The Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC) is a great example of improved service delivery through the internet. MRSC is a Washington state not-for-profit who provides research, consultation and information services to local governments. MRSC has a staff of attorneys and other consultants who provide information to local governments.
Prior to the implementation of MRSC's Website, telephone inquiries were the measure for the organization's level of service delivery and telephone inquiries steadily increased each year. With the Website now being widely accessed first for many inquiries, phone inquiries have remained relatively steady and no consultant staff positions have been added since 1997. Creation of the Website allowed MRSC to avoid significant service delivery costs. MRSC is funded, through the Muncipal Research Council, by a portion of city and county liquor tax revenue. Given the fiscal challenges faced by local government because of citizen initiatives and curbs on revenue growth, it is very likely that funding would not have kept up with the service demand that would have existed without the Website.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
E-governance Questions/Issues to Explore
Bridging the Digital Divide:
Does bridging the digital divide solely mean bringing everyone over to full computer use, or is there another way? Can we develop technologies that fully utilize the collaborative capabilities of wikis and other internet tools, but still involve people who choose not or cannot access the internet?
For myself, I am still struggling with the answers to these questions. Because these questions are large issues and difficult to "get your hands around" so to speak. I have decided to apply them to one of my work processes to see how I could have made it more inclusive with technology.
Last year I conducted a Small and Rural Fire District Facility Assessment. As part of that process, I conducted a survey of all 390 fire protection districts and then convened a focus group to come up with recommendations. I received a 60 percent response rate on my survey, but because most districts could not afford the cost or time spent for travel to a focus group, the participation in the group was less than 15 people.
How could I have made this process more inclusive with technology? Perhaps I could have taken the focus group product and then created it as a Wiki that other districts could have added to. Of course 25 percent of the districts who responded to my survey did so through a paper survey rather than an email so this additional step may have excluded those 25 percent on the wrong side of the digital divide and skewed the data to reflect weathier districts that could afford internet access.
Chosing whether to use new technologies continues to be a struggle for me, as it likely is for many other researchers. It is extremely important to be aware of the tradeoffs and find ways to counteract them as appropriate for the group you are researching. I am very glad, however, to be aware of these new tools that could be a powerful aid to government research.
Does bridging the digital divide solely mean bringing everyone over to full computer use, or is there another way? Can we develop technologies that fully utilize the collaborative capabilities of wikis and other internet tools, but still involve people who choose not or cannot access the internet?
For myself, I am still struggling with the answers to these questions. Because these questions are large issues and difficult to "get your hands around" so to speak. I have decided to apply them to one of my work processes to see how I could have made it more inclusive with technology.
Last year I conducted a Small and Rural Fire District Facility Assessment. As part of that process, I conducted a survey of all 390 fire protection districts and then convened a focus group to come up with recommendations. I received a 60 percent response rate on my survey, but because most districts could not afford the cost or time spent for travel to a focus group, the participation in the group was less than 15 people.
How could I have made this process more inclusive with technology? Perhaps I could have taken the focus group product and then created it as a Wiki that other districts could have added to. Of course 25 percent of the districts who responded to my survey did so through a paper survey rather than an email so this additional step may have excluded those 25 percent on the wrong side of the digital divide and skewed the data to reflect weathier districts that could afford internet access.
Chosing whether to use new technologies continues to be a struggle for me, as it likely is for many other researchers. It is extremely important to be aware of the tradeoffs and find ways to counteract them as appropriate for the group you are researching. I am very glad, however, to be aware of these new tools that could be a powerful aid to government research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)