While governments around the world start asking themselves about the future of their channel strategies vis-à-vis changing online behaviors and the growth of social networks, some of them hold steady to the strategy of further developing their existing portals. One of the latest cases is Australia (see www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23777194-16123,00.html), but more will follow suit.

Recently I had a discussion with a large central agency in Europe that considered how Web 2.0 could change their existing Web presence. A leading service provider is helping the agency select which technologies would be worthwhile to add to the agency's enhanced portal. It was surprising to note how the best the provider could come up with was the suggestion to host blogs and forums on the portal. The provider also suggested the use of mashups, meaning that the government portal could mash up maps and similar information from other sources to improve the general look and feel. There had been no reflection about the benefits and risks of blogs and forums, nor had any thought been given to how mashups could be used to make government information more easily accessible (through third parties that could help convey information more effectively to citizens).

While government officials may not be completely at ease with exploring disruptive scenarios such as those illustrated in my previous post, vendors bear a great responsibility in helping them articulate the business case for Web 2.0 technologies. For the past 10 years, vendors have reinforced the view that governments should strive to provide the same Web experience as banks, e-tailers, lead search engines, and so forth, as if they were competing with others. The reality is that, while an effective and efficient Web presence is important, the actual quality of services is more important to people than a nice interface, especially when no one but the government can provide these services. What has been a competition for the best Web site or portal should become a deeper reflection on how architectures should be changed to support multiple channels, many of which will not be under government's control. It is no longer time for bells and whistles, but for taking a pause, understanding how online behaviors and expectations are changing, and moving very prudently toward a more-open approach. This implies smaller steps and smaller contracts. Vendors are understandably less interested in pursuing this path, especially at times when government can help counterbalance declining revenue in other sectors.