The Civil Service have published a set of guidelines for on-line participation by civil servants (blogging etc.). As Whitehall Webby Jeremy Gould notes, this is a much slimmed-down version of a weightier tome that has been in production behind the scenes, and which may appear as a set of more detailed operational guidelines for using social media/Web 2.0 tools.

The initiative is to be applauded, and I particularly like the succinctness of the guidelines, which is most un-civil service-like, but in keeping with the overall concept of agility and flexibility that one associates with the brave new world of Web 2.0.

The Power Of Information Task Force are seeking feedback on the guidelines. Have your say!

A number of other bloggers have already picked up on this, including David Wilcox, but worth another mention here. Colin McKay, who works for the Canadian government has produced a handy little guide offering some tips on how to get social media accepted by large (e.g. Government) organisations.

Colin writes on the SoSaidThe.Organisation site:

“I think the advice in this 23 page guide to secretly implementing social media in organizations could be equally useful for any government employee looking to try out new technologies – I’m pretty certain on that point, since I’m a government employee in real life. You can find the guide at this link, and please feel free to share it with your friends, colleagues and bosses”.

Here’s an excerpt, from the introduction:

How do you do it? How do you bring a spirit of innovation and experimentation to the communications shop of a large organization?

I’ve worked in a large organization – the government – for the last ten years. You can find bright, creative and resourceful people around every corner, in every department.

During the course of their careers, many of these people have thought of a move that could improve their work or their environment.

From experience, we all know that small changes in process or presentation are easily won. After all, it’s just another line on an approval sheet, or a tweak on the website.

Large organizations can also be convinced to launch a large-scale overhaul of their systems – whether it’s a supply chain, assembly process or online order system.

But it’s a real pain to get them to rethink their relationship with humans outside the security fence. After all, our customer service reps seem to be doing a good job, right? That sales force really does have a handle on the needs of the community, doesn’t it?

In speaking to hundreds of workers and managers for large organizations (government and private sector), I’ve been asked the same questions, over and over:

• How do you convince your boss to even experiment with social media?
• Doesn’t it mean a lot of extra work?
• Isn’t this sort of stuff blocked by our organizational policies?

This Secret Underground Guide to Social Media for Organizations is meant to help you answer some of those questions.

I liked the simple structure and practical tips that Colin provides in the guide. A ‘must read’ for anyone who feels constrained by organisational bureaucracy and office politics.

For anyone who may have missed my earlier blog – published 12 December 2007 – about the
Local Government Association’s publication of 100 words that public bodies should not use if they want to communicate effectively with citizens – well, it seems this has sparked some heated debate (and vitriol) from readers of the IDeA site that carried the original article.

The LGA’s list of the tope 100 ‘non-words’ included tortuous vocabulary such ‘capacity building’, ‘improvement levers’, ‘place shaping’, and democratic mandate’, as well as the more benign ‘welcome’, ‘customer’ and ‘guidelines’.

A sample of some of the more heated exchange on this article includes:

“Perhaps if the LGA concentrated more on such words rather than knocking up patronising lists like this, then people would take them seriously”, wrote another poster. “As it stands, the vast majority of the public and council officers take one look at the LGA and laugh.”

“Has there ever been a more patronising missive from the LGA?!?”

“Excuse me whilst I doff my cap m’lud! I’d call it claptrap but that’s probably a word “we wouldn’t understand“.
“The Plain English campaign (sadly aided and abetted by the LGA in this instance), I am afraid, is fast becoming a murderer of the English language”

“The variety, complexity and richness of the language is, in their eyes it seems, something to denigrate in favour of a utlilitarian approach. How very, very sad. May I suggest the LGA concentrates on educating councillors, quite a few of whom are functionally illiterate themselves?“

“Pathetic, as a person who regulary communicates with the general populace I Ihave found them to be very intelligent and on one or two occassions more informed than I. I suggest the LGA should find better ways in which to spend their time/resources and stop finding jobs for the boys.”

If you haven’t added your views to the original article I’m afraid it’s too late – the IDeA have closed the item for any further comments, but I’ll be happy to collect any other thoughts/views/comments and forward to the appropriate people at IDeA and LGA.

If anyone feels particularly motivated to do something practical to improve communication and understanding between public bodies who like to hide behind jargon, look no further than the Local Government Glossary wiki – an initiative that Dave Briggs and I started last year to encourage some on-line collaboration between local authorities in providing plain English descriptions for some of the more obscure terms used in the public sector. You need to register on Wikispaces if you want edit rights to the glossary.

Oops, missed this event in my ‘Days That Change The World’ diary, but apparently it was National Plain English Day yesterday, 11 December 2007. To mark the
occasion, the Local Government Association (LGA) published a list of
100 words that public bodies should not use if they want to communicate
effectively with local people.

Local government leaders say that unless councils talk to residents
in a language that they can understand, then the work they do becomes
inaccessible and reduces the chances of people getting involved in
their local issues. The list can be found here, but is replicated below. For anyone remotely familiar with ‘Govspeak’, this is a timely intervention by the Plain English lobby. It’s just a pity that something so obvious has to be published at all! (NB. Not quite sure why ‘welcome’ is on the list??)

The LGA’s top 100 ‘banned words’

1. ambassador
2. agencies
3. beacon
4. best practice
5. bottom-up
6. CAAs
7. can do culture
8. capacity
9. capacity building
10. cascading
11. cautiously welcome
12. champion
13. citizen empowerment
14. community engagement
15. conditionality
16. consensual
17. contestability
18. core message
19. core value
20. coterminosity
21. coterminous
22. cross-cutting
23. customer
24. democratic mandate/legitimacy
25. distorts spending priorities
26. early win
27. empowerment
28. engagement
29. engaging users
30. enhance
31. evidence base
32. external challenge
33. facilitate
34. fast-track
35. flexibilities and freedoms
36. framework
37. fulcrum
38. good practice
39. governance
40. guidelines
41. holistic
42. holistic governance
43. improvement levers
44. incentivising
45. income/funding streams
46. initiative
47. joined up
48. joint working
49. LAAs
50. level playing field
51. localities
52. meaningful consultation/dialogue
53. MAAs
54. menu of options
55. multi-agency
56. multidisciplinary
57. outcomes
58. output
59. participatory
60. partnerships
61. pathfinder
62. peer challenge
63. performance network
64. place shaping
65. predictors of beaconicity
66. preventative services
67. priority
68. process driven
69. quick hit
70. quick win
71. resource allocation
72. revenue streams
73. risk based
74. scaled-back
75. scoping
76. seedbed
77. service users
78. shared priority
79. signpost
80. single point of contact
81. slippage
82. social contracts
83. stakeholder
84. step change
85. strategic/overarching
86. streamlined
87. subsidiary
88. sustainable
89. sustainable communities
90. symposium
91. synergies
92. tested for soundness
93. third sector
94. top-down
95. transformational
96. transparency
97. value-added
98. vision
99. visionary
100. welcome

I was looking for some inspiration in putting together some guidelines, rules and policies for online communities of practice. Nancy White over at Full Circle Associates is always a good starting place for this sort of thing.  Here is another example. Feel free to use or elaborate on:

Responsibilities of Use

For many, participating in an on-line community maybe a new experience. In this particular community we hope you’ll be able to be honest, open and informal with each other, share experiences, ask and give advice, create new knowledge together through collaborative dialogue and provide examples of best practice. It wouldn’t be much of a community if you didn’t challenge each other’s ideas, assumptions and working practice either.

In order for us to collectively build such a place, where many of you may not previously have known each other, may never meet and be new to an on-line community, there are certain responsibilities you need to accept in order that a trusting and friendly atmosphere can be created and sustained. By logging into the system, members are agreeing to these responsibilities of use.

They are as follows:

This is a private community, treat everything within it as confidential
Without the non-verbal cues, please always assume good intent

• Do not lie or give false information
• Respect the opinions of other members
• Do not use bad language
• Do not "borrow" other people’s work without prior permission – where discussions are concerned, they are the property of all the participants
• No advertising is permitted
• Do not share people’s contact details with anyone outside the community unless prior permission is sought
• Protect your password – the success of this community is based on its confidentiality