Rethinking how technology helps and hurts those we serve.

Consider these: Examining information technology from the perspective of how it can enable and hinder the experiences citizens have when interacting with government. When is technology a barrier and when can it be a critical part of improving service delivery? What are the human factors for assessing technologies and why do IT issues transcend just the technology parts of the agency?

Open any textbook on the subject of information technology, or better yet, consult Wikipedia and search for "punch cards" and you will quickly realize why cartoonists and comedians have historically relegated it to that forgotten storage closet or windowless office down the hall. For what can be less human than a black screen with glowing green letters that require knowledge of cryptic codes to accomplish anything?

How Times Have Changed

Information technology is now, more than ever, about empowerment and community involvement. Social media tools, such as Twitter, Facebook, Wikis and LinkedIn make possible the previously unimaginable. Today, administrators do not create content. Instead, information is community-generated and consumed by anybody willing to reach out and engage. This new model changes the way information is communicated and enables the development of widespread communities.

Why is this Important For Human Service Agencies?

Technology choices, for better or worse, affect how we work together to deliver human services to those in need; promoting collaboration, openness and transparency or propagating information silos, inefficiencies and disengagement. These decisions cannot be made purely based on technical dialogue. Instead, the designs of systems need to permeate discussions on the strategies and missions of agencies across stakeholders.

This concept is applied more broadly in the book "Nudge" by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein, in which they introduce the concept of a "choice architect" - anyone who has "the responsibility for organizing the context in which people make decisions." In human service agencies, choice architects span those who design how services are offered online, over the phone and in person as well as those who select the tools used by staff in helping citizens gain access to services. Technology is merely a tool. Used effectively, it can enhance engagement, collaboration and empower those who need help the most. Used ineffectively, hard to navigate web sites, siloed staff applications and binary capture input screens remove the human element from assessing a case and hinder the true mission of the agency.

Put another way: we intuitively know that agency offices should have a clearly marked entrance. Barriers that prevent citizens from entering should be removed. The same principles apply when considering the technological equivalent of this scenario. A web site or service staff portal that is confusing to use could be likened to setting a maze in front of your agency's entryway.

So how do you evaluate technology to ensure that the investments you make predispose staff and communities to work together to best serve those in need?

Consider three key concepts that I have seen used successfully to achieve these objectives: transparency, participation and collaboration. Each one of these pillars of President Obama's Open Government Initiative is an important human factor to consider in IT system design. Let's take a look at each in more detail.

First, to embrace transparency in service delivery, we must ensure that citizens can easily find, use and trust the information that is communicated. Anyone who has signed mortgage papers knows that just because information is provided does not mean it is understandable and accessible. Likewise, agency transparency does not mean a dump of all your records. Rather, it is a thoughtful consideration of the content being communicated and the most effective way to understanding.

Sometimes it can be simple. For example, the Government Printing Office delivered the 2010 annual budget in a certified electronic format so that any citizen can access it, search for relevant line items from any computer, whether in their own home or in a public venue such as a library or community center. Providing information and services online opens the door not only for direct citizen access, but also empowers others in local communities to help those for whom computer access is a barrier (we sometimes forget that in-person services also face barriers such as lack of transportation, long lines or inconvenient office hours). In the case of the 2010 budget, access to the paper version of the budget comes with a price tag of $73 along with delays of processing and shipment. Besides the use of electronic documents for disseminating information, it may require using graphs, videos and blogs to convey richer meaning.

Inherent in the characteristics of transparency in today's world is also immediacy: how quickly can we notify individuals about approval for their services or the reasons for denial. The bar is set higher now thanks to services such as Amazon.com, which notify consumers with easily understood e-mails about the status of purchases in transit and even provide real-time tracking of packages. This is only part of the picture. Such immediacy of outbound communication requires consideration of how to streamline data capture at the onset of a process. If we can use technology to further consumerism, should we not also use it to communicate the status of the most critical of government services?

Second, technology can help induce participation through intuitive and engaging experiences. Take the Apple iPod. It does what every other mp3 player does: play music. However, its unique design and easy-to-use interface helped make it a runaway consumer favorite. What if we could harness this thinking for human service programs with much higher stakes--child welfare programs, citizen participation in programs that help rebuild families and community-wide mobilization efforts? Engaging experiences are not isolated to agency staff. They also extend to the design of the technology and interfaces that greet citizens when they visit your web site; aid service staff to help citizens with a multitude of programs when they call in; and arm social workers with the mobile information technologies needed to quickly find and capture relevant case information. Facebook is successful and engaging because it puts people at its core and designs information and interactions around them.

Badly designed solutions have far-reaching consequences, even beyond lack of participation. There is no greater illustration than the 2000 U.S. presidential election results in Palm Beach County, Fla., which led to the need for the U.S. Supreme Court to determine the election's outcome in Gore v. Bush. According to a bipartisan commission investigating the causes of the election fiasco, the primary culprit of confusion was bad design. The infamous Palm Beach Florida butterfly ballot was so counter-intuitive that close to 9,000 voters were unable to adequately distinguish the choice between Pat Buchanan and Al Gore. Poor design was enough to affect the outcome of the election.

Similarly, how many constituents are confused when enrolling for services? Are there better ways to equip public servants who may currently go through months or years of training in order to perform counterintuitive gymnastics through poorly designed technical jungles? We need to elevate the dialogue of technology from the depths of technical bits and bytes to evaluate it against human factors. Projects from the onset need to be designed to support program missions and act as a check against technical systems that looks good in on paper, but do little to support serving those in need. Make it a priority instead of an afterthought.

Finally, today's technologies provide rich opportunities to enhance collaborative, multi-way dialogues regardless of time and place. We have all sat in annual conferences discussing how better decisions and cross-program support could be provided to families in need if representatives from several agencies could get into one room for a discussion. Alas, challenges of disparate locations, time and costs are often cited as barriers to such collaboration. Web conferencing, chat and social networks have started to fill these gaps. However, to drive adoption--the cornerstone of successful collaboration--technology must be non-intrusive and help people work together naturally.

This does not mean the technical intricacies do not have merit, just that on their own they cannot solve inherently people-oriented challenges. Human factors should be at the forefront. For example, consider issues such as ease of use, complex software downloads, and creation of an environment that works for all collaborators, not just technical IT staff. Each of these affects the experience of public servants who contribute to the most comprehensive service delivery for citizens.

Without a doubt, we live in a time of great IT innovation and excitement that has the potential to connect us and enhance our abilities to serve those most in need. However, technology is not a panacea for improved social service delivery. In fact, when design and development do not take into account how people interact with and gain access to critical services, systems can confuse, and sometimes become barriers. However, by understanding the needs of those we serve and presenting information in a way people can easily understand and act on, technology can help us provide the public with broadest access to critical benefits and services.

Evaluating technology based on how well it supports transparency, induces participation and enables collaboration will ensure that systems predispose agencies toward accountability and excellence in service delivery.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates