Conceptual Model for an Electronic Shared Workspace

The Concept of a Shared Workspace

17 An electronic shared workspace is best described as a software application where a group of authorised users can have access to a common set of information (e.g. databases); common functions (e.g. shared calendars; project management); and can carry out a range of interactive transactions (e.g. e-mail; editing documents).

18 In the context of this paper, shared policy workspace is an application where policy staff can enter and use the workspace on the following basis:

• all government agencies can use the workspace application

• common databases (e.g. legislation; Cabinet minutes; statistics, estimates) could be available to all government users on the basis of general authorisation. Similarly, all government users could have general access to shared information bulletin boards

• designated users within an agency (e.g. policy managers and advisors) can enter specified policy project areas within the workspace and use the functions available according to individually allocated access rights

• not all users of the policy project area will have equal access rights. These will depend on the role of the user in relation to particular pieces of policy work. For example, designated project managers can control final documents, and restrict editing rights to designated project team members only

• each policy project area will have individually specified access allocations to accommodate the nature of the policy work; the number of agencies involved in its development; and the particular outcome to be delivered

• policy work that is department/ agency specific (i.e. does not involve other departments in its development) can be developed on local systems, rather than the shared workspace application. The final papers, or associated working papers, could be provided on the government workspace database, at the discretion of the chief executive.

19 An electronic shared workspace is about creating virtual spaces that provide either adequate substitutes, or enhancements, to physical places and current tools. In the context of the public policy making process, a virtual space is not expected to replace the need, at times, for face-to-face interaction. However, it does have the potential, over time, to reduce the amount of physical meetings and to facilitate a greater level of interaction and involvement of policy analysts across the sector. It could also facilitate an improved level of involvement of people located outside of Wellington.

20 A 'virtual' policy team's ability to work effectively and efficiently is strongly linked to the adequacy of the technology available; its competent use; and the willingness of users to work both with the technology, and each other. In much the same way as any other project, overall effectiveness of a workspace will come down to how well the team functions and the clarity it establishes around roles, responsibilities and processes.

21 To develop a clear conceptual model the Project Team focused on exploring the potential for enhancing policy-making processes and examining the benefits that could be derived from a greater use of technology in crosscutting policy initiatives. The Project Team therefore deliberately avoided designing an electronic shared workspace around specific technology solutions. We have nevertheless explored at a high level the functionality that such solutions will need to address.

22 An electronic shared workspace is a place where a group of authorised users [all government agencies], supported by appropriate software applications, can have access to:

• common sets of information (e.g. databases)

• common functions (e.g. shared calendars & project management tools)

• a range of interactive facilities (e.g. e-mail & track and trace editing tools).

23 The software application will enable:

• a common set of project management tools and templates

• an information base (e.g. legislation, Cabinet minutes, estimates, statistical data) to be stored, accessed and updated. Access would be on the basis of general authorisation to all government users

• links to relevant websites and contacts. For example, international experts in a particular research or specialty area

• access for all government users to shared information bulletin boards and project information such as terms of reference and contact points

• designated users (e.g. policy managers and advisers) to use the functions available according to individually allocated access rights within particular project workspaces

• banded access rights depending on the role of the user in relation to particular pieces of policy work. For example, the lead agency policy manager or project manager would define the core team, the extended network, and any experts and/or support people and their levels of access. The project manager would also control final documents, and restrict editing rights to designated project team members only

• specification of access allocations to accommodate the nature of the policy work; the number of agencies involved in its development; and the particular outcome to be delivered.

24 The design of the shared policy workspace also needs to take account of the interests of both public and government stakeholders. The software application needs to be sufficiently flexible to allow for external stakeholders, or interested parties, to view selected documents (e.g. terms of reference, discussion papers). This public space could also be used for generating and receiving public submissions.

25 In technological terms, the functionality required for this concept includes a common interface and architecture; a portal to all projects; and inter-project links and dependencies. We also propose that common systems administration is required for ensuring security standards, user set-up, and any other standard technical requirements.

26 Two 'snapshots' of an electronic shared workspace are illustrated below. The first illustrates the overall conceptual model and the second looks at the model from a project perspective.

Overall Conceptual Model

27 The 'virtual' policy campus would enable four potential tiers, with levels of security accorded on the basis of those tiers:

1. First tier - secure project space: the project manager would establish the workspace, and confirm the membership of the project team. The project team workspace would be a secure environment only accessible by the team members

2. Second tier - specified stakeholders access: government and authorised external users (e.g. consultants working on the project, or subject experts). These stakeholders would have access controlled by the project manager

3. Third tier - government staff: At this level, officials could access project terms of reference; post and receive notices; read discussion papers; and access general information such as job vacancies and training courses. Information portal facilities would also be available

4. Fourth tier - members of the general public: Interest groups and other groups, or individuals, could obtain information about policy initiatives and notices of the release of discussion papers, as well as calls for submissions. The functionality of this area could potentially also enable interest groups, and members of the public, to make online submissions.

28 Several projects could operate within the electronic shared workspace at any given time. Each will be completely separate and secure from any other. Once a project has been established, the lead agency project manager would set up the project's shared workspace, and determine user rights and levels of access for team members, participating departments, and other stakeholders (i.e. external and/or government). 'Other stakeholders' would be those parties who have a specific interest and/or contribution to make to the policy under development. They would have more limited access and user rights than the project team members who would operate in a totally secure environment.

29 Within the project workspace, team members would be able to use the tools and resources as illustrated, i.e. discussion area, project library, planner and facilities for meeting online, and for the preparation and editing of documents. They would have access to an external information portal that would hold frequently used sets of data and published information. It would also provide a web-based search engine for accessing international literature, and linking to relevant research sites, other jurisdictions' government sites, and/or selected specialist contacts.

Functionality and technical implications

30 This second view of the electronic shared workspace illustrates some of the anticipated functionality of the restricted project team space.

31 To effectively introduce an electronic shared workspace within the public policy environment requires technology that is easy to access and use, supported by a reliable help line. It will also need inbuilt flexibility, and be compatible with other standard technologies deployed in departments. The workspace itself will rely on good security, especially for sensitive material and budget information. It will also need to be capable of verifying electronically that consultation has occurred; provide for the authorisation of papers; and have the capability of tracing security breaches.

32 While a detailed definition of user needs was not the brief of this project, the policy managers and analysts we consulted also nominated the following as being important aspects of functionality:

• ability to track versions of documents

• flags to project team members when there is something on site they may wish to access, or when input by them is required

• facility for agencies to register 'key words' indicating interest in particular areas, or subjects

• notification system for agencies, or identified individuals (positions) within agencies, when new information is available

• identification mechanism for core project groups, and various stakeholder groups

• ability for a wider stakeholder group to have access to information generated

• identifiers for each project team to protect access to its specified, independent working space

• capability for deliberative processes (including involving citizens/ public) at the early stage of the policy development

• decision-support processes - e.g. voting facility to unblock entrenched positions

• e-mail set up for a position rather than an individual to avoid delays.

33 These user needs, together with the conceptual model of an electronic shared workspace suggest that the technological solution will need to incorporate:

Content/ document management

• version control of documents

• graduated access controls

• notification systems for input and new information

Knowledge management

• static repositories of core government information databases

• links to relevant websites and contacts

Search/ retrieval functions

• integrated access route to repositories of government information

• ability to search more efficiently (than surfing internet) for articles & publications

• word & topic search facilities

• subscription channels that enable tailored access to information and can flag new literature/information on given topics.

Project management

• shared calendar

• meetings notification

• meetings-on-line

• project planning & control functions

• standard templates for project documentation

• project reporting mechanisms.

If there is support for the implementation of an electronic shared workspace, the Project Team recommends that the model illustrated here be adopted, and that the technical solution takes account of the user needs described in this paper.

[ Previous | Next ]