐Gov Report  ‐ 4  OMB E Gov Report   Jan 2009 • 28/28 agencies have implementation plans • 87% of milestones met
    39. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 4. OMB E‐Gov Report  ‐ 4  OMB E Gov Report   Jan 2009) Opportunities for Continued Improvement a) Improve Information Security Management b) Improve Information Privacy c) Increase IT Workforce Competency d) Improve E‐Gov Initiatives Performance Measures
    40. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009) 4  OMB E Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009) d) Improve E‐Gov Initiatives Performance Measures Improve E Gov Initiatives Performance Measures • Adoption/Participation – Is the relevant community participating?  • Usage – What’s the level of use by the target community? 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   Cost Savings/Avoidance – What’s $ value for government /citizens?  / i i ? • Efficiency ‐ Any decreases in time and/or increases in productivity?
    41. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
    42. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT 4. OMB E Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009) 4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009) Peer  Pressure?
    43. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT What measurement How  1. Paper or p approach could you are they 2. Laptop adapt from  3. Ideas connected  “Web 1.0”? 4. 4 Rank to your 5. Share What would motivate  mission?  y your key  y stakeholder(s)? You got it… g The customers’  or you don’t. always right? Trust the Peer  experts? Pressure?
    44. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pablography/2415832354/
    45. 2.0 1.0 10
    46. “IMPACT FOR GENERATIONS” IMPACT GENERATIONS Generations Explained  % of total adult  % of internet‐ Birth Years, Ages in 2009  Generation Name*  population  using population  Born 1977‐1990, Ages 18‐32  26%  30%  Gen Y (Millennials)  Born 1965‐1976, Ages 33‐44  9 5 97 , g 33 44 20%  23%  3 Gen X  58% Born 1955‐1964, Ages 45‐54  20%  22%  Younger Boomers  Born 1946‐1954, Ages 55‐63  13%  13%  Older Boomers  Born 1937‐1945, Ages 64‐72  9%  7%  Silent Generation  Born  ‐1936, Age 73+  B    6  A     9%  %  4%  %  G.I. Generation  GG i 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.   
    47. Source: Flickr – lyzadanger’s photostream
    48. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT 1. IBM’s “Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government” ’“ b ” 2. UN E‐Government Survey 3. Rutgers Digital Governance Study 4. F d l W b M Federal Web Manager’s “Putting Citizens First” ’  “P tti  Citi  Fi t”
    49. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT 1. IBM s  Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government 1  IBM’s “Leveraging Web 2 0 in Government” What could we measure? Engagement Effectiveness 1) Usability 1) Objectives 2) Extent of engagement 2) Benchmarks
    50. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT 1. IBM s  Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government 1  IBM’s “Leveraging Web 2 0 in Government” Examples Tools Number of visitors Feedburner • • Number of links  Google Analytics • • Number of comments Technorati • • Creation of new knowledge • Increase in solutions • Increase in collaboration I  i   ll b ti •
    51. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT 1. IBM: “Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government” Findings • Gov needs to meet citizens where they are online • Citizens are willing to be interactive w/ 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
    52. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT 1. IBM’s “Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government” gg Recommendations 1. Just do it 2. Develop gov‐wide inventory of common Web 2.0 issues 3. Rethink how you deliver your mission 4 4. Reconfigure Internet info/services: component‐based g / p 5. Ensure authenticity of gov information and services 6. 6 Learn and keep an open mind
    53. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT 2. UN E‐Government Survey 2008 • 192 member nations, 189 online 9 ,9 “From E‐Government to  From E‐Government to  Connected Governance” • Broadband is crucial – US in 4th, after Sweden, Denmark, Norway • eParticipation is crucial – US in 1st, followed by South Korea, FR/DK • Connect the silos – Infrastructure  integration  transformation Infrastructure, integration, transformation
    54. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT 2. UN E‐Government Survey 2008 2.0 20 Connected Transactional: G2C (pay taxes, renew licenses, 2-way comm, 24x7) Interactive (download forms apps forms, apps, and portal) 1.0 Enhanced (archived li k t ( hi d links to regulations, reports, newsletters) l ti t l tt ) Emerging (website, links, (website links static)
    55. Top 10 UN Member Nations 1. Sweden GOAL: GOAL 2. Denmark 3. Norway “…to be the best manager,  g, 4. USA innovator and  5. Netherlands user of information,    f i f ti   6. Republic of Korea bl f 7. Canada services and  8. 8 Australia information systems  9. France in the world.” 10. United Kingdom g
    56. USA vs Denmark Connected Connected:  78%  vs  93% Transactional: G2C (pay taxes, renew Transactional:  65%  vs  80%  licenses, 2-way comm, 24x7) Interactive (download forms, apps, Interactive:  90%  vs  89%  and portal) Enhanced Enhanced:  98%  vs  97% (archived links to regulations, reports, newsletters) t l tt ) Emerging:  100%  vs  100% Emerging (website, links, static) Total:  85%  vs  89%
    57. UN: Best Practices EU's Debate Europe  • http://europa.eu/debateeurope/index_en.htm http://europa eu/debateeurope/index en htm Brazilian House of Representatives ‐ online debates • http://www2.camera.gov.br/popular Iceland Ministry of Social Affairs ‐ online chat • http://www.felagsmalaraduneyti.is/radherra Ireland ‐ gov procurement portal • http://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 lessons • http://www.ehealth.gov.mt/article.aspx?art=90 Netherlands e‐Citizen Charter • http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/104894 h // h / / il / 8
    58. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT 3. 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 ‐ Citizen Participation ‐Usability ‐Content
    59. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT 3. 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,  South America, and Oceania
    60. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT 3. Rutgers Digital Governance in Municipalities Study Seoul's Cyber Policy Forum aims to “provide  S l'  C b  P li  F   i  t  “ id   • citizens …to understand policy issues…facilitate  dc discussions…encourage citizen participation…  o e co ge c e p c p o obtain feedback…reflect citizens’ opinions…” http://www.e‐seoul.go.kr Korean, Chinese,  http://www e seoul go kr ‐ Korean  Chinese   • Japanese, English, French, Spanish Hong Kong, Helsinki, Singapore, Madrid lk dd •
    61. Internet 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 5y • Gov mtgs synced w/ live TV broadcasts & web streaming • 40 free internet training classes offered; podcasts/VOD f l ff d d / • 11,000 emails sent to mayor; w/ personalized response  • 42,000 online reservations: 540 gov svcs & 25 agencies
    62. 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 • Complete common tasks efficiently • D li it   b   h Duplicity: web, phone, email, live chat, print, in‐person   il  li   h t   i t  i • Provide feedback and hear how government will respond • Access key info despite disability and English proficiency 
    63. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT 4. Federal Web Managers Council: “Putting Citizens First” The Web Content Managers Advisory Council has posted the Top 10 Best  Th  W b C  M  Ad i  C il h   d  h  T    B   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  with web content 4. Focus on top tasks 5. 5 Create and manage content effectively and efficiently
    64. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT 4. Federal Web Managers Council: “Putting Citizens First” 6. Collaborate within your agency and across  g government to manage content and eliminate  g duplication 7 7. Follow usability best practices y p 8. Evaluate the effectiveness of your website 9. 9 Make sure the public can find your content 10. Create opportunities for the public to interact  with their government  hh
    65. Credit: Jeremy Caplan, Dept of Commerce
    66. 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
    67. Library of Congress on Flickr • Internal meetings began early 2007 • Z   t ff  Zero staff members worked full‐time on this project! b  k d f ll ti    thi   j t! • Purchased a Flickr Pro account at $24.95/year  • Developed a custom upload app w/ java and marc4j • 1‐time cost of 222 hours of tech programming over 6  i f h f h i months • U l d d  Uploaded 3,100 photos in January 2008   h t  i  J   8 ,q • Ongoing costs involve a 7‐member team, equivalent to  gg 1 FTE (including tracking LOC photo usage on external  blogs, communications, etc)
    68. …9 Months Later: 9 Months Later: …24 Hours Later 24 Hours Later All 3,100+ photos viewed  • 5,621 photos as of 3/19/09 • 10 Million+ views • 392,000 views on the photostream  • Site averages 500,000 views a  • 650,000 views of photos  6  i   f  h t   • month h 7,166 comments • 1.1 million total views on LOC account  • Flickr members favorited 79% of  • 420 photos had comments  • photos Between Jan ‐ May 2008, average  • 1,200 photos were favorited  , p • LOC PPOC websites rose 20% per  LOC PPOC  b it    20%    month, compared to 2007 
    69. “Increasing the ability to engage and Increasing 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.” “Lessons learned from this project  “L l df thi jt p provide guideposts to the type of  g p yp experience that people would like to  have with our collections. have with our collections ”
    70. “ADVANCING SOCIAL MEDIA” SURVEY ADVANCING MEDIA  SURVEY Results! R lt !
    71. Advancing Social Media in Government Do you establish metrics prior to implementing any of the above social media tools at your agency? Response Response Frequency Count Answer Options 43.8% 46 Yes 56.2% 59 No answered question 105 skipped question 0
    72. “…we don't have benchmark data,  nor do we have measurable objectives  for any of our tools.  f f l We basically just put them out there  We basically just put them out there and hope they work.  p y It's kind of annoying.”
    73. Advancing Social Media in Government If you answered YES for #4, what tools are you measuring? Response Response Frequency F Count C t Answer O i Options 60.4% 29 1 Blogs 58.3% 28 2 E-mail 56.3% 27 3 Twitter 43.8% 21 4 RSS 33.3% 16 5 YouTube 31.3% 15 6 Facebook 25.0% 2 0% 122 7 Podcasts 16.7% 8 8 Mobile devices 14.6% 7 9 Wikis 8.3% 4 10 Delicious 8.3% 4 11 Z-other social networking (e.g. Flickr, Govloop, LinkedIn, Ning) 6.3% 3 12 LinkedIn 6.3% 3 13 Z-other video sharing (e.g. Hulu, Vimeo, Viddler) 4.2% 2 14 Z-other social bookmarking (e.g. Digg, StumbleUpon) 2.1% 1 15 Gaming 2.1% 1 16 MySpace 0.0% 0 0% 0 17 Second Life 0.0% 0 18 Z-other virtual worlds/3D Web (e.g. YooWalk) answered question 48 skipped question 57
    74. GENERAL  BLOGS • Posts • Views • Views Number of views/page /p g PODCASTS • Comments (quantitative) • Subscriptions Time on site/page • People • Downloads  • Visitors • Complaints Google • Visits Unique • Comments (qualitative) Analytics y • Subscriptions Overall • Paths Paths to site • Links elsewhere? Paths on site WIKIS Geographic distribution Geographic distribution •Users RSS Searches •Adoption rate • Subscriptions •Edits Satisfaction Comments TWITTER •Followers  •Growth YOUTUBE/VIMEO •Link click‐throughs ( h Li k li k h h (when, what types of  h f • Views content) • Comments  •Retweets • Downloads •Rankings (Twinfluence, Twitter Grader) • Page placement traffic Page placement traffic C i t i il i ti •Comparison to similar organizations • Ratings •Friends • Click‐throughs •Conversations
    75. “Metrics only tell part of the story... it is difficult to directly measure “influence”,  so we use roundabout metrics  (size/reach of our network,  (i / hf t k incoming links,  g , content being syndicated)”
    76. “Very difficult to know beforehand  “ diffi l k bf h d what metrics really matter,  what metrics really matter and what success/failure looks like.  Often we get cornered  into continuing with social media  into 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)”
    77. Is privacy, security, and/or monitoring of social tools important at your agency? Yes Response No Depends Count Answer Options p 70 70% 12 12% 18 18% 100 Privacy 80 80% 9 9% 11 11% 100 Security 69 70% 13 13% 17 17% 98 Monitoring • Google Analytics, WebTrends, WordPress • Session cookies, legalities • Tracking: email, website, twitter
    78. Feedback • SNS blocked either 100% or by peak time • SNS security threats, reduce productivity y , p y • Parent agency blocked YT/FB access; unblocked  g y ; after learning of biz presence • Google Analytics contrary to Patriot Act?
    79. POTENTIAL TEMPLATE Photo Credit: DryIcons: http://flickr.com/photos/dryicons/2213575431/
    80. BEFORE YOU BEGIN… 1. Why? Tie to mission, goals, objectives, needs, gaps. 1 Why? Ti  t   i i  g l   bj ti   d  g 2. Who? Champion, contributors, constituents.  3. What? Content is the key to success. 4. How? Decide which tools best meet goals. 5. 5 When? C t     h d l  t  i l Create a schedule to implement and evaluate.  t  d  l t  
    81. BEFORE YOU BEGIN… 1. Why?  Tie to mission, goals, objectives, needs, gaps. 1 Why?  Ti  t   i i  g l   bj ti   d  g Recruitment • Transparency • Retention • Accountability • Efficiency Effi i • Participation • Communication •
    82. BRAINSTORMING/APPLICATION 1. 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.  Blogs Bl g Goal (Tied to Tool): _______________ Mobile Comm Objective(s) Action Target  Measure of  Champion, Podcasts Steps p Date Success Creator RSS Social Bookmarking 1. _______ 1.1 Social Virtual Networking 1.2 Videos 2. _______ Virtual Worlds (Second Life) 3. _______ Web‐Based Calling Webcasts/Webinars Wikis
    83. IN CLOSING What makes the flag on the mast to wave?  Courage! Wh   k   h  fl     h      ?  What makes the elephant charge his tusk  in the misty mist  or the dusky dusk?  Courage! in the misty mist, or the dusky dusk?  What makes the muskrat guard his musk? Courage!  What have they got that I ain't we all got?  yg g Courage! g
    84. RESOURCES 1. 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. 7 Social Media and Government (Jeffrey Levy): http://snurl.com/crq0x 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

    + Andrew KrzmarzickAndrew Krzmarzick, 7 months ago

    custom

    2376 views, 6 favs, 8 embeds more stats

    Slides from a workshop entitled "Measuring the Impa more

    More info about this document

    © All Rights Reserved

    Go to text version

    • Total Views 2376
      • 2254 on SlideShare
      • 122 from embeds
    • Comments 0
    • Favorites 6
    • Downloads 79
    Most viewed embeds
    • 64 views on http://generationshift.blogspot.com
    • 21 views on http://citizenengagement.wordpress.com
    • 16 views on http://www.government20club.org
    • 9 views on http://www.psfbuzz.com
    • 7 views on http://www.lgeoresearch.com

    more

    All embeds
    • 64 views on http://generationshift.blogspot.com
    • 21 views on http://citizenengagement.wordpress.com
    • 16 views on http://www.government20club.org
    • 9 views on http://www.psfbuzz.com
    • 7 views on http://www.lgeoresearch.com
    • 3 views on http://egovau.blogspot.com
    • 1 views on http://www.generationshift.blogspot.com
    • 1 views on http://genshift.com

    less

    Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
    Flag as inappropriate

    Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

    Cancel
    File a copyright complaint
    Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

    Categories

    Tags

    more

    Groups / Events

    -->
    Search
    RSS Feed
    What's new?

    © 2009 SlideShare Inc. All Rights Reserved