Personalization of the Public Sector Web

1
Personalization of the Public Sector Web

• By John OLooney, Ph.D.
• Carl Vinson Institute of Government

2
Overview

• Key Attributes of personalization
• Survey Respondents
• Respondents Community Capacity
• Public managers views on Personalization

3
Attributes of Personalization

• ability of an Internet web site or service to be
  shaped or re-shaped so as to better meet the
  individual needs or wants of a user.
  Personalized services can potentially provide a
  number of benefits such as
• shorter search time
• automated reminders of the need to attend to
  something,
• user-centered information delivery
• suggestions for ways that one can better access
  and use services,
• streamlining of application and transaction
  processing
• the ability to cull relevant information from
  across the Internet

4
Personalized services could take into
consideration ones

• status (e.g., as a parent, taxpayer, land owner,
  business owner),
• condition (e.g., being impoverished, being
  behind on a payments, being due for a license
  renewal)
• environment (e.g., living in a neighborhood where
  crime has just gone up, living next door to
  someone who has requested a zoning change)
• interests (e.g., in joining a softball team,
  inbeing kept abreast of commission meeting times)
  
• behavior (e.g., a recent series of clicks on web
  pages, images, and links)
• similarity to others.

5
Personalization and Policy Practice

• Importance of privacy protections
• Importance of functional area
• Sources of Profile Information
• Outside sources of Content
• Control over Personalization
• Administrative, technical, and policy barriers to
  personalization

6
Respondents
7
Respondent Type
8
Government Web Capabilities
9
Government Web Capabilities
10
Government Web Capabilities
11
Government Web Capabilities
12
Government Web Capabilities
13
Government Web Capabilities
14
Government Web Capabilities
15
Privacy
Mean Response Related to Importance of Privacy
Mechanisms  

16
Privacy

• Over publication
• No ability to keep a profile private

17
Privacy Implications

• If these managers see only the barrier side of
  citizens views and do not also perceive a desire
  on the part of citizens to benefit from
  personalized services, these managers may fail to
  undertake Internet development projects that
  could potentially provide a new level of service
  while also meeting citizens demands for privacy
  protection.

18
Key Assumption

• Respondents were told to assume the highest
  levels of privacy protectionall the protections
  specified.

19
Functional Areas
... eligibility assessments for social services
and automated referrals to programs. ...
notification based on issue interests of upcoming
policy hearings, council meetings, and on-line
political discussions. ... life-episode
information (e.g., having a baby, gaining/losing
a job, dealing with crime, buying a home, failing
in school, etc.). ... policy/political issue
briefings. ... reminders of upcoming elections,
jury duty, court appearance, bill due dates,
license renewals, etc. ... information on fellow
citizens with interests similar to yours. ...
information about how best to prepare for
handle fires and other emergency situations
(e.g., based on home construction type, family
composition, specific vulnerabilities, etc.).
... information about leisure service
opportunities.  
20
Functional Areas
... information about how to maximize employment,
business or professional development
opportunities (e.g., based on matching skill
information, business opportunities, and economic
data). Customized information about how to reduce
tax liabilities. ... information about government
planning, zoning, and development based on
address and citizen interest. ... information
about volunteer service opportunities. ...
information about educational services
opportunities.
21
Function and Personalization

• Fairly substantial differences in support for
  personalization in the different functions of
  government.
• Highest Support for functions
• at the core of government operation (e.g.,
  emergency management, political duties,
  planning/zoning),
• required by state or federal open meetings and
  records acts (e.g., notification of hearings and
  meetings),
• viewed as non-controversial (e.g., volunteer
  opportunities).
•  
• Lower Support for functions
• Related to personal development
• Citizens interests
• tepid support for personalization of services
  such as recreation or business and employment
  services
• lowest level of support for personalization
  related to personal and community (or social
  capital) development (e.g.,information about
  fellow citizens who have common interests with
  ones own interests or life episode
  information)

22
Outside information resources
Private sector personalization of services has
frequently included the provision of information
from multiple sourcesthe syndication model of
the web.
23
Sources of Profile Information
 
24
Profile Sources
 
25
Outside Source
26
Outside Sources
27
Sample Outside Sources Mean2.7
Degree to Which Gov. Should Make Available Links
to Issue Specific Public Forums
1Very Often5Never
70
59
56
60
50
38
30
40
25
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
28
Implications
Successful web sites are ones that provide a
broad range of services and that support multiple
on-line electronic communities of citizens
interests, needs for transaction and service, and
desires to exercise their imaginations---
Armstrong and Hagel (1996) Butpublic managers
may place limitations on themselves as the
breadth of servicesparticularly personalized
servicethey are willing for government to
provide.
29
Citizen Control
30
Citizen Control
31
Government Control
32
Government Control
33
Implications
Public managers support full citizen-controlled
personalization, but also, though to a lesser
degree, support governments being able present
citizens with opposing points of view. .public
managers may not thought deeply about this
subject or fully explored the assumptions
underlying specific policy proposals.
34
Possible Barriers

• Existing confidentiality and privacy requirements
• Citizen sentiments regarding the use of personal
  information
• Lack of technical expertise
• The diversity of data formats and architectures
• The number and diversity of programs and
  jurisdictions
• The lack of sufficient authority to gather or use
  the information needed
• Financial costs associated with personalization

35
Barriers to Personalization

• Most salient barriers across all five functional
  areas
•          Existing confidentiality and privacy
  requirements
•          Citizen sentiments regarding the use of
  personal information
•          Financial costs associated with
  personalization
•  
• The social services and personal development
  fields were most often mentioned as being
  impacted by barriers to personalization
• Business/land use and policy issues were least
  often mentioned as being impacted by these
  barriers

36
Implications

• Need for a focus on administrative and policy
  issues.
• Conventional wisdom has said that the lack of
  technical expertise is the most common barrier,
  but a larger than expected percentage of
  respondents (i.e., 53 on average) indicated that
  technical expertise was not a barrier