The impact of social media on how Whitehall works
Sourced from "A dragon's best friend" blog, UKGovCamp 2012 post (http://adragonsbestfriend.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/ukgovcamp-2012/)
2. What these slides cover
- Social Networks – what they are and an example of how they can
work
- Who holds the knowledge?
- How social media dissects traditional “media management”
approaches
- Communications case studies
- Policy case study
- User analysis
- How can Whitehall respond?
- The need for more evidence
2
4. How I (as a new user) formed my networks
After setting up an account on a given platform – e.g. Facebook or Twitter, I then
used the search tools to find people with similar interests to me. For example:
- Career
- Sport
- Science
- Academia
- Music
- Campaigns
For each interest, I was able to build up a small “virtual” network that looks
something like the diagram below
Everyone within this
network of interest is
connected to each other
4
5. How I (as a new user) formed my networks
This gave a picture that looked something like this:
Represented by the large yellow circle, I have links into a number of different virtual
networks as represented by the small yellow circles:
5
6. How I (as a new user) formed my networks
As people have multiple interests, some of those interests are shared:
Accordingly, they may already have links to the same communities of interests that I
have – represented by the green lines 6
7. How I (as a new user) formed my networks
Through the use of social networks, other people start linking up too - denoted by the blue lines,
There now is a very complex virtual web of people linked by mutual interests. The
stronger each of those individual links is, the stronger the web is.
7
8. How these networks can be used by people
Having a virtual web such as this can serve three key purposes:
2) For “support”
3) For the search for greater knowledge
4) To challenge those in authority.
8
10. Who holds the knowledge? - 1
In the old way of working – especially in the pre-internet age, people who had access to wide
amounts of knowledge and information were few and far between outside of central
government. (The issue is accessibility, not educational ability).
Government departments and large organisations were the only ones who could afford to
maintain large systems to enable easy access to that knowledge and information.
Department of State
Policy team
Trade Union Media organisation
Research institute Minister University
Professional body Media outlet Large campaign group
Pre-internet society
This gave us a world that looked something like the diagram above. 10
11. Who holds the knowledge? - 2
This system illustrates that unless individuals were part of large organisations, feeding into the
policy-making processes was very difficult for the individual person. The rise of the internet
and advanced communications tools meant that more existing knowledge could be published
more easily (static), and the access to that knowledge led to further advances over a much
shorter time period (dynamic) than without these tools
Department of State
Policy team
Trade Union Media organisation
Research institute Minister University
Professional body Media outlet Large campaign group
Society takes up new communications tools
The internet substantially increased access to that knowledge that was previously
only available to large organisations – especially as they made it more available. 11
12. Who holds the knowledge? - 3
The developments of social media has meant that each individual with access to
the internet also had the opportunity to use social media for much more efficient
discussions and deliberations than was possible through email and old newsgroups
Society takes up new communications tools
This meant that each online individual had the potential to move from being a
“passive” internet user to an “active” internet user – i.e. one who engages in
discussion and debate through social media, rather than just a passive “reader”.
Therefore,
online user into…
evolves from…
…an active networked user
…and through those networks, knowledge moves from being the preserve of
Government and large organisations… 12
13. Who holds the knowledge? - 4
Knowledge and information is now no longer the monopoly of Government and
large organisations. Knowledge and information is “out there” – with people using
commenting, adding, developing and innovating with it.
Instead of “knowledge” being here… Department of State
…it is now out there
This creates significant challenges for Central Government (as well as large organisations)
The next set of slides look at the impact of what happens if Government decides to behave in
a manner reminiscent of the pre-internet & pre-social media era
13
15. Communications case study: the conference
The current model is that a minister will receive briefing from a policy team before
attending a conference. The minister will clear a speech prepared by a
speechwriter with policy input. The minister may take questions and answers
before moving onto another engagement elsewhere. Prior to the rapid growth of
social media, the “model” of engagement was as set out below.
Department of State
Policy team
Minister
Conference delegates
The minister has the close support of the policy team and press office, with the
wider department supporting if needs be. The audience is normally a fairly
specialist/self-selecting one – especially where conferences are not advertised
widely and/or are charging. Therefore the number of people who will attend – and
their professional interests, will be limited.
15
16. Communications case study: the conference
The challenge is that more and more delegates are turning up to conferences with
web-enabled handheld devices, electronic notebooks and laptops.
Department of State
Policy team
Minister
Conference delegates
…and these delegates have already started using social media to provide live
updates from conferences. Competition in conferencing has led to the growth of
“guest wifi” access. Conferences organisers have also started setting up temporary
websites to facilitate discussion, and organise Twitter hashtags for people outside
of the conference to follow – and contribute.
16
17. Communications case study: the conference
This means that the audience a minister is speaking “live” to is potentially far greater than the
people in the room. This is especially the case where conferences are streamed live over the
web.
Suddenly the policy team and department numerically are proportionately much smaller
compared to the audience.
Department of State
Policy team
Minister
Conference delegates with web access
who are part of informed networks
Virtual networks
following from
outside the event
This means that ANY claim/assertion made by a minister will be fact-checked, dissected and
disembowelled in realtime. 17
18. Communications case study: the conference
Mainstream media also feed into these networks. Where something is “newsworthy” it may be
streamed onto websites and news channels with very limited input from press officers
Department of State
Policy team
Minister
Conference delegates with web access
who are part of informed networks
Virtual networks
following from
outside the event
Mainstream media
Due to the 24/7 demand from mainstream news channels, unless departmental
communications’ units are feeding into the debate, they can find themselves bypassed 18
19. Communications case study : The widely-trailed
speech
The Prime Minister in Early Feb 2011 was scheduled to make a speech in Munich,
Germany at an international security conference. The theme of his speech was
around the issues of multi-culturalism within the context of globalised security
issues. The speech was released under an embargo to the mainstream media for
release at midnight on the day of the conference.
Embargoed press release
Mainstream media
“Social Media Virtual World”
In the 12-15 hours between the lifting of the embargo and the delivery of the speech, the
“social media virtual world” had the opportunity to dissect and comment on the speech19
20. Communications case study : The widely-trailed
speech
Parts of the “Social media world saw things differently to what was in the press releases.
Topics that trended in one part of the social media focused on:
- The Government’s definition/understanding of “multiculturalism” as a term
- The choice of venue to make a speech that they saw was on “race” – the city where the
National Socialist Party in Germany made its first attempt to seize power in the early 1920s
- The choice of date given the above, which coincided with a controversial march by the
English Defence League.
10 Downing St
Questions to Government from…
Mainstream media
Feedback/trending topics
“Social Media Virtual World”
Rather than “setting the agenda”, Downing Street found itself having to respond to
issues that were otherwise outside of the scope of the conference itself. 20
21. Communications case study - The TV/Radio
Appearance
Ministers regularly appear in the media. Important speeches in the House are also
featured on major news bulletins. The difference between this type of event and a
conference is the size of the potential audience is significantly greater. This is due
to the wide existing following through television and radio and the publicity that they
sometimes give to such appearances in advance of broadcast.
Dept of state
Policy team
Minister
Media Broadcaster/TV/Radio Show
In the traditional model you have lots of people watching “passively”. While they more
than likely will have an opinion, it is unlikely that they have cascaded it instantaneously 21
to wide numbers of people. They may discuss it “offline” with others at a later point
22. Communications case study - The TV/Radio
Appearance
The growing use of, and the promotion of social media by people and broadcasters
alike means that more viewers are able to use social media to discuss what’s going
on while watching television at the same time. A typical example might be watching
television while using a handheld web-enabled device. Another might be having a
split-screen on a PC or a live radio feed while online.
Dept of state
Policy team
Minister
Media Broadcaster/TV/Radio Show
This means that, depending on the type of show concerned, a greater or lesser
proportion of the audience will have access to social media, some of whom will be 22
using the tools available to discuss what’s being broadcast.
23. Communications case study - The TV/Radio
Appearance
This then gives us a scenario where social media users are able to discuss the content through
their networks. As journalists now have social media accounts as a matter of course, trending
content can move rapidly from the social to corporate media
Dept of state
Corp Media Policy team Corp Media
Minister
Media Broadcaster/TV/Radio Show
Social Media
users
This is what can create a media firestorm if the issue concerned is particularly
controversial and if the reaction of lots of numbers of people to a specific issue catches
both central government and the corporate media off guard. The recent scrapping of the
proposed sale of woodlands is one example of this. 23
24. What does all this mean for Ministers?
• The decentralised nature of these networks means that the “command and control” system
of “managing the media” is now obsolete
• As Paul Mason of the BBC reported: “Propaganda is flammable”
• Informed people are increasingly likely to see through bland press releases and will
comment accordingly
• There will be increasing pressure to provide facts and sound evidence to justify policies
• There will be further pressure on ministers to be well-briefed across a wider range of issues
– in particular consistency with other departments’ policies
• Ministers and departments will find it hard to operate in a manner that ignores social media
• Governments & media corporations no longer hold the monopoly on knowledge or media
management. Knowledge is not the exclusive preserve of policy teams. It’s “out there” in the
wider networked world.
The challenge is how to move from an “adversarial” model of engagement with people
through the media to one where policy teams are embedded in such networks. 24
26. Policy case study – Welfare Reform Bill
The Welfare Reform Bill suffered a series of defeats in the House of Lords in early
January 2012 when peers voted in favour of amendments against the wishes of
ministers.
Social media was key to mobilising support for those opposing the Bill – a
campaign that led to the specific amendments that ministers opposed. In particular,
social media has enabled disabled people – more often than not marginalised, to
make their voices heard. Social media allowed campaigners to communicate easily
with each other and to share expertise.
It was social media that enabled Sue Marsh and colleagues to write the
“Responsible Reform” report (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/responsiblereformDLA )
that contested a number of assertions made by ministers. They were also able to
use social media (in particular Twitter under the hashtag #SpartacusReport) to
publicise the report and its key messages).
26
27. Policy case study – Welfare Reform Bill
Campaigners and activists were able to use social media to lobby Parliament – in
particular members of the House of Lords who would be voting on the
amendments.
Social media was a key enabler here.
•It allowed thousands of people who might otherwise feel or be disenfranchised by
the political system to become knowledgeable about an issue that will impact them
or those close to them.
•It allowed people to ask members of the House of Lords to take a specific series of
actions.
•It allowed people to substantiate what they were asking peers to do with both hard
evidence as well as personal testimonies of how the Bill that the latter were going
to be voting on was going to impact directly on them.
•It forced ministers to engage with campaigners on terms that they did not seem
entirely comfortable with. They had to respond to a number of very specific and
informed claims being made by campaigners – in very public forums such as
Newsnight. Further reading on how the defeat was inflicted can be found at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/17/disability-spartacus-welfare-cuts-campaign-v
239 by Patrick Butler 27
29. User analysis - Segmentation
Whitehall needs to acknowledge that the use of social media is in addition to other
methods of community engagement and outreach, not a replacement for them. This is in
part about “audience segmentation”
Disconnected but engaged Connected and engaged
Disconnected and disengaged Connected but disengaged
The risk of polarisation of society along lines of political engagement and use of social
media, if manifested could have impacts on public service delivery due to the importance
of feedback. If only the connected and engaged make policy, it runs the risk of not
accounting for the needs and wishes of those who are ‘offline and disengaged’
29
30. Connectivity vs awareness of politics
Continual Very busy People who Social media Paid
connection professionals to follow new users in activists
on the move high web users media sites politics field
following particular Regular
(iPhone/ but choose not
people/ celebrities People who bloggers who
laptop) to interact
respond engage with
Continual frequently in their audience
access at Affluent but interactive sites
home & work disinterested
People who People who Student
Daily but not read about respond activists
continual issues in infrequently on
Infrequent
access e.g. “Entertainment mainstream established
bloggers/
work/college media watchers” websites media sites
article writers
Infrequent People who People who write
access read about (not email) into Local activists
“Victor issues “old” newspapers who are not
Switched off Meldrew” media regularly online
Disengaged Unaware Aware Engaged Active Advocates
30
31. User analysis - Segmentation
Networked and engaged
These people are the “pioneers” of social media – whether making use of existing
social media to engage in the political processes or whether exploring how social
media can be improved to make it more user-friendly and available to more people.
Departments and organisations should be able to harness the input of people within
this cohort without needing to invest significant resources. This is due to the cheap
and accessible nature of social media and this cohort’s familiarity with both the
technology and the issues that they want to discuss.
People within this cohort are also potentially “advocates” who can encourage others
to use social media to engage with the political processes. This is because people
are much more likely to trust a personal recommendation from someone who they
are familiar with – for example through a mutual “virtual community of interest” than
through a traditional advert.
31
32. User analysis - Segmentation
Networked but disengaged
This cohort of people are familiar with the technology but may not be interested in,
or aware how they can use it to influence policy on issues that they care about.
These people may already use social media for such things as:
- Interaction with television/radio shows
- Using social media to review/research a holiday
- Using social media to source a recommended service or product
The message to these people could be:
“You already use this technology for X, Y or Z; have you thought about
using it for A, B or C?”
All groups will have their sub-segments. Young people at college might fall into this
category just as much as a small business owner. The approaches that are used
won’t necessarily be the same.
32
33. User analysis - Segmentation
Disconnected but engaged
Social media isn’t the only medium that people use to engage with the policy
making process. There are a cohort of people who, for whatever reason may not
have considered using social media as a means of engagement.
These people may engage in the policy making process through:
- Phoning into television/radio shows
- Being a member of a pressure group
- Writing into newspapers or other publications
- Writing to departments or politicians directly
The message to these people could be:
“You are already aware of the issues; have you thought about joining the
conversation at X, Y or Z?”
33
34. User analysis - Segmentation
Disconnected and disengaged
Possibly the most challenging group/cohort to approach, and one that goes beyond
a simple “social media” approach alone.
There will inevitably be sub-segments of this and other groups. For example some
may be affluent and have no incentive or desire either to get connected and/or
engaged. Others may take a cynical view of politics and policy making while viewing
social media as being “for other people” or “too complicated”.
All groups will have their sub-segments. Again, the approaches that are used won’t
necessarily be the same.
34
36. How can Whitehall respond? - Policy
The historical nature of policy making is that policies are inevitably agreed on the basis of imperfect
knowledge. The more imperfect the evidence base, the more problems there may be in delivery and
the more chance that something may go wrong.
Social networks through social media allow people to make more informed challenges to policies. In
such an environment, is an adversarial model of media management and policy making sustainable? I
would argue that it is not.
Department of State
Minister
Policy team
“The networked
world”
Therefore, policy teams may find themselves having to take the plunge and engaging
with informed social networks through social media. The risks that are associated with
this is that constructive criticism by officials of existing practices are picked up in the
mainstream media and are spun accordingly. But what is the alternative?
36
37. How can Whitehall respond? - Structure
One of the features of all Whitehall departments is the “silo” structure. Matrix
management and project/programme boards have been introduced across a
number of different departments to try and bring in a wider level of input across
policy teams. While this allows input from a wider base and is suitable for
accounting for “big” decisions, it’s less suitable for smaller steers.
Permanent Secretary
Directors General Directors General Directors General
Directors Directors Directors
Deputy Directors Deputy Directors Deputy Directors
Team Leaders/G7s Team Leaders/G7s Team Leaders/G7s
Policy advisers Policy advisers Policy advisers
Admin/support staff Admin/support staff Admin/support staff
37
38. How can Whitehall respond? – Project boards
Blockages in the system
Quite often it is the lack of smaller steers that cause blockages in the system – for
example needing short comments on a given document, consent before something
goes up to a minister or a request for information on a given issue.
Boards themselves cannot be too big lest they become unwieldy. Yet at the same
time this can limit the input other interested parties can have in the development
and delivery of policy.
These delays can cause considerable angst for project managers – in particular
those managing project timelines. My own experience with managing projects is
that the delays tend to be around trying to get clearance on relatively minor points
from a variety of different sources rather than in more important issues such as
agreement on core principles of a project or carrying out in-depth analysis on an
evidence base that underpins or has a significant impact on the project.
If, as with departmental correspondence, the delays are in the “messaging” rather
than in the content, to what extent can social media smooth out these delays?
38
39. How can Whitehall respond? – Project boards
Problems with the board structure
Having project and programme boards is an essential part of ensuring that civil
servants are accountable to ministers – especially where projects and programmes
cut across policy and departmental lines.
Therefore, the next few slides will look at how Social Media can be used to
complement rather than replace board structures.
There are two specific issues that I have looked at:
- Project and programme boards are too inflexible to deal with smaller issues,
which can often cause delays in the development and delivery of policy
- Project and programme boards need to be limited in size lest they become
unwieldy; however this can mean those with only a small but perhaps essential
part to play can sometimes be excluded.
39
40. How can Whitehall respond? – Project boards
Limitations of “project boards”
While the principle of project and programme boards is essential for the
accountability of decisions, the inflexible nature of them – in particular the “grade-
driven” nature of them can sometimes mean that the best people for the job, or
those most likely to have solutions to given problems, are not always included.
As boards need to be limited in size (and scope) in order to be effective, further
barriers to input are raised. The challenge then as now, is how to ensure the
highest quality input for the minimum of resources – especially as Whitehall
downsizes over the next few years.
There is also the residual “culture” of “command and control” within the civil service
in general. The impact of social media in the outside world, and the pressures it is
already generating, means that command and control structures and systems are
no longer suitable to meet those pressures. This inevitably means that project and
programme boards will have to become more flexible.
40
41. Applying social media to project boards
A typical project board
A deputy-director-led project board typically looks like the diagram below – where
team leaders from other divisions or directorates will be invited to take part, but the
core work is done within the division. This model/set up means that there is limited
scope and input into problem solving. A non-networked board looks can be illustrated
as below:
Deputy Directors Deputy Directors Deputy Directors Deputy Directors
Team Leaders/G7s Team Leaders/G7s Team Leaders/G7s Team Leaders/G7s
Policy advisers Policy advisers Policy advisers
Policy advisers
Admin/support staff Admin/support staff Admin/support staff
Admin/support staff
41
42. Applying social media to project boards
A “networked” (or connected) project board
A “networked” or connected project board, taking advantage of the features offered by social
media is more likely to take advantage of those extra links. For example staff in admin and support
roles (Icon A) may have links to people far outside and beyond the knowledge of project
managers. Such people may have an interest or be able to provide a one-off input which could be
valuable.
A 42
43. Applying social media to project boards
Sharing documents
In the private sector there are already a number of firms that allow multiple remote users to
access confidential documents over secure connections. The former Government Office
Network experimented with the use of saving core documents. However, little came of it.
The rise of social media and networking means that there is an opportunity for documents to
be held on secure servers through which only colleagues with access to the .gsi.gov.uk
network can have access to. Rather than cascading and re-cascading documents (and thus
clogging up systems), a Whitehall-wide Twitter system would help others access those
documents. Administrators – as in the GO-Network system would be able to restrict the rights
of access depending on the nature of the documents deposited.
43
44. Using social media for consultation
The “discrete” method of consultation is one where responses are invited against a
“fixed” document – e.g. a green paper or a white paper. The limitations of this method
of communication is that entrenches 2-way conversation – where it is the Government
trying to have a conversation with “everyone else”.
A criticism of this sort of set up is that it is “adversarial” and that it does not allow either
side to respond flexibly to constructive responses that are put forward. It also limits
discussions between disagreeing parties to only those Whitehall decides are “key
stakeholders.
Policy team
Department of State
Consultation
publication
Consultation
responses
“Key Stakeholders”
“Everyone Else 44
45. Using social media for consultation
The flexibility of social media means that citizens may want to engage in a
conversation about policy making, rather than having a situation where they are only
able to make one submission. It also means that citizens may want to have
conversations with other people and organisations about the content of such
consultations
Department of State
There is an opportunity for the Government to “open up” the lobbying and submissions
from “key stakeholders” to scrutiny from the general public too. This could increase the
transparency of decision-making and help hold “powerful interests” to account – particularly
45
if the state “mandates” such organisations to respond to questions from the public
46. Using Social Media to “crowd source”
There is also the opportunity for Whitehall departments to “crowd source” solutions
from the outside world by allowing policy teams to place themselves in the middle of
“the debate” around a given issue.
Department of State
Policy team
“The networked
world”
This approach is not without its risks – especially as this sort of action is “informal” by
its nature. For this sort of activity to work and to mitigate the risks. I think that the Civil
Service Code needs to be updated to ensure that expectations are managed in areas
where the line between professional and personal becomes increasingly blurred.
46
47. A problem with relying on social media
While the scenario below may indicate a more inclusive method of policy making and
problem solving, the use of social media brings its own problems. A key problem is a
symptom of the “digital divide” – i.e. not everyone will have access to, or the skills or
desire to use social media tools.
Department of State
Minister
Policy team “Digitally excluded”
people who are
outside of the policy
“The networked conversation within
world” the networked world
Social media users as a cohort may have particular features that do not necessarily
reflect non-social media users and/or wider society as a whole. Therefore, to rely on
social media as a panacea/magic bullet to solve problems may not need to equitable/fair
policy outcomes if steps are not taken to include digitally-excluded groups in such
47
processes.
48. The Civil Service Code and social media
One of the strengths of social media is the ability of users to personalise the tools. As
far as policy and politics-related social media is concerned, I have observed that the
more highly-regarded users (i.e. not just a “numbers” game) are the ones who:
• Are able to publicise/cascade interesting nuggets of information, articles or
analyses that are otherwise missed by the mainstream media
• Interact with followers regularly
• Interact with followers politely
• Makes constructive comments or suggestions
• Has a unique insight into specific issues – e.g. through professional expertise
such as law, accountancy, civil service, campaigning, academia
• Occasionally comments on wider interests beyond the main subject area of
content – e.g. an accountant who supports a random football team
• Enable their unique personalities (or personas) through the tools
• Were able to form strong virtual networks of interest
• Did not treat social media as just another outlet for press releases or
sloganeering. (“Social” implies a conversation, not a lecture!)
• Were able to use different social media platforms in a manner that complemented
(and as a result amplified) the issues being discussed.
48
49. The Civil Service Code and social media
Does the Civil Service Code provide enough guidance and safeguards for civil servants
using social media? This is what it says:
• Be credible
Be accurate, fair, thorough and transparent.
• Be consistent
Encourage constructive criticism and deliberation. Be cordial, honest and
professional at all times.
• Be responsive
When you gain insight, share it where appropriate.
• Be integrated
Wherever possible, align online participation with other offline communications.
• Be a civil servant
Remember that you are an ambassador for your organisation. Wherever
possible, disclose your position as a representative of your department or
agency.
What there is no guidance on is the use of social media in a capacity
that blurs the line between the professional and personal.
49
51. The need for more evidence
What information do we need/want to know?
- Formation of “virtual networks of interest” and how they function
- Take up/use of twitter hash tags and live blogging (both active and passive) to
cover/follow ministerial speeches over a given period of time
- Take up/use of social media tools by “decision makers” over a given period of
time (thinking both setting up of accounts and intensity/frequency of use)
- Take up/use of social media tools by the public sector in an exclusively
professional context
- Take up/use of social media tools by public sector employees in a “semi-
professional/semi-personal” context (esp given lack of firm guidance)
- Analysis of what “time of day/night” social media users are likely to use such
tools to discuss politics and policy making
- Interviews with “decision makers” on to what extent social media has been able
to: 1) make them account for their decisions, and 2) influence/change what they
originally were going to do
- A detailed SWOT analysis (poss crowd sourced?)
- A detailed audience segmentation exercise/analysis (poss crowd sourced?)
51
52. The need for more evidence
What information do we need/want to know?
- Running of piloted “open source” policy-making within a small policy area –
putting a policy team at the centre of “networked society” to develop policy in a
discrete/small area
- Covering the engagement/scrutiny of key stakeholders by members of the
public; thinking in particular “vested interests” who will be expected to
justify their positions on given issues to members of the public taking part
- That policy team being networked to engage with people who are
following any speeches and/or media appearances given by ministers or
officials, and engagement in any conferences being hosted covering that
policy area that the policy team is not attending
- A scoping project looking at how a civil service version of Twitter could work,
what the potential benefits are and what issues it would face (e.g. FoI & DPA
issues)
- Crowd sourcing to find out what information other people think we need to know
– and what information other people would want. (In particular what questions it
would want asked).
52