Government Web Content Managers Forum

Monthly Conference Call

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Attendees: Approximately 110 people on the call

News

• USA.gov Name Change
  • As we announced previously, the U.S. government’s official web portal has changed its name from FirstGov.gov to USA.gov. The official announcement was made today.
  • Thanks to the many agencies who changed their links from FirstGov.gov to USA.gov so quickly.
  • If you still haven’t made the change, refer to the name change instructions on Webcontent.gov.
  • Agencies are welcome to highlight the name change on their website, if appropriate (as some states have done). If you include this as a news item, you can point to the page on USA.gov that explains the name change.

• Reminder about the Forum being open to government employees only
  • As a reminder, the Web Content Managers Forum Listserv is open only to federal, state, and local government employees. It is not open to contractors.
  • Messages exchanged on the Forum Listserv should NOT be forwarded to non-government personnel unless you’ve received express permission from one of the members of the Web Managers Advisory Council Steering Committee.
  • We plan to add more explicit disclaimers on the Listserv messages to make this more clear.
  • You can read more about the Listserv and Listserv etiquette.

• Web Manager University
  • You can go to Webcontent.gov to see a list of classes for the Spring semester.
  • We apologize for the delay in opening registration. We’re moving to a new registration system, so it’s taking some extra time to create the new system and fully test it. The new system will be much improved over the old, including the ability to register multiple users in one session.
  • We expect registration to open the week of January 22. We encourage you to get funding approval as soon as possible so you can be ready to register.
  • Don’t forget to save the date for our annual workshop: April 24, 2007 in Washington, DC.

Conference Call Topic: Consolidating Government Websites -- the UK Model

Our goal for the call was to learn from the UK’s experience of consolidating government websites and have a spirited discussion about whether this is something we should consider in the U.S.

Our speakers were: Andrew Stott, Deputy CIO of the UK, Emma Mulqueeny, Project Manager of their "Transformational Government" initiative, and Tiffany St. James.

Background

• The UK government just announced that hundreds of their websites are to be consolidated or shut down to "make access to information easier" for people.
• The goal is to streamline government information and services through two main "supersites" -- Directgov (their portal for citizens) and Business Link.
• They expect considerable savings by cutting back on "vanity" sites that don't serve a useful purpose.
• Read more at:
  • BBC article
  • UK Annual Report
  • "Service transformation: A better service for citizens and businesses, a better deal for the taxpayer"

History and Strategic Context

• The process started about five years ago. Many people were talking about the proliferation of UK government sites and the confusion of government information and services on the Web.
• At the time, there were about 4,000 domain names in the .gov.uk registry. Some agencies maintained sites in other domains as well, such as .com or .org.
• There was increasing criticism among parliament members and in the press about the proliferation of websites, that the government was spending too much on government sites, and that efforts were uncoordinated.
• There was increasing concern in the e-government community that we wouldn’t be able to get citizens to the services they needed. If someone in the UK searched for “disability living allowance,” for example, they got all kinds of things—including the text of the legislation—instead of how to apply for assistance.
• The structure of the UK government—with each agency having autonomy for web content—contributed to the proliferation of information.
• The first step in addressing the issue was the creation of the DirectGov portal. The portal was always intended and designed to be the main citizen presence. They decided to start with some willing department agencies who could contribute content, rather than decide right away what to close down. DirectGov needed to prove itself first.
• As one successful example, we centralized driver and vehicle information, which was presented in one central place on DirectGov. Although the content was provided by individual departments, it was accessible in one location, under the DirectGov brand. People were now able to renew their car taxes online; we had a 30% increase in the number of people completing that service online. DirectGov now has about 5 million visitors a month.
• Then next phase involved the larger “Transformational Government” implementation plan, with a target date of 2011. This is an initiative to improve all forms of government communications, which included naming Harold James as head of government communications. As part of the Transformational Government plan, in November 2005, Sir David Varney, Cabinet Minister, gave a speech underlining the importance of migrating citizen-facing information to DirectGov and business information to the Business Link portal.
• The success of the BBC website served as a great model for selling the initiative to senior administrators in the UK government. The BBC had a disparate web presence, but they consolidated into one high quality, super-site. When we talked to ministers and referred to the success of the BBC sites, they clearly understood the benefits.
• DirectGov is now in the Top 100 most visited sites in the UK.

Implementation

• One of the first steps was to review all UK government sites and pick candidates for consolidation or elimination, with a completion deadline of November 2006. Ministers agreed that it was their responsibility to review government sites under their purview, and to do this through the Directors of Communication of each department.
• Ministers received guidance and a questionnaire to help them make determinations. They also received a “business case toolkit,” so each department could put together their own argument for keeping or eliminating websites.
• Individual issues (branding, funding, security, roles and responsibilities) were dealt with on a one-on-one basis.
• The Ministers and Directors of Communications developed a blueprint that categorized government websites into 8 large topic categories (for example, “environment,” “health”).
• The next phase is to continue to work with departments on the specified timelines. We need to ensure that sites get shut down as planned and reinsure that things will work the way they say they’ll work. We’ve drafted guidance for what to do if a new website is needed.

Key Learnings

• We’ve kept the needs of the customer and public at heart. This was the key driver for change.
• The best thing we did was engage the Directors of Communications. This was not an IT project. It’s about effective communications. The Directors of Communications had often been against proliferation. So it was key that they were the real drivers of change and pushed it forward. They were the strongest supporters and were the ones accountable for success.
• Each department was able to determine how to communicate with their own stakeholder groups. Although the UK Government’s CIO’s office provided overall guidance, each department developed their own, individualized plan to communicate with their stakeholder groups.
• There have been clear lines of communication and consultation throughout the project.
• Most meetings were held face-to-face with departments to build support. Issues with individual departments were dealt with proactively, openly, and honestly.
• We (Andrew, Emma, Tiffany, and our colleagues) played an honest broker role and helped facilitate decision making about which sites would be eliminated. But we didn’t have the power to decide—that was made by a nominated minister who had to make the case before the Treasury Board (the UK’s equivalent of OMB).
• For the initial implementation, we relied on a “cascade” method of communications, where departments were responsible for filtering communications downward through the organization. But that hasn’t been successful at all departments, so we may try a different approach in the next phase of implementation.
• When we had a public education campaign (such as stopping smoking), it was important to have coordination across all methods of communication so the public was hearing the same message. All communications from individual departments linked back to DirectGov as the central source for citizen-oriented information.
• The “backend” processes must work for the customer journey to be successful and for the government to meet the public’s expectations.
• Good communications and press coverage is important for engaging the public. This initiative was the lead story on BBC for a long time, which brought great visibility and public support.

Questions and Answers

Q: What criteria was used to shut down “vanity” sites?

A: The judgment was left open to the Director of Communications in each department. Generally, decisions were made on:

• amount of traffic
• effectiveness of the website in reaching their audience
• whether information is more easily found in other places
• whether websites are brands sustainable and worth investing in.

It’s important to clarify that sites weren’t just shut down and the content was gone. In most cases, customer-facing information was redirected to DirectGov because that’s where everyone is going. Content needs to go on the portal or people will miss it. If there’s extra content that doesn’t belong on DirectGov, we need to see if it’s still valid and warrants its own website. It’s been more of a convergence -- not just closing sites down for the sake of elimination.

Q: Did you take existing applications and migrate them into a new infrastructure or did you move them in as sort of linked, integrated system DirectGov? Since agencies have different funding streams, how did you overcome the traditional “vertical” funding stream issues that many governments face?

A: Most sites that will have their content redirected to DirectGov have static content. So the content just moved to the DirectGov or Business link portals. For transactional services (which are more complex), the transactions are still hosted back at the agency who owns that transaction. But the services are presented in one central, integrated location on DirectGov. So the car tax service looks like it’s part of DirectGov, but in fact the servers, payment engine, and other infrastructure resides at the individual department level.

For the next three years, the UK’s Treasury Board will provide central funding for DirectGov and initial consolidation. Savings from closing other sites are for departments to keep as long as they meet efficiency targets. We’re generally working within our existing budget, but moving funds around to the key priority areas.

Q: How was news of the initiative received, both by the public and by government agencies? Was there resistance from departments that were possessive about their websites?

A: Public reception has been incredibly positive. And critics who have been normally critical of the government can’t quite believe it. There was pushback among a small minority of folks in departments where communication wasn’t as effective and where they didn’t manage the stakeholders as well. But it was important to go through process, and ultimately the ministers approved the plan. We continued to communicate out to all agencies and stakeholders why the initiative is important. Nothing was announced by accident --- the list of 551 websites to be shut down or consolidated was checked four times to be sure it was accurate. While we needed to hear all views, we needed firmness in decision-making to move forward.

Q: How did you use web metrics—analyzing how visitors were using government websites—to support the initiative?

A: Yes, web metrics were taken into consideration. For example, if a site has high traffic, we need to be careful about how to move content since it will effect a lot of people. But more than specific data, we asked higher level questions, like: what content is on the site, what is the purpose of the site, who are you talking to? Answers to those questions were the most important factors in helping decide whether content should reside on the DirectGov portal, stay on the corporate departmental website, or be taken down.

Q: How much are you reducing content? Is most of it being migrated to the DirectGov or Business Link portals?

A: It’s hard to say exactly because the departments are doing their own content audits. But we know that the amount of content actually needed by citizens is far less than what’s currently out there. The goal is to get rid of duplication. There are folks at the DirectGov portal who are looking at a government-wide information architecture that is manageable.

Q: Do you have a “standards” website that you refer your web folks to, so they begin to create greater consistency across government websites? For example, standard templates, processes, etc?

A: We don’t have standard templates per se, but we have general guidelines that we can share with you. For example, we have a domain policy. We also have accessibility standards and language use guidelines. DirectGov does have limited design templates that are enforced through the CMS.

For the nuts and bolts of running a site, we refer to the corporate departmental websites (like the site for the Department of Energy or Education) to set those.

Q: Do you use your CMS to manage government-wide content and if so, how do you keep an agile response when using a CMS?

A: Some folks have expressed concern about “quashing” information if there was one big CMS. However, although we have a central CMS with certain rules, the content creation and editing is still done and provided by individual departments. The folks at DirectGov don’t vet the content before it’s posted. But all the contributors have to follow a strict style guide.

Q: How many content contributors do you have for DirectGov?

A: Each department that contributes content has what is called a “franchise team.” Right now, there are 17 departments with 16 franchises. There are generally two editors on each team. The CMS (which is Stellent based) allows for a capacity of 500 simultaneous content contributors.

Q: How much training have you had to do?

A: We’ve adopted the “train the trainer” approach. So we train a couple folks from each department on how to manage content in the CMS and they go back to their agencies and train others.

Q: Who was the real driver behind the initiative? Was it the prime minister or some other senior official who called for change or was it more of a grassroots effort?

A: It’s hard to point to a single person. The initiative is something that folks have been talking about for a long time. But one reason we were able to make real progress in the last year was that a critical mass of political leaders were engaged, including cabinet ministers. There were also a number of public service leaders and business leaders who believed it was the right thing to do. In addition, the Head of Government Communications supported it as part of a wider government communications transformation. The key was getting all these folks to sign up to a coherent program that contributed to their strategic goals.

Q: Have you involved local governments?

A: We’re in the process of considering how to involve them. There are 400 local authorities in the UK, all of whom use the .gov.uk domain. They’re known for their fierce independence. We link to the local government websites from DirectGov. Citizens can put in their zip code and their requested service and it will send them to the correct website within the local authority. So there’s potential to do more with local governments.

Q: How long has this process taken? Has most of the consolidation already happened? How much behind the scenes work did you do to get support? How long was it between getting the green light and having the news hit the press last week?

A: People started this process five years ago, when they expressed concern about the proliferation of government websites. There were lots of false starts when we tried to do it by central dictate. We were also probably ahead of our time back then. But when we put it on the agenda of the Transformational Government plan in March 2006, it really started to pick up pace and make process. The plan to consolidate was proposed to cabinet ministers in March 2006 and over several months we got each of their backing.

It took ten months or so to get decisions from about half of the government websites, and about two or three months to actually get the initial content moved. But we’re still in the process of consolidating and eliminating sites. There was a lot more progress made in the last four months than in the first four. It helped tremendously that DirectGov was already in place and well-known and was viewed as the place where it should all happen.

This is just the beginning. Much of the consolidation still needs to be done. But we have momentum now since this is the first time that it’s really hit the public’s conscience.

Q: If most of the citizen-oriented content is being consolidated on DirectGov, what content is retained for “corporate departmental” sites?

Corporate departmental sites are the sites that exist only to provide information about individual departments (like a Department of Education or a Department of Health website). These types of sites would have information about the mission of the department, speeches from the cabinet minister, the department’s operating budget, and other “corporate” information.

To help decide what to keep on departmental sites and what to migrate to the DirectGov portal, we organized content into three tiers: Tier 1 (citizen information, including frequently asked questions), Tier 2, and Tier 3. Tier 2 and 3 content generally will reside on departmental sites, because they are lower priority to the average person.

Q: What percentage of the population is aware of, and uses, DirectGov? What kind of communications and outreach strategy do you have to increase visibility?

We don’t have a specific campaign. But when the announcement was made last week about consolidation, we had over a million visits, which was a very good peak. We spend a lot of time on customer insight -- knowing what the public wants. We track audience satisfaction. And on each public education and awareness campaign, we track how much people use DirectGov to get their information. We can share that data.

Q: How did you determine the eight large categories (topics) that are used to organize government-wide content via DirectGov?

We developed the concept of a lead agency (franchise) for each topic or audience segment. For example, there’s a lead agency on money, another one on disabilities, etc. One department takes overall leadership for that subject and delegates production of content to other departments.

So we don’t rely just on a large CMS that houses sub-sites. We carry topics and themes throughout the DirectGov site. For example, for disability information, the information comes from many different sites. The lead department has overall responsibility for alignment of that content, to carry through the theme or market segment. The lead department can commission new content to be created where there is a need and can identify where there is duplicate or contradictory content. The lead agency that runs the franchise negotiates with other departments to get content taken down when necessary.

Closing Comments

The exercise is about making the UK government websites more customer-focused, more effective, and more coherent. The project was not undertaken just for the purpose of closing websites. We believe that ultimately, this convergence of government information will allow the public to have better access to government information and services.

We have much to learn from the UK experience and will send additional resources to Forum members that were referenced during the call. We didn’t have an opportunity to discuss whether the UK model is something we should replicate in the U.S. This is an important topic that we can hopefully address in a future Forum call and also at our annual workshop.

Next Forum Call and Reminders

• Next month’s call is on Thursday, February 15, 2007, from 11 am – 12 pm EST. If you have suggestions for the agenda, please contact Sheila Campbell at Sheila.campbell@gsa.gov.
• Don’t forget to check the schedule for Web Manager University and be ready to sign up once registration opens the week of January 22.