The Internet poses interesting challenges to independent music. On the one hand it enables non mainstream musicians to gain ‘long tail’ exposure, through global communications assisting the search for new audiences and develop larger communities on a minimum budget. On the other hand, the plethora of opportunities to circumvent copyright and the ongoing concentration of the music market because of oligopolies such as Universal and Sony-BMG highlight how vulnerable independent music labels are in the digital music age. To ensure that the development of the Internet revolution works to the benefit of independent labels and its artists, a diverse net of organisations need to look towards developing or at least guiding Internet platforms to ensure that artistic creativity flourishes.
One Stop Shops: An Introduction
One stop shops are portals to other websites that help to draw pieces of information, data or Internet locations into one easily accessible forum, usually to unite numerous fragments into common themes, approaches or purposes.
Organisational benefits include being able to focus the strategic direction of policymakers, through encouraging the examination of purpose and competitive advantage (whether cooperative or competitive) improving knowledge share, as a result of increased levels of information and reducing the overlap of specialties.
Despite organisations being run independently of each other information can be presented to website viewers in numerous format styles. This can be especially useful in complex situations where information is unnecessarily scattered across the Internet. As information is funnelled into an orderly fashion into one location one stop shops are not only highly useful at being able to assist in informing or directing users quickly and accurately to the information that they require but are also effective at introducing users to new information from previously unknown sources.
Examples of one stop shops include:
www.omvguide.com Portal to online films, documentaries and tv programmes (legal and illegal)
www.politicshome.com Portal to politics articles and blogs as they are published
www.yourlondon.gov.uk Portal for local government issues
www.directgov.org Portal to government and public sector websites
Operation Ringfence
To ensure that independent record labels win the fight against both the major record labels and illegal piracy it is important to guarantee that there are some initiatives in place on the Internet that encourage the proliferation of legal and independent music. Currently, individual record companies are competing using existing ‘silo mentalities’ making it more difficult to compete in the long run against the greater marketing budgets and economies of scale of companies such as Universal and Sony-BMG. Individually, record companies will not be able to explain to individual Internet users the importance of ensuring that artists receive direct financial reward for their work. Uncoordinated, individual record companies will not be able to create sufficient incentives by themselves to make music fans looking for information and content on artists find and make use of material that is both independent and legal. One stop shops should seriously be considered as one of the many necessary strategic solutions to shield independent music producers and their artists from the damaging effects of the music majors and illegal piracy.
A website which provides up to date information on independent record labels alone would be a huge resource that should create a considerable level of Internet traffic. With the right balance of governance and computing code it should be possible to create a site which highlights the majority of artist information, including discography, reviews, tour dates, sites where you can purchase songs and merchandise, as well as numerous other information through providing speedy and accurate links.
The purpose of such a one stop shop site is not to be the creator of music information or content but to be the first focus to direct visitors to other music websites. Through creating new alliances between the independent record industry and the online media press it should be possible to create immediate and feeds of news, reviews and releases as they happen. Such agreements should provide enough incentives for media sites to participate, as providing such information should generate significant degrees of Internet traffic to their own websites. Complementary media, such as legal online radio and podcasts can also be given opportunity for inclusion in any framework and should be used as a method to include material to increase exposure for the site, develop improve cultural interdependency and improve the positioning of independent music.
A key area of examination for any one stop shop should be the level of exclusivity. The envisaged one stop shop site would not necessarily succeed just as a result of having up to 4000 labels being included on it, as without a sense of belonging and attachment site visitors would be less motivated to move from using search engines or existing music platforms. As a result, the nature of such a site should also have as open and democratic a system in place as possible to create interest from normal Internet users.
A site is likely to succeed more if a wiki function is included to ensure that users are able to include their review of an artist or comments on as level a playing field as other commentators. Such additions would be directly tagged in regards to an artist, making it possible for record labels to be immediately updated when additions have been made, so that any illegal or malicious content can be removed quickly. There would be a clear financial benefit to record labels in the fight to protect copyright, as websites featuring pirated material would be frozen from the site. When discussing tactical elements of the site any governance structure should emphasise neutrality in the reporting of labels or music, so that the site does not become tarnished by bias as a result of negative reviews being removed by thin-skinned record labels.
Also, when examining governance, smaller labels and musicians should be heavily considered for inclusion. One option is to require a small one off fee (say €5) as a subscription to act as a method of partly funding the site, separating dedicated musicians from very casual amateurs and deterring most forms of spamming techniques.
It should be possible to recover some of the cost of this enterprise through payment per click fees on profitable activities such as ticket bookings, mp3 downloads and suchlike. Advertising related exclusively to independent music should also be included as a method of increasing revenues, as well as proving a cost effective way for music related organisations to reach a targeted audience with, with the added benefit of not having to compete with the marketing budgets of the major labels or various other companies.
Effectively planned, such a one stop shop should encourage users curious about independent music to eventually consider it their first port of call for any music related enquiry. Later improvements to such a platform to improve interactivity, including personal profiles to generate custom made editorial based upon viewing habits, tools such as widgets or high interactivity with other platforms would do much to increase the interest and outreach of such a one stop shop.
Through the combination of providing an oasis safe from the whitewash of the major music players and key media platforms dependent on their success the aforementioned site would hopefully generate many advocates. Of course, there would be much effort required to initiate a scheme and there would be many hurdles that would need to be overcome. However, the development of such a platform would greatly protect and enhance independent music’s development in the digital age, strengthening independent music through developing a federation of empowered and financially remunerated cultural actors.
This article was written on 2nd September 2008 by Jonathan McHugh
Showing posts with label one stop shop. Show all posts
Showing posts with label one stop shop. Show all posts
9/2/08
7/20/08
Knowledge Share: Maximising Information
Confidence has been growing in the third sector as its contribution to public policy has been increasingly recognised. Voluntary organisations are increasingly being recognised for their work in serving their local communities. Decision makers are increasingly being convinced by the third sector’s advocates of the need for ongoing public reform. However, there is still room for improvement. We have been underutilising the levels of knowledge of the sector. To fully develop the potential of the sector we need to ensure that every key fact and third sector success story is shared with relevant organisations and sections of the community. Currently the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is undertaking a consultation on how academia can improve its analysis of the third sector, as it seeks to make its level of understanding match the public and private sectors. We should now take this opportunity to open the gates of understanding, welcome public analysis and adapt to develop models of co-dependent learning and education.
The third sector suffers whenever information is underused because of silo mentalities and short-termist expediencies. Failed opportunities to learn about the sector and have up-to-date information on key areas often result in too many third sector organisations whispering their successes when we should be shouting their progress. When knowledge share does occur it allows us to present ourselves as unified. It enables us to strategise more effectively. It reduces wasteful searching for material. Duplication of efforts should also decline.
The third sector is often very successful at researching. Through specialist third sector material being uploaded on organisations’ websites and increasingly blogs and other web 2.0 based communications third sector organisations have been able to make the case for volunteerism, philanthropy and civic engagement. This is very useful, as it gives individual organisations the chance to explain developments in the third sector, areas of best practice and issues that prevent organisations from being able to fulfil their goals.
However, considerable amounts of information get lost. Often the strains placed on people researching and writing pieces combined with other onerous tasks can result in the acquired knowledge being underexposed. For instance, articles may not be uploaded onto the Internet after having been forwarded onto publication editors. Reports may be delayed and only done in infrequent batches. Other organisations with a mutual interest in the results may not be even informed at all.
Refocusing Knowledge
However, given the gaps in knowledge that some areas of academia have previously had of the third sector it is important to strongly guide the direction of research in some areas of academic enquiry. Through explaining the difficulties that we face we will be able to add authority to ongoing issues such as the need for a stronger and more enforceable Compact, the importance of service provision being based on outcome measurement systems and the benefits of continuing state and public sector reform. Hopefully knowledge clusters will develop, as well as around sector specific research. If this happens then shared opinion will be able to fully represent the beneficial utility of the third sector to public services and communities.
Through participating with ESRC’s research and articulating our needs and desires we should be able to examine and then transform how academics and organisations plan and release information. We must also make efforts to highlight and encourage organisations which provide joined up research. For example, Intelligent Giving’s blog usefully signposts reports and events in its commentary, allowing time conscious third sector employees and curious parties links to more information should they require further insight on topics. Looking at the long-term picture the potential of the Internet to coordinate the third sector’s communication makes it necessary to examine ways of improving the sector’s existing knowledge champions and perhaps even coordinating new third party research hubs.
The third sector’s diversity provides an oasis of innovative ideas that can make it difficult to get a comprehensive overview of its strengths and weaknesses without taking the time to search around. However, if we matched the new commitment from the academic community to increasing levels of research of the third sector’s processes and the positive outcomes of our efforts with a new attitude to sharing our knowledge then we should be able to accelerate the development of a more professional, confident and effective sector.
This article was written on behalf of Peter Kyle, Director of Strategy and Enterprise for ACEVO in July 20081/2/08
Are Agencies Electric? Mapping The Development of Cross Stakeholder eGovernment Platforms
There has been a significant ICT investment by the UK Government both nationally and locally to reform the provision, promotion, and usage of public services. eGovernment has been the articulation of many of these projects, helping to exploit the power of information and communications “in order to transform the accessibility, quality and cost-effectiveness of public services.” [1] The Government’s previous policy of putting as much public information online as possible has been successful but belies an unwillingness to face organisational reform. The majority of investments have been directed towards projects that are more piecemeal in nature, adding new features to public sector delivery whilst attempting to work within the existing framework. This ‘silo mentality’ is becoming increasingly outdated, as organisations which fail to build responsive structures that facilitate CRM systems and collaborate between public sector organisations and societal stakeholders are starting to look increasingly outdated when compared to more ICT focused and inclusive organisations.
The bulk of this £6 billion eGovernment strategy[2] has been directed towards raising the quantity and standard of government information online, ensuring public access to the Internet and creating inroads towards more collaborative projects between organisations and communities. In many ways government policy has been successful. For instance, government information is freely accessible online and organised by websites which provide seamless access across departments and regions without the user needing to be conscious of the differences. Also, government initiatives are slowly starting to foster greater cooperation, which helps to improve levels and quality of information and decision-making.
M. Jae Moon,[3] the UK National Audit Office,[4] the UN/ASPA,[5] Rita Santos and Richard Heeks,[6] and Darrel West[7] identify four or five stages of e-government, which distinguish where different government organizations are on the road to transformation:
- The Billboard Stage: Where information is put online but it is only one way
- The Partial Delivery Stage: Where information is communicated in two directions
- The Portal Stage: Where online services reach a technical level to reduce administrative burdens
- The Seamless Stage: Where government services are seamlessly intertwined
- The Interactive Democracy Stage: Where web-based political participation tools enable citizens to comment and make political improvements
However, the majority of investments have been directed towards the earlier stages, providing considerable amounts of information but lacking sufficient interactivity and input from users, resulting in many public sector websites being tarred as being too passive. To fully benefit from eGovernment the adaptation of new technological advancements “requires a careful investigation into the philosophy, structure and productive processes of the public organisations participating in eGovernment.”[8]Such a holistic view requires consistently considering public administration “as a socio-technical system and, as such, as a unit of: individual citizens, employees of authorities and governments, groups and society, technical and information systems, norms and laws, social and cultural practices, moral and ethics and natural environmental issues.” [9]
Much of the early reforms required for early stage Internet platforms were painless, merely requiring information to systematically be added online and sufficient marketing to encourage uptake by citizens and businesses. This was partly because the public sector is good at refining and improving existing services, such as through longer opening hours and drop in services. In terms of eGovernment adding a website which contained reports, key information and contact details required little organisational change but was able to provide visible results. This level of modernisation also helped to fulfil the Government’s goals of all information being put online creating too much emphasis on piecemeal upgrades rather than upgrading internal structures based around new ICT possibilities.
These lower level reforms were also easier to sell to the public than more problematic, technical and organisational reforms that provided less tangible results. Joint projects between government departments are very difficult, as any work requires the close cooperation of a large number of actors. There has not been enough development towards creating a framework that encourages this cooperation, with the Government having previously failed to put enough pressure and financial incentives for greater joint projects. However, the Government is finally starting to push through various initiatives that help introduce incentives to create new approaches to improving efficiency and improve the quality of government. These usually take the form of either ‘back office’ reforms or ‘One Stop Shops’.
The author believes that organisational cultures are the greatest obstacles preventing a more modern ICT influenced public sector. The
The proposed research aims to answer the following, with a view of examining why and how different agencies or stakeholders plan and implement public websites:
- What are the organisational factors that influence how eGovernment projects develop?
- Is there an optimum type of eGovernment culture? And if so, what does it look like?
- What are the key influences that push projects forward and what inhibits them? How do they impact on project success/failure?
Methodology
- Grid-Group Analysis + Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
- Multiple Perspective Analysis + Action Research
The problem of assessing eGovernment projects is that there will be different competing goals between different stakeholders in the planning and implantation process. Policy alternatives and their outcomes may also be unknown, such that estimates of risk and uncertainty are not possible. As a result the author considers that the problems will be ill-structured and that the methodology will require an analysis that actively defines the problem, taking care not to impose any bias. As a consequence policy analysis will be devoted towards problem structuring as well as problem solving.
Grid Group Analysis + Cost Effectiveness Analysis
The author believes that grid-group cultural theory originating from Mary Douglas [12] and later developed into a public policy tool by Christopher Hood [13] would form a major analysis to aid problem structuring. Its ability to capture the diversity of human preferences and relate differing preferences to different possible styles of organisation, each with its own advantages and disadvantages should help to explain the interactive process of many government websites.
For example, examining the cultural differences between different web portals to the public sector should provide insights into the way organisational behaviour affects structure and results (see ‘One Stop Shops’ analysis below):
- DirectGov.com, a hierarchical style website setup by the government and intended as the first point of access
- DirectionlessGov.com, a individualist rebuke to the site by volunteer computer programmers to highlight the failure of over centralised and over expensive government endorses websites
- YourLondon, an egalitarian portal developed following numerous symposiums of
- Pre ‘One Stop Shop’ key links web pages found within government websites based upon the sites context (fatalism)
Cost-effectiveness analysis is considered a better fit than cost-benefit analysis as the author believes that eGovernment has the possibility to go beyond mere efficiency savings, as increased information would also result in better decision-making. Because of the uniqueness of government these social benefits can be included without the distorting analysis of quantitative measurement.
Multiple Perspective Analysis + Action Research Analysis
Multiple perspective analysis allows for greater insights into problems and potential solutions through applying personal, organizational, and technical perspectives to problem situations. Especially suitable for ill-structured policy problems, the utilisation of technical, organisational, and personal perspectives has been useful at dealing with social technical and challenges such as eGovernment.[14]
Action research would form a useful mode of enquiry, as combining a problem-solving rationale and a research-orientated one simultaneously.[15] The former is preoccupied with the resolution of some organisational problem, via a research based intervention; the latter involves using the intervention as a vehicle for the production of new knowledge of interest to public policy.
Back Office Reforms
‘Back office’ reforms are used to improve the machinery of government processes, such as increasing the amount of high quality, localised data transfer between departments and regions. The introduction of technology and its adoption, such as sharing information through pooling ‘back office’ computing systems between government organisations has the potential to greatly improve the value for money and quality of government services. However, the reforms needed to introduce such strategies are complex and require a significant amount of commitment from all stakeholders involved. Otherwise the myriad number of obstacles to success will result in wasted time, overspending or even project collapse. This is most successful when “technology has entwined with management reform, while addressing the demands of consumers.”[16] As a result, emphasising reforms through the window of e-Government and its possibilities will give as many opportunities for efficiency gains as New Public Management and Deregulation in the 1990s but through increased productivity and not at the expense of services.
One interesting example of multi-agency cooperation was in
The benefits of MADE data were significant, for example enabling one town to identify that the top two wards for crime were also the top two for fire and ambulance incidents, with a similar pattern being replicated across all districts. This resulted in a multi agency ‘vulnerability index’ being created using a variety of indicators previously unavailable and permitted a greater understanding of local regions and better informed policymaking decisions.
One major example of Government creating a positive environment for cooperation is the Digital Challenge, involving a £6 million grant for one region and nine £200 thousand grants to the runners up. This was to purposefully create a unique incentive for a region, city or smaller sized area to introduce joined-up technology reforms to meet the needs of their local community and individual citizens. This major investment goes further then fostering best practice for ‘eGovernment champions’, as the structure of the grants should help to encourage the Digital Challenge finalists and the winner to work together and with central government to pool practices in order to tackle social exclusion and be exemplars in their field.
‘One-Stop-Shop’ government requires that all public authorities are interconnected and that all groups and individuals are able to access public services at a single point even without the need for users to know which department or local authority they need to answer queries. When successful these platforms can be incredibly useful for helping people navigate public services. However, the weaknesses and unpopularity of many schemes have shown limitations of ‘one stop shops’ against search engine sites and rival forms of communication, such as telephones and digital television.
Online portals such as YourLondon act as a ‘one stop shop’ to unify the websites of
Table 1: If there was a website where you could find public services all in one place from car tax to council tax to local school information and congestion charging would you use it? [18]
Research from Tickbox.net (above) has shown that there is a keen interest among many in using one-stop-shops, with 74.6% saying that they would consider using such a service. [19] DirectGov is the Government’s main channel for communication, with already having replaced up to 500 of the 3,000 or so government websites.[20] This one-stop shop helps to direct people effectively to the council or government service that they require. However, it intitially difficult to market, with a £5 million campaign to persuade users to contact their local council via a central government web portal having little effect, according to an independent study. [21] The Connect to Your Council campaign targeted people via radio and press and advised people to visit www.direct.gov.uk. However, despite claims by the DCLG that more than 250 thousand people visited the website in May and that more than 40 percent of respondents thought the campaign would encourage use[22] the consultants, SocITM Insight highlighted that one area of the campaign received only a 1.25 percent increase. [23] Despite referrals from Directgov rising threefold after the campaign, fewer than 1 percent of visitors found their local authority through the site and most relied on a commercial search engine (53 percent), while 16 percent guessed the address. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in
Public sector ‘one stop shops’ have struggled when competing against highly established search engines such as Google, with users finding it easier to type in some key words to hunt down the required site, rather than using and then navigating through public portals such as DirectGov. This is because the familiarity of Google and its ease of use limits the appeal of users transferring to the other service. In order to justify their existences and attract significant levels of traffic platforms such as DirectGov will not only have to match Google’s utility it will have to exceed it.
The hierarchical nature of sites such as DirectGov has led to critics describing the framework as overbearing in its dictations to other websites and unaccountable to its users. As a consequence grassroots websites such as DirectionlessGov have been launched by collectives such as Democracy.org.uk (also responsible for TheyWorkForYou and UpMyStreet among others), which creates an impartial and voluntarily supported alternative to either the centralised DirectGov approach and the monolithic Google approach.[25]
This was written by Jonathan McHugh in February as part of an unrealised research application
[1] E-Government Review Greater London Authority: Audit 2004-2005 (Audit Commission) 2005 p. 4
[2] P. Foley, X. Alfonso, et al Connecting People: Tackling Exclusion? An Examination of the impact of the Internet by Socially Excluded Groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 24
[3] Moon, M. Jae. 2002. “The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities:
Rhetoric or Reality?” Public Administration Review 62: 4–12.
[4] United Kingdom National Audit Of.ce. 2002. Government on the Web 11. House of
Commons 2001–2002 Session, HC 764. London: Stationery Office.
[5] United Nations/American Society for Public Administration (UN/ASPA). 2002.
Benchmarking E-Government: A Global Perspective. New York: UN/ASPA.
[6] Santos, Rita, and Richard Heeks. 2003. ICTs and Intra-Governmental Structures at
Local, Regional and Central Levels: Updating Conventional Ideas. Manchester, UK:
IDPM, University of Manchester.
[7] West, Darrel. 2004. “E-government and the Transformation of Service Delivery
and Citizen Attitudes.” Public Administration Review 64: 15–27.
[8] M. Wimmer A European perspective towards online one-stop government: the eGOV project (Electronic Commerce Research and Applications ) 2002 p. 93
[9] M. Wimmer A European perspective towards online one-stop government: the eGOV project (Electronic Commerce Research and Applications ) 2002 p. 95
[10] L. Torres, V. Pina, and B. Acerete E-Governance Developments in European Union Cities: Reshaping Government’s Relationship with Citizens (Blackwell Publishing) 2006 p. 292
[11] L. Torres, V. Pina, and B. Acerete E-Governance Developments in European Union Cities: Reshaping Government’s Relationship with Citizens (Blackwell Publishing) 2006 p. 296
[12] M. Douglas Cultural Bias, from In The Active Voice(Routledge) 1982 p. 183-254
[13] C. Hood The Art Of The State: Culture, Rhetoric, and Public Management (Oxford University Press) 1998 p. 7-12
[14] W. Dunn Public Policy: An Introduction 3rd Edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentis Hill) 2007
[15] McKay, J., & Marshall, P. The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology and
People, (2001). 14, 46–59.
[16] SmartGov: Renewing Electronic Government for Improved Service Delivery Jul 2003 p59
[17] D. Wastell a, P.r Kawalek et al Information systems and partnership in multi-agency networks: an action research project in crime reduction (Information and Organization) 2004 p. 197
[18] DirectGov Internet Thinking (Tickbox.net) 2006
[19] DirectGov Internet Thinking (Tickbox.net) 2006
[20] Quoted in: http://www.idealgovernment.com 18/02/08
[21] £5m e-government awareness campaign flops The Guardian October 12, 2006
[22] Councils Blast Euro RSCG Take-up Campaign (Campaign) June 16, 2006
[23] £5m e-government awareness campaign flops The Guardian October 12, 2006
[24] £5m e-government awareness campaign flops The Guardian October 12, 2006
[25] http://www.directionlessgov.com/about.html
6/1/07
The UK and eGovernment: Chapter VI, Conclusion
There needs to be a concerted ongoing effort to educate the population about the benefits of the Internet in general use and their interaction with government services such as ‘One Stop Shops’. Without this expensive projects will be underused, reducing the growth of future beneficial projects. Expensive marketing campaigns do not appear to work so well, with people preferring to use more standard but inefficient processes such as Google to find their information, making it important for new approaches.
Government drives to encourage use of computers should foster greater confidence in the Internet. As users start to learn more they must be made aware of the options available to them and the benefits. The use of online centres and courses tailored to local needs appears to be working but the investment put in place appears to be very short-term and is already starting to eat away at other projects budgets as funding is drying up. We are still a long way away from making the
The coming trajectory of eGovernment is not so clear cut, with policymakers more content to maintain existing practices than face the difficulties of transformational government starting losing momentum for further reforms. To build on the successes of previous projects will require a higher level of effort and a greater commitment to change organisational structures and processes. The future of eGovernment will become increasingly ideological and challenging to the public sector and the relationship between government organisations, citizens and business and will be as great a challenge to public policy as New Public Management and Deregulation did in the last twenty years. This will occur especially in regards to how much the public sector invests in projects, who provides online service, how it is funded and how society will deal with the ‘Digital Divide’. The benefits from countries using more advanced eGovernment strategies are becoming increasingly apparent. However, it is not too late to catch up in order to fully modernise government.
Written by Jonathan McHugh inJune 2007.
Part of Electronic Horizon: An Examination of the Importance of eGovernment and the UK Governments Approach to ICT, the Internet and its Impact on Modern Government
[1] Transformational Government (Cabinet Office) 2007
The UK and eGovernment: Chapter V, The Digital Divide
Dugdale, Daly et al suggest that this is “one of the leading challenges to the success of e-government is the lack of participation in the information society by those groups in the population who are the biggest users of government services.” [3]
The factors creating this Digital Divide are the same historic factors of social exclusion, namely income, employment and age.
Although the costs of PCs and the Internet are becoming increasingly competitive, there are still a large number of people for which these are unaffordable. Efforts to improve equality of access through PCs in libraries and centres help but are unable to fully solve this problem. For example, for socially excluded groups only 6 percent had Internet access at work compared to 38 percent for all
The most significant factor is age. Older people have lived the majority of their life without going online and many are indifferent to the benefits, despite the potential benefits to them.
There is much debate as to whether the Internet will exaggerate existing social trends, with the more dynamic in society reaping the benefits of technological development, leaving the least off behind, or whether the advancement of broadband and development of technology into all areas of society will eventually make everybody proficient.
For Bourdieu, theories of social reproduction suggest that technological innovation and change unwittingly reinforce existing social power relations and modes of consciousness that legitimises those relations.[5] In the context of the Internet, the socially deprived have limited opportunities to familiarise themselves with technology they stand a greater chance of being left behind by others who are able to benefit from technological advances. GLA research has voiced concerns following research into the Digital Divide that it does still exist and that there is a risk that it will widen rather than reduce, if appropriate measures are not adopted to avoid it. [6]
On the other hand, many consider the growth of broadband and its application in all areas of life in the future will make the Digital Divide disappear. London Connects takes the optimistic approach, considering that this will happen through market forces and intervention by the year 2012, in time for the Smart City Vision.
In regards to the development of eDemocracy, whereby people on the Internet are able to form part of the decision-making process any Digital Divide could have consequences to the form of Democracy in the future. Jenson voices concerns that without significant equality of use and appropriate regulation online public spheres will end up becoming the coffee houses of the eighteenth century. [7] This concern is backed up by Torres, Pina and Acrete, who feel that despite increased government transparency, efficiency and customer orientated service delivery that “technology is behaving as an enabler within pre-existing social and political structures.”[8] However, Jenson still is aware that the opportunity for new media helps to provide “citizens with enhanced possibilities for gaining information and communicating with politicians, which altogether might potentially lead to a revitalisation of the public sphere.” [9]
As Warscauer points out, there is no overriding factor for determining or closing such a divide, as it is “woven into social systems and processes.” To deal with this he argues that this involves “not only providing computers and Internet links or shifting to online patterns but also developing relevant content in diverse languages, promoting literacy and education and mobilising community and institutional support toward achieving community goals.”[10]
One of the main concerns for people attempting to counteract symptoms of deprivation is that ICT is often not articulated in any meaningful or coherent way. For example, in
Reaching Out to Disadvantaged Group
There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to encouraging use of the Internet, with experience showing that a careful understanding of target groups and their needs is critical to any project success. This approach is likely to benefit local authorities rather than central government, given their greater contact and understanding of constituents’ issues.
The route to users buying computers at home is usually two stage. Firstly, people experiment with the Internet in public access points. This usually lasted a couple of months, with only 26 percent of participants using the Internet for less than twelve months having access from home. [11] If people purchase a computer later it is because their greater use has made then more aware of its benefits.
Where participants use the Internet [12]
Centres
The
Research has found that these centres and IT facilities have played a very important role in assisting socially excluded groups to get online. Clayton considers that with 340 million visits a year public libraries are the biggest generator in ‘customer capital’ in the local public sector. [15] The interest from many in learning how to use computers from many people who lacked basic literacy skills was a major encouragement for such centres, as the curiosity factor was enough to initiate self betterment from some. One poll on the effect of informal ICT learning from library users was highly positive, with:
51 percent ending up having the Internet at home
42 percent making online purchases
77 percent becoming more interested and confident in working
36 percent applying for a job or starting up a business
40 percent finding a job
48 percent progressing to accredited training courses[16]
However, there are concerns for the infrastructure. Firstly, many of these centres lack of scale or size has left them unable to develop their activities sufficiently. A more concerning development has been the lack of long-term funding for computing equipment, as the PNI investment was one off. The cost of sustaining computers, including upgrades, servicing and software licensing is getting to the point where libraries are having to make the difficult choice between scaling back the number of computers available or cut funding in books. Clayton and Hepworth consider part of this funding crisis to be as a result of libraries ‘falling between the cracks or silos’, between the DfES, DCMS, and ODPM nationally, and between council departments and partnership agencies locally and regionally. [17]
There have been a number of concerns raised by participants that there is a bewildering array of Internet training and skills development courses offered by ICT centres and learning centres. Some policymakers have suggested that one way to deal with this is to create a Public Resource Centre to provide a unified front to people enquiring for courses and shared access to resources such as staff training, mentoring, equipment and the development of best practices.
Support Structures
There have been a range of support services introduced to different communities beyond just installing centres. These often reflect the communities individual characteristics.
For example, in
The importance of community-based advocates of Internet technology has slowly been realised. Research has found that many new Internet users are keen to volunteer and to assist others to start using the Internet. They would be useful in buddy schemes or to lead groups to help reduce the stigma of not understanding computers and provide role models to demonstrate the advantages of ICT. Demand for such existing schemes is high and appears to be a cost effective way to reach out to people. However, they need much support and perhaps training in order to reach out and increase awareness of ICT effectively.
Creating forums between businesses and getting them into the same room in order to encourage their use of ICTs and promoting partnerships should greatly increase the strength of UK ICT companies. For example, Brixton Online, a social entrepreneurship works with approximately 150 to 200 businesses a year, providing consultations, ICT packages and workshops to encourage young businesses to embrace ICT.
Encouraging social entrepreneurship is a useful way of building partnerships within the community. For example, the Mayor of London works in partnership with Maxitech to refurbish computers and redistribute them to Age Concern centres in the capital.
Projects
The network offers an ultra high speed broadband connection five times faster than regular lines. It will offer households:
· Entertainment e.g. digital TV, video on demand, network games, music file sharing
· Welfare to work e.g. Online NVQ courses, basic skills, English as a Second Language courses, local jobs website
· Consumer e.g. local ‘e-bay’ and ‘Loot’ services, online group buying for utilities, repair reporting to local authority, approved list of personal service suppliers like childcare, plumbers, carpenters etc.
· Security e.g. online webcam CCTV across the estates that can be monitored by residents in their homes, through the Network
· Community information e.g. GP Surgery opening times, GP bookings, benefits entitlements
· Communications e.g. free local phone calls, e-mail, PC applications like MS Office and internet explorer, community chat rooms, community voting
For businesses, especially SMEs it will include:
· Network services e.g. latest versions of MS Office, Sage, specialist software needed by knowledge economy enterprises, backup of files on network drive
· Security e.g. Online webcam CCTV, monitoring premises and surrounding areas, that can be viewed by SMEs over the network. Panic buttons and security systems, enabled by the high speed connection.
· Business support e.g. award winning online support packages developed by London Met University New Media lab, online premises matching services, online loan finance through ShOW’s SME loan development fund
· Business services e.g. approved lists of service suppliers such as Accountants, Legal, HR etc.; online group buying of common services such as utilities, online sector forums and networking areas
There will very generous introductory offers to encourage initial uptake. Although there will be a subscription to the service in order to guarantee its long-term sustainability the large economies involved are expected to save households £300 a year.
This investment examines the strengths of weaknesses and creates a framework that should be successful both socially and efficiently at transforming the region.
Written by Jonathan McHugh in June 2007.
Part of Electronic Horizon: An Examination of the Importance of eGovernment and the UK Governments Approach to ICT, the Internet and its Impact on Modern Government
Part of Electronic Horizon: An Examination of the Importance of eGovernment and the UK Governments Approach to ICT, the Internet and its Impact on Modern Government
[1] Acting now to provide for an exciting future (Western Morning News) September 14, 2006
[2] The London Knowledge Economy (Knowledge Economy Network) 2006 p. 6E
[3] A. Dugdale, A. Daly et al Accessing e-government: challenges for citizens and Organizations (International Review of Administrative Sciences) 2005 p116-7
[4] P Foley, X Alfonso, et al Connecting people: tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 8
[5] R. Morrow C. Torres Social Theory and Education: A Critique of Theories of Social and Cultural Reproduction. (New York Press) 1995
[6] The digital divide in a world city, GLA, June 2002
[7] J. Jensen Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government-Sponsored – A Comparison (Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 26 – No. 4) 2003 p350
[8] L. Torres, V. Pina, and B. Acerete E-Governance Developments in European Union Cities: Reshaping Government’s Relationship with Citizens (Blackwell Publishing) 2006 p. 300
[9] J. Jensen Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government-Sponsored – A Comparison (Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 26 – No. 4) 2003 p349
[10] M. Warschauer Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide (MIT Press) 2003 p. 39
[11] P Foley, X Alfonso, et al Connecting people: tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 7
[12] P Foley, X Alfonso, et al Connecting people: tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 38
[13] G. Kuk The Digital Divide and the Quality of Electronic Service Delivery in Local Government in the United Kingdom (Government Information Quarterly) 2002 p. 355
[14] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 64
[15] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 7
[16] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 64
[17] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 65
[18] Shoreditch: The Digital Bridge
[19] Shoreditch: The Digital Bridge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
