The real challenge IS cultural and organisational. After all, in order to maximize the capacities of such technologies, government agencies would need to ensure, for example, that experts with the appropriate knowledge are able to freely contribute, and not be restricted through the traditional filtering of seniority.

This really is the crux of the matter(s) isn’t it? “Maximizing the capacities of technologies” then becomes “how to use them to be more inclusive”. The descrepencies are sooo great, especially when (e.g.) a minister might allocate huge monies to ensure .edu institutions have the most modern technologies and yet never use them (themselves) in the .gov space.

You might be reflecting on the culture PS find themselves in. Your ‘output’ centers in developing a policy. You must believe that your policy will affect people. E.g You must believe that developing a policy in your agency will help PS to understand a new way of communicating. The tools you choose will depend on yur “diverse community’s” experience and understanding, and we know there are thousands of tools. A collaborative suite for govdex will be considered a baby by professional standards.

You will also know Interdepartmental committees come and go, and being hidden from the public during their short existance, possibly in a place like govdex, where the policy is to exclude the public, involving people who may be affected by a new policy becomes impossible. This approach reinforces the us and them culture, at three levels of government, and four ages of education.

Perhaps we would find an easier way forward here by just considering ourselves in the lifelong learning space, and ask policy developers to keep their tools and inquiries in the .edu domain. After all, this is the cultural divide we’re trying to bridge isn’t it? “by social inclusion, not status“.

- at what stage in the policy cycle is public involvement engaged? My preference is to involve people who are affected by the policy at the design stage as we work to define the problem and consider options. This requires a shift in approach since in many cases I’ve observed the policy thinking to occur in the back room first before presenting options. I am not advocating a blank page but rather to engage people during early development of a policy.
With our project team, I have engaged a diverse community in developing policy and guidance for online participation. This involved inviting active participation through the different channels including using a wiki to draft and comment on content.

- secondly, the assumption that people will not understand the wider context for ‘wicked’ problems. Rather than thinking that this myth is true, it relies on the agency to ensure that wider context is available and accessible.

- thirdly, what is the timeframe available to develop the policy? There are longer term benefits by connecting with the affected groups including implementation teams. However there may be an urgent time limitation required by Ministers which makes it really challenging to develop a sustainable solution(s).
This situation goes to the heart of establishing trusted relationships between government and public/business. It’s worth considering the principles for public participation such as relevancy, transparency, etc. People will participate to achieve urgent timeframes if there is demonstrated value and return for participation plus respect and understanding of what is required.