Originally published 6 November 2007. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
We’re at a curious point in the adoption of new technology for public or stakeholder participation.
Many organisations have intelligently dabbled; most can now boast a passable attempt to list their consultations on their websites and an increasing number offer us the chance to contribute our comments online. But compared to the range of clever tools becoming available, what’s on offer generally is pretty meagre fare, and it is only the true connoisseur that can find and make use of the really sophisticated stuff.
But looking at the latest customer interface can risk missing the point of investing in new technology. Of course providing additional ways for the public to contact you is a valuable step forward, and something we all want in the name of choice and customer convenience - but they’re not exactly queuing in the aisles are they? Even the most progressive e-participation organisations still find this a minority sport when compared with conventional methods. There has to be another logic. It is this. Selected well, and deployed sensibly (sadly, neither of these can be assumed), new technology tools should make it easier to organise and run consultation and participation exercises, and much easier to analyse and disseminate both outputs and outcomes. They can be cheaper too, but let’s not exaggerate this, for the costs just fall in different places, and though an e-survey’s cost per response may be small in comparison to the mail-survey, there are other factors to consider.
Where e-consultation tools score is in their ability to collect, store and marshal data about stakeholders themselves. After all, what people say and how they respond is only truly meaningful when it is analysed properly, and to do this you may need more than knowing whether the respondent is male, female, young, old or any of the standard demographics.
Let’s assume we’re in consultation on changing the Accident & Emergency Unit at the local hospital, and we have received representations from dozens of organisations. Who exactly are the OurTown Pensioners Group? How many people does it represent? Who runs it? Who funds it? Have it taken part in previous consultations? If so, what did it say? Did it receive an invite to the Seminar we ran? Has it requested a one-to-one meeting? Is there someone on our staff who liaises with it? Is it involved in the monthly consultative meetings we hold on older people’s issues? And so on …and on …..
Of course most organisations have this type of information; they just don’t have it in one place. And a lot of it resides in the heads of key people whose knowledge leaves when they change jobs or move on. Where stakeholder information is held electronically, it can be found on large numbers of ill-maintained overlapping departmental databases, with many data-owners reluctant to share information. This is not surprising; after all they know it’s flaky. Basic data such as contact names, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses for stakeholder organisations in any town is highly perishable - so without constant effort, the accuracy of departmental databases is poor.
Technology provides a clear answer. In the next three years, public bodies intending to take their participation and consultation role seriously will settle on a single stakeholder database, and will buy or develop effective internet portals for local community groups, businesses and citizens to register and receive notification of exercises when they can become involved. It’s not rocket science, but it needs to happen. Removing the inefficiencies of multiple lists will save a fortune, and makes the return on this investment the best that ICT departments have seen for quite a while.
Trigger points
- Don’t delay; count how many departmental stakeholder lists are kept in your organisation? Remember that many are hidden deep in the structure, and staff are not always keen to reveal them!
- Broaden the exercise into a full Baseline audit of current consultation activities. This will help estimate the true current cost and help justify new investment
- Come to see such ideas as the Single Stakeholder database & Stakeholder portals at the Institute’s Technologies for Participation
This is the96th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement