As for Govt 2.0, frankly there’s a lot of govt work that you don’t want to see, in the sense that it’s utterly boring. I support govt web services but I don’t really want to be in a ‘community’ with the Tax Office (though I know some nice people who work there).

Depending on your politics, I’d argue there’s also a lot of govt work they don’t really want you to see, eg, lobbying and funding. But there’s way more of the plain boring stuff.

That said, I also know a number of very motivated and very smart people in government agency web units who are stifled less by themselves and more by organisational inertia and management resistance to change and the introduction of new approaches and exploitation of new opportunities. Eventually this will change. Until then, things unfortunately need to be done under the radar and gradually to encourage change.

What I would be doing along with that is identifying what I had a hand in that was done right on the project, that I wasn’t listened to where I identified issues (if I did) and potential solutions to those issues and ultimately the lessons I took out of the project.

Every project, even the disasters, has the potential to be a valuable learning experience and people will respect you for being prepared to identify with that.

While gov’t personel just flop from dept to dept and no real incentive to push new ideas why rock the boat right?

Just my opinion in passing. Some people will do a “get and sit” in their jobs if there’s no incentive to try to improve. The first thing gov’t need are new blood coming in rather than just passing old hands around. Its simply about bringing in change agents and new blood.

Web 2.0 Gov’t sounds good but my point is the people mostly in positions to push that through are either “get and sit” or not IT in the first place.

Would you admit to being a part of that team, if you were?

PS - I’m a designer, not a usability tester ;)

Just because your using an iterative approach, doesn’t mean you users are going to be combating constant change

Often on projects the developers are quite isolated from their users, communicating thought a PM ‘interface’ which limits their chance to develop an broad understanding and come up with smart solutions. The silo approach is so 1990’s.

Solving those niggling problems elegantly can make a big difference on a project. That doesn’t mean taking a cowboy approach, but often just fixing these kind of problems can saves a lot of time and raises team moral. Never underestimate team moral.

Striking the right balance is important. The tools we work with have improved dramatically in the last 10 years. A different project management approach is required than was used in the days of predominately C++ development.

There are those that think its satisfactory to spend three years building a system spec’d out by business process consultants that never talked to the people who would actually use the app, and then give the people at the sharp end a day’s training on the new system by someone that didn’t write, and will never use, it.

That’s one approach to change management. absolutely. Those that are resistant to change know best, and we should do everything we can to support their needs.

But I am a tad surprised that an expert in usability testing is apparently keen to defend the status quo in public sector IT delivery. If you think its working Donna, good on you. But I would like to see my taxes better spent, with public sector employees happier and less shat on. Waterfall, and massive upgrades just don’t work. The proof is by experience.

Andrew- have you ever used Facebook? There are plenty of things not to like about it is “a truly humane web 2.0 output that fills a human need while being cognisant of human frailties”. If the public sector could begin to deliver a fraction of Facebook’s usability to employees and citizens we’d all be in much better shape.