But the government still faces serious challenges in persuading the public that its online services are trying to solve serious problems. For example, I had the rather engaging experience last weekend of watching four people with a total of 14 years of university education struggling to fill in a passport application form. As my brother-in-law took a digital photograph of my niece, edited it rather beautifully, ran it off on to his printer and attached it to the form, I thought: "Hang on. Isn't this what the internet was supposed to stop?" Why was my brother-in-law being forced to take a digital image, which he could have emailed in one nanosecond, and drive it hundreds of miles to Glasgow? Is this the e-transformation of government?
As it happens, the Passport Agency has a pilot project going on at the moment that allows you to fill in your application online. But probably for perfectly sensible security reasons (although I'd like to know what they are), you cannot use this service if you need a passport within four weeks of leaving the country. The good thing is that it seems relatively easy to use (unlike the fiendish paper version, which is cluttered with heffalump traps), and does that helpful online thing of telling you that you have not filled it in correctly.
This got me thinking about the type of e-transformation of government that we need. Or rather, about one particular aspect of the challenge facing e-governors - namely, that its citizens are living in an age of pervasive media content. During a PDME, live feeds are available all day on TV, on audio streaming, on the website, and now, thanks to multimedia messaging, on your phone. If the Sun has its way, you will be able to watch Big Brother nookie on your Nokia.
And just as media content is becoming pervasive, so must government services. Some are showing the way. The other successful pervasive Big Brother event of the year has been Canny Ken's congestion charge. Whatever you think of the policy, thetechnology has been pretty impressive. The "C" sign means you are being checked, charged and challenged. But you can pay using every means of communication at your disposal. Its pervasive presence on all communication devices is part of its success.
The government must get away from the idea that one means of communication is somehow better than others. Once you've solved the security problems, there is no logical reason why one way of transferring data should be any more intrinsically valid. Take voting, for example. Scottish MSPs can vote from their seats using a swipe card. But that vote is simply a piece of authorised data. So why not let them use their mobiles from their offices and constituencies? MSPs' bums don't have to be in their seats for their brains to be in gear (I hope).
Similarly, I was one of the lucky ones allowed to cast my vote electronically in this year's local elections. It was simple and effective. But didn't pass any other of my tests for pervasive services. The site didn't tell me what the various candidates stood for, or link me to local election manifestos. And, crucially, it didn't email or text me the results, or tell me I had been a good boy for doing my job as a citizen and offering me a meeting with my councillor on a topic of choice.
It's not just the e-vote that counts - it's the context and follow- up. PDME producers know this simple fact is one of the keys to the success of their shows. The government must increasingly think like a media company, as much as an IT procurement specialist, when it engineers its electronic transformation. Otherwise e-government sites will look like steamer timetables in the jet age.
Quelle: The Guardian
