It is an interesting development that GM recently decided to install Facebook status updates with their Onstar car communication system. Is this surprising? We can make couple of observations here.

First, Facebook is very much integrated into our lives, in particular with young generation. Young generation likes information immediacy and likes to connect with others anytime anywhere. So Facebook integration into the car technology is just another way of embedding ubiquitous pervasive technology in our lives. Moreover Australians spends more time in Social networks such as Facebook, twitter in number of hours per day compared to the rest of the world. So we must be heavy users of Facebook.

Second, we need to consider the history of technology evolution and use. The journey started with emails, and then came SMS and now social network sites like Facebook and Twitter. Now that our smart phones are integrated with 3G technologies, we can connect with Facebook anytime anywhere, so what’s wrong with the car technology embracing this?

Third, this is not a new technology. Already Ford with its Sync system has integrated voice enabled command technology for email access, weather updates, finding businesses nearby, navigation, emergency management with their car system. 70% of cars sold in US in the last two years have installed Ford Sync for only about $400 extra. So cars has already started to act like an information hub like iPhones, iPads etc. So GM is probably playing a catch up game to gain back their market share.

Fourth, though some of us may question the very act of Facebook status updates – they may find it silly, unnecessary and distracting. But to others these shared feeling and connectivity is very important. Often they are important for others poeple like journalists. These micro-contents often are first breaking news for natural calamity or disasters. So while driving, specially for long hours, it may be useful to have the facility to update status and respond to meesages using natural speech is attractive.

What about Australians?

On one hand, for Australians we love new technology. Ford only started to release the Ford Sync in Australia since 2009. So we need to catch up with the rest of the world using cars as information hubs. Early this year (during March & April) we superseded search engines like Google and social networks became the most visited sites by Australians. So for us, this must be exciting times.

On the other hand, we must be worried about safety issues. How safe are these tools? What about noise, music, kids shouting at the back or poor speech recognition – how much distraction will these create for drivers. the ability to use natural speech is welcoming, but how much training is required? Is there any research or data to show that these are not new distractions?

however at the end, it must be safer than using mobile phones and hands to update your status in Facebook.


Recently I have been doing some readings on “digital citizenship” (thanks to Catherine MCLoughlin)  which is now being dubbed as “citizen 2.0”. In simplest terms, “digital citizenship” is the ability to participate in society online. In much the same way as education has promoted democracy and economic growth, the internet has the potential to benefit Society as a whole, and facilitate the membership and participation of individuals within society. Digital citizenship represents capacity, belonging, and the potential for political and economic engagement in society in the information age. The affordances that are brought about with internet and recent web 2.0 technologies on a broader scale – sharing, collaborating, networking, customizing and personalization enable new forms of civic participation, which may either change or replicate existing social relations. The social communication technologies like web 2.0 offer new channels for contacting officials, discussing issues, and mobilizing, then the network externalities or the benefits of bringing people together online exceed the satisfaction gained by the individual participants – creating what economists call “positive externalities” or spill over benefits.

Westheimer and Kahne (2004) suggested three types of citizens: responsible , participatory and justice-oriented. They also stated that these three categorisation is not necessarily mutually exclusive, but it was important to make them distinct.

The personally responsible citizens acts responsibly in his/her community by, for example, picking up litter, giving blood, recycling, volunteering, paying taxes and staying out of debt.

A participatory citizen actively participate in the civic affairs and the social life of the community at local, state and national levels. Participatory citizens need to understand how government and community organizations work, and they need to understand how to plan and lead meetings.

The justice oriented citizen is one who pursues social justice,  does not simply respond to a problem, instead works to find a solution to the cause of it. They also understand how to value and incorporate diverse and even opposing views when addressing the roots of social problems (Richards 2010).

 The interesting question is: We talk about graduate skills and generic skills – but what about digital citizenship?

Some of the generic and graduate skills like information literacy, ethics, professionalism that we have embedded in our courses are training students not just to be personally responsible citizens, but also aiming at participatory citizens. We do not do much towards training future citizens to be the Justice oriented citizens. Our curriculum embraces the traits and tenants of a personally responsible citizen by teaching students of how to build a good character – be honest, responsible, integrity, and law-abiding by engaging in individual character education and community charitable acts. We ignore important influences like social movements and government policy on efforts to improve society.  We focus on obedience and loyalty but fail to question established structures and programmes using critical reflection and action (Richards 2010).

However university teaches these higher order skills like critical thinking and synthesizing and evaluation. So, higher education instructors – what type of citizens do you aim to develop in your next course?

Government has endorsed the recommendations of Government 2.0 taskforce.I must commend the government, AGIMO and Kate for leading in this space.

As an academic I saw the potential of web 2.0 technologies for government and was hoping to do some research on government’s use of web 2.0 since 2006-07. I remember meeting with Kate Lundy in 2007 in a small coffee shop, talking about her new site where she was uploading podcasts and was excited about it. Though small, but Kate had already started her journey since then. We know how much Kate has achieved since 2007 (reflected in her recent public spheres and in her on-going efforts).

The picture was quite grim with AGIMO back in 2007- nobody had any interest in web 2.0! I found it very difficult to get access and knowledge of what agencies were doing in this space. In fact was repeatedly reminded by my academic colleagues that nothing was happening. I almost lost hope. However the establishment of the Government 2.0 taskforce in July 2009, AGIMO’s sudden leading role in facilitating Gov 2.0 agenda changed the game. What AGIMO achieved with the help of taskforce in just the 6 months or so – seems like work that takes years to do. AGIMO turning into a web 2.0 champion is a great achievement for all web 2.0 evangelists who have been lobbying hard for the last 2-3 years.

I have to admit there is still not much academic work done in this space, in particular in Australian context. I still have my colleagues telling me “so what the government has endorsed Gov 2.0?” It will take years before it gets implemented through the intricacies of bureaucratic cultures of APS. I believe it is time for academics to take Gov 2.0 seriously – it’s not a fad, its reality. Hopefully the government’s endorsement will create momentum and APS will embrace web 2.0. Academics will start to see the fruits of web 2.0 in some area while others struggling to make it work for government’s business. Academics will need to go through the same challenges of change – let go of their existing beliefs about what government means, what governance means and how governments deliver services and engage with their citizens. Academics need to explore open government ideas; embrace the changes being brought about with the declaration of open government. Now truly I see several PhDs within the Gov 2.0 space in Australian government context.

Are there ethical concerns with the introduction of social tools  like web 2.0 within government?

With the introduction of the new policy on online media participation by APSC in November 2009, it opens new platforms of online collaborations within an open and unregulated environment. This may pose some challenges for current APS culture of control and top-down hierarchy.

web 2.0 tools in government may be categorised into a framework: interaction focused, communication focussed and service focussed (Chang & Kanan, 2008 ). Web 2.0 provides the following opportunities or new forms of interactions for governments:

  • Publishing – blogging, twitter e.g. TweetMP
  • Rich user experience -YouTube, mySpace e.g. Kevin Rudd’s use of these channels for election
  • mash-ups – geotagging, geomapping e.g. YourHealth
  • Networking – Facebook, Myspace e.g. ATO e-tax page
  • Crowdsourcing – Wikipedia e.g. policy consultation, NLA newspaper digitization

Based on the APS job continuum, there is potential overlap while acting different personas within an APS role defined as: official, public and private (Gov2.0 Tasforce). This overlap may give rise to potential ethical concerns for the APS. One can take some of these new forms of interaction and apply the new online media participation to see if this sufficient.  For example, you may have your own blog and you may use this as a way to connect and share your knowledge in your profession. Should this blog contain criticisms of APS practices within agencies, will that be counted as engaging as a professional or private communication. Another could be you may post a comment on someone else’s blog which criticises a current policy – is this their personal comment, professional comment or official comment? How would public know which “you” is this comment being made?

This is an area that needs further exploration – as more pilots, web2.0 projects pop-up within agencies, there will be more ethical issues identified. It would be good government to create a database with these concerns and record the response and outcomes.

Spirit of Web 2.0

In a conversation with my supervisor today, there were some interesting reflections on the spirit or value of web 2.0 ans what that means for my PhD and the new unit on social informatics.

Path 1: What’s the spirit of web 2.0? Web 2.0 at a lowest level is technology (some new, some old, some revamped). web 2.0 at secondary level is a set of applications that enable new uses and provides a platform for mass collaboration. web 2.0 at third level is economic values and convenience it brings to the business world e.g. adsense, google ads, marketing & promotional activities, commercial blogs, customisation and personalization. Web 2.0 at the user level is social values e.g. users as producers, collaborate, crowdsourcing, collective intelligence and ……Web 2.0 is a disruptive technology and after the disruption stage what form it might take? one PhD could be looking at defining the spirit of web 2.0 – not in terms of technology, but in terms of the social values, the spirit of collaboration, the ability to now use highly technical tools with a press of a button and connect to the rest of the world. Web 2.0 is empowering people – it is about people. Web 2.0 is nothing but the values it brings with it – the new collaboration platform, the connectedness, the networked world, the small changes in the way things (anything!) are done, the new ways of doing old stuff. This could take the form of going around and talking to people informally/casually about this, asking them to reflect on instances of new use in line with the spirit of this new innovations, and then trying to formulate/speculate the future form of web 2.0. Also look at relationships with other related concepts and their complex interrelationships. the method could be grounded theory – asking questions to people and then finding the best fit theory to it.

Path 2: Continue to work on government – look at adoption and adaptation but based on the theories. driven by the theory, find what do I need to ask and to whom (stakeholders). To be credible I need access to organisation, access to stakeholders, need specific questions to operationalise the theories. Need a project plan for each case study. this is quite hard if it to be formal and credible. Solution – look at theories, what need to be asked for the data collection and plan each case study. Difficulty may arise for keeping both internal and external use. Think of the relationship of programme, portfolio and projects for web 2.0. workforce report should be my reference point.

Social informatics – the unit may take many forms:

The unit may look at the existing examples of web 2.0 (as defined above) – concentrating on what technology is bringing in change and the impact of it on its stakeholders. Students may start with a known domain like library starting off with UC, then look at powerhouse museum in Sydney, NLA, then look at virtual libraries , talk about impact on libraries in general. These could form the basis of first two/three tutorials.

Students each week can twitter about an application or new innovations of web 2.0 use in any domain e.g. government, entertainment, business, research, collaboration etc. students will require to use a common hastag so that we can create and bring the tag results in the unit webpage. This will help the class to create a list of social applications that are changing the way we operate.

Students then can write about a specific application of web 2.0 in these domains and blog/wiki about them using a template. This can also be used to create a wiki in a tabular format and can become a rich resource for applications of interest.

Then students may be asked to envision future uses of these tools, either existing or visionary, some instances of such new forms of interactions in the spirit of web 2.0 and then write a report on the new ways of doing the task and impacts on stakeholders. This can be synthesized in a wiki and in future in a paper “new ways of doing old things” using web 2.0 tools and technologies. A good resource to get them to generate new ideas would be the Us Now video – excellent examples of what’s happening in each industry/domain of interest. Student or groups then pick a domain and write about visionary uses of web 2.0.

During the last two weeks, I heard two very different speakers talking about this very topic – Gov 2.0. Both of them of course had different views on it.

Dr Nicholas Gruen, Chair of the taskforce on Gov 2.0, was talking at a seminar in Parliament of Australia, possibly as part of his role to disseminate the findings of the taskforce and publicize the whole agenda of Gov 2.0. Being an web 2.0 evangelist, Nicholas of course, was keen to show the positive impacts of these so called web 2.0 technologies and what it means for government. Nicholas did point out the fads and pitfalls with these technologies but with the spirit of ”need for change in culture” in APS. Nicholas cited many examples from around the world to show the strength of these new applications and how they might change the way people collaborate, share and engage with each other.

Tim Turner, ADFA, presented quite a skeptic view of this topic in his seminar on 2nd March 2010 at an ACS branch seminar series. His talk titled : “Web 2.0 and Government-Citizen Interaction:Will the implementation reality be nirvana or nightmare?” explains his stance on this issue . He with humor tried to identify some grave concerns about these new ways of communication and connecting with citizenry. He showed the mismatch between the expectation set of citizens and the business of government and tried to highlight the problems that a government cannot afford to face. He posed questions like: How do you know these collaborations are by the mass and not by some mentalist Jo Blogg who has either nothing to do or just would like to destroy a good cause. How do you know which version to trust? How do you know these are authenticate, accurate? etc etc I have just discovered (26th march 2010) that  Tom Worthington’s blog ged about his talk as well.

What’s my take on this – of course there are concerns of using such disruptive technologies which are emerging and changing as we speak. But having said this, one can find plenty of examples, if not hundreds, of government initiatives with these new applications. Governments around the world are trying to reach out to citizens, trying to engage them and consult with them for a more collaborative, participatory and open government. Some of these initiatives have done well, some resulted in disaster. But if you haven’t tasted something how can you say you do like the taste or it’s not for you? The hype is true – the uptake by poeple is ‘humongous’. Government must get their hands dirty and find out whether web 2.0 is the new way of connecting and collaborating with citizens.

I believe the web 2.0 has potential to enhance the business of government in certain areas both internally and externally. But what form it will take is still unknown. It could be Gov 3.0, networked government or altogether totally something different.


November 26, 2007
The Seven Tenets Of The Information Workplace
Enterprise Web 2.0 Pushes the Information Workplace Forward
This is the 15th document in the “Information Workplace” series
by Erica Driver, Connie Moore
with Matthew Brown, Rob Karel, G. Oliver Young, Jeffrey S. Hammond, Jamie Barnett

This is a document excerptEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
When Forrester first described the Information Workplace in 2005, we positioned it as the next-generation platform that delivered collaboration, content, portals and office productivity — plus a plethora of new capabilities bursting on the scene, such as unified communications and expertise location. But the Information Workplace (IW) has never been about the piece parts. Instead, what makes the Information Workplace transformational is how the piece parts are built into a seamless whole that supports people in the way they want to work. Specifically, we described the IW as role-based, contextual, seamless, visual, and multimodal. Now — fast-forward to late 2007 —enterprise Web 2.0 is rapidly advancing, bringing even greater “Design for People” concepts into the IW. For example, through the power of social networking and mashups, which allow people to have it their way, the IW can go beyond role-based to even become individualized. With enterprise Web 2.0, the IW also gains two new facets: “social” and “quick.” With all these characteristics, the IW will better support a “Design for People” world and allow people to work in a much more natural way.



itemEnterprise Web 2.0’s Biggest IW Contributions: Individualized, Social, And Quick

itemContext: Enhanced With RSS And 3-D Internet (Virtual Worlds)

itemSeamlessness: RIAs, Mashups, And Tagging Tear Down Walls Of Encumbrance

itemIndividualized: Role-Based Is Not Enough

itemVisual: Moving Away From Text And Numbers Into A World Of Images

itemSocial: IWs Will Connect People In Meaningful Ways

itemQuick: New Software Business Models And SOA Speed Up IW Delivery

itemIW Scenarios In A Web 2.0 World


itemI&KM Pros: Embrace Web 2.0 As Part Of Your IW Strategy

This report is based on conversations Forrester has had with many clients during the past year.

Related Research Documents

itemRIAs Bring People-Centered Design To Information Workplaces

November 26, 2007

itemThe Dynamic Business Applications Imperative

September 24, 2007

itemWeb 2.0 Social Computing Dresses Up For Business

September 14, 2007

itemInformation Workplace Trends 2007

July 27, 2007

itemThe Information Workplace Will Redefine The World Of Work At Last

June 1, 2005

Find Documents In Related Categories

This document falls under the following categories. Click on a link below to find similar documents.

Analyst: Driver, Erica, Moore, Connie
Technology: Applications, Content & Collaboration, Information & Knowledge Management, People, Processes, & Policy, Information Workplace, Social Computing & Web 2.0
Document Type: Trends
Geography: Asia Pacific, Europe, North America