8. Summary

The questions posed in the introduction to this report underpin the entire project. Given the extent of their coverage in the body of the report, they need only summarising here.

How do New Zealanders interact with government in their daily lives, either as individuals and citizens, or in relation to their roles in the workplace?

A wide range of New Zealanders, from different socioeconomic backgrounds, and from many different sectors in society were interviewed for the study. The amount of contact they had with government was very dependent on their personal circumstances, and their role in society. For most people not dependant on benefits, their contact is limited to routine tasks motivated by compliance with government regulations—filing tax returns, licensing of motor vehicles, animals, drivers, or fire-arms etc., or prompted by temporary issues in their daily lives (e.g. travel plans, children's school projects, or current events). If they have a personal interest in social issues (such as education or conservation) they are more likely to seek information about these issues online, looking for information and policy documents. People with a deeper concern about such issues, who see themselves as 'advocates' for a particular cause are even more active in seeking this kind of information. Such groups include the disabilities groups, and the Māori and Pacific people we interviewed. Students, superannuitants, sickness and other beneficiaries have an additional need to contact WINZ, but their other contact with government agencies is little different from the dominant patterns. Two other main groups have higher use than average of government web sites. These are business groups (especially the Wellington business group), and students, whose studies may give rise to the need to find government information.

What government information and services have they used, either online or through more traditional channels, and how do they view those experiences?

Section 2 of the report highlights the government agencies contacted by participants in the study, and the agencies most used. (Appendix E lists specific issues.) All those interviewed, whether they are experienced computer users, and high users of government information, or have little contact with government, used a variety of channels for that contact, relying on the telephone as well as face-to-face contact to supplement any use of web sites. All channels interact—phone use might lead to following instructions to locate information on the web, or web site use might lead to a phone contact, or a need for personal contact to follow up. Their information seeking is based on their preferences and experiences. Use of government sites has not altered their information seeking or understanding of what is available through these sites.

Apart from three groups—the Wellington business community, which was in daily contact with government, and using government web sites to exchange data and tender for contracts; some other individuals who were also contractors tendering on the web; or people isolated in some way by distance—few respondents had much knowledge of services on the web, or much interest in taking up any services available. They are unaware of the full potential of e-government and all that the government provides on web sites. They think of the sites as only providing contact and basic information, which they may need to confirm or supplement through other channels.

How they felt about their experiences of contacting government was dependant on a number of factors—their success in accessing the information sought, the time and difficulty of accessing it, and the extent to which they felt 'valued' in the process. The focus on personal contact suggests a view of government as a collection of public servants rather than an impersonal entity or a monolithic portal. While the web per se does not add value to their interaction with government, they are appreciative of the convenience of being able to access information at any time, and from anywhere, and of the amount of information that is now available to them. This favourable view is greatly enhanced in the case of those with special needs, such as rural people, the business community with its daily contact with government, and people with disabilities.

How do they locate the government information and services they use?

Unless they had regular contact with a particular government agency—for work, study, or personal reasons—the majority of respondents have little idea of which agency they might need to contact, or how the department is internally structured. If they have some idea of the likely URL they will try this, but the majority find which department they want, or the information they want, by using a search engine. Google was the most commonly used, although MSN featured more in the observed walk-throughs because of the home page the exercise started from. The telephone directory, (blue or white pages) is also a common way of identifying which agency they might need, or which section of a department.

Has access to the Internet changed the way in which they seek government information and services?

Most respondents did not make high use of government web sites, and felt their use was not increasing at present, largely because they had no increasing need to contact government. Only in the high use groups was there a dramatic change in the way they made contact, and interacted with government, as a result of the advent of the Internet. However, there were some cases in which agencies use incentives (Companies Office) or persuasion (WINZ) to get people to make more use of their web sites, and there was some interest among respondents in greater use of financial incentives for this purpose.

What barriers, if any, does the public encounter in seeking government information and services both online and through traditional channels?

Barriers to the use of government information online are defined in detail in section 5

of the report. They were defined there in five categories: physical (i.e. technical and infrastructure), skills-based, attitudinal, content-based and web page design and architecture. In addition, lack of knowledge that the information is there, and where to seek it, inhibits use.

How might barriers be overcome?

There are several measures that respondents suggested, or that emerged in other ways from the study to overcome these barriers. These are best addressed under the five categories:

• Physical infrastructure: participants believed that the government could do much more to promote access to the Internet for geographically isolated or socially or economically deprived communities, helping fund groups or individuals to get computers, eliminating charges in libraries for Internet access when people were only accessing government sites, doing more to develop broadband access in rural areas, and finding some way for access to government sites to be on some form of free access code, as with 0800 telephone numbers.
• Skills-based: respondents suggested that as well as web sites being better designed for ease of use, with user needs to the fore, they could also contain more online assistance, and guidance on the web sites themselves. They would welcome more publicity on government on the web, more information about the portal, and more generally available assistance on search skills, and the best way to access government on the web. Attention could also be paid to the role the phone book plays in helping people identify which government department does what, what part of the department they need to contact, and what e-mail and web addresses of various sections are.
• Attitudinal: this was not an area where one might expect much change. Given the preference of many for a mixture of channels through which to communicate with government, the best strategy might be to accept the Internet as one among many channels, and take care not to place too heavy a reliance on online information at the expense of telephone-based information services, or print-based alternatives. Measures to reassure people that information provided (or even the fact of their accessing a web site) was treated as confidential would be welcomed, and awareness among agencies that they should use techniques such as blind carbon copy to send out messages to groups could be fostered.
• Content-based: protocols that required all information on a web site to be dated would assure users of the currency of content. The desire for links between agencies (if necessary to sites outside government), would be helpful and lead to less of an impression that departments are "buried in their silos" as one participant commented, and not part of "the whole of government". Polling users to establish what information they seek (especially capturing the views of those who leave without finding what they want) would help agencies focus their web site development on user needs.
• Information architecture: users overwhelmingly wanted cleaner, clearer sites with better navigation aids, and simple language, and fewer large chunks of text. They seek better use of colour to help distinguish major navigation points, and headings, and larger font sizes. They would prefer text to be in html, scannable, and searchable rather than in pdf format. They want forms that are easier to fill in online and to be able to submit them online. Overall they wanted a user perspective built into the site, and not arranged and using language based on the departmental priorities. Better compliance with the W3C and New Zealand Government Web Guidelines [http://www.e-government.govt.nz/docs/web-guidelines-2-1/index.html.] , with more understanding of the difficulties that people with disabilities face, would remove some additional barriers for the disabled community. Sites which attract approval from users (e.g. the DOC site, or MAF) could be used as examples of good web site design. A method to identify problems with architecture and navigation would be transactional log analysis of user behaviour while searching a site.

Do they consider the government portal (http://www.govt.nz) as a way to overcome obstacles to the receipt of government information and services?

The majority of users simply do not know of or make use of the portal, and those that have tried it do not return to it, or build it into their search strategy. Those that accidentally alight on it are unaware where they are, and do not find it easy to get from the portal to the site they want, because of the lack of live links, and the tendency of the portal to try to provide information directly, and duplicate information on agency web sites. When the idea is explained to people they approve of the concept, but the portal clearly does not meet needs in the way that was intended. Consequently, the portal therefore needs to be re-examined, and probably redesigned.

How much trust and confidence does the public place in the information and services that the government provides on the Internet?

The public do not seem to have any lower perception of trust and confidence in government information and services than they do of either government information and services generally, or the Internet itself. Although responses on this issue were generally positive, those that have suspicions of how government manages their personal information transfer that suspicion to Internet based services. Only in certain groups, with particular grounds for suspecting lack of attention to their cultural needs (e.g. Māori and Pacific peoples), were additional concerns raised.

What factors affect their levels of trust and confidence?

Trust and confidence were dependant on general levels of trust in the 'bureaucracy' independent of a person's judgement of the government in power. Most people put mistakes in information supplied down to human error and incompetence, rather than anything more sinister. Assurances over the currentness of information, and a willingness to indicate who could be contacted raised levels of trust and confidence about information sought. Being treated courteously, and having their individuality respected was an important factor in building confidence in people's relations with government agencies (this is shown clearly in negative statements made about WINZ services both on and offline).

Do they distinguish between trust in the Internet as a secure means of accessing information and services in general and trust in government web sites for the information and services provided?

These issues are largely answered in the summaries above, and in the text of the report, section 6. Positive perceptions of government in terms of integrity of transactions affected responses on this issue. People do not believe the government agencies would send spam, or willingly allow private information to be onsold to a third party. However, they were more inclined to believe that through naivety or incompetence there might be breaches of privacy or security at times. This was not a major concern. Some concern was expressed about the need to know the authority behind information on the web, and whether print formats took precedence over web material. A related issue concerned the need to find outdated material that might be evidence supporting a past decision. The lack of any established process for archiving material removed from government web pages, or any accessible public archive was a concern to many.

Do demographic characteristics (e.g. personal, educational, cultural, and geographic) influence responses to the previous questions?

To the extent that people in different occupations, and in different socioeconomic groups, or with different levels of dependency through disability, sickness or lack of employment opportunities have different needs of government, this is reflected in the use shown. From those with minimal contact, to the business group with daily contact with government, there are clear differences in frequency of use, need for specific content and services, and expertise and confidence in accessing and using government on the web. The major motivators emerging from this study are therefore the role(s) that a person is currently playing: as taxpayer, parent, business person, advocate, activist, Māori, contractor or consultant to government etc. rather than the more obvious demographic differences. (See Figure 4.) The second major motivator is personal preference for certain styles of communication, and lifestyle choices.

Figure 4. Public's Perspectives of Their Roles in Relation to E-government

Figure 4 also shows that the public identifies government on the Internet largely with information provision. However, some realised a service role and only the business community advocated e-compliance. Finally, the public is unfamiliar with the term "e-government" and look to government on the Internet largely for policy documents and other information.

It is evident from Figures 3 and 4 that generating greater and more effective use of government on the Internet, including the government portal, will be more difficult than merely promoting their presence. The public needs to relate information-gathering from these sites to specific information needs, and to determine that the information found is preferable to what they can obtain elsewhere. Furthermore, it will need to be evident to them, that they can gather information with ease, understand and apply it. They also need to understand the concept of e-government, realise that it does not displace other means of access, but offers more information, and that it can provide useful services, such as helping small business owners with e-compliance.