Fahrenheit's Blog

There's been a fair bit of gloating about reports that 551 government websites are going to be closed and integrated into a few large portal sites like DirectGov.

I, for one, think the cull will be counterproductive. Here's why...


1. It damages user experiences

Most of us don’t deal with all the arms of the state. When you come into contact with the government it is usually with a few specific agencies, for a few specific purposes. If you have tax credits, you might use their website; if you’re a new mum you might use the breastfeeding site; if you’re a teacher, possibly the curriculum site.

These sites are distinct, and you know where they are when you need them.

When all of these sites are lumped together in one undifferentiated mass, they will be harder to find, harder to distinguish from each other, and it’ll be harder to know when you’re in the right place.

Need to tax your car? At the moment you’ve got a dedicated website you can use. Under the new system you’ll have to search a massive government site and wade through all the other references to ‘vehicle’, ‘licence’, ‘road’, and ‘tax’ to find the one you need. Is that really going to be easier?


2. It won’t reduce government interference in our lives

Just because they’re scrapping the website doesn’t mean they’re scrapping the function - they're just moving it somewhere else.

Most of these websites aren’t redundant – they represent policies and regulations that will continue to affect us. The state will still be inspecting us, taxing us, and policing us in these areas – it’ll just be more difficult to find information about it.


3. It worsens our relationship with the state

This proposal moves us from a position of dealing with a few small agencies of the state, to dealing with the state as a whole. Every time we visit these government mega-sites it will be a reminder of the vast, inescapable megalith that rules over us. It’s a fundamentally socialist project – replacing differentiation and autonomy with uniformity and central control.


4. It’s out of step with the rest of the web

The trend out on the wider internet is exactly the opposite.

The web is moving away from vast, aggregated sites to smaller, niche sites and services. There may be some big conglomerates forming (google buying blogger, YouTube, etc) but they are kept as distinct, autonomous business units.

Traditionally, large, integrated companies and services are only successful if the individual units that make them up have become commodities and need to be integrated in interesting ways to develop a competitive edge. This is still a looooong way off in web-based services. A web experience based around myriad small, niche sites will be the dominant one for the foreseeable future.

Government, as usual, are doing the opposite of what the rest of us are doing.


5. It discourages innovation

The public sector doesn’t have a great history of innovation, but this undermines what little there is. If all their web presence is going to be subsumed into a few vast government mono-sites, then what opportunity is there for public sector managers to try something innovative?

We should be encouraging public sector innovation, not crushing it!


6. It encourages poor project management

When you let a thousand flowers bloom, some are going to wither and die. Some of the sites on the list are clearly defunct and do need removing. But doing so should be part of normal management procedure – clearing up the odds and ends after a project finishes.

If obsolete projects aren’t being closed down properly, then that’s just poor management – and it’s a problem that needs to be tackled at individual manager level. Simply clearing up their messes for them isn’t going to do that.


7. It undermines editorial control

Currently all of these websites will have their own writers and editors who understand the detail of their policy areas. When they get integrated into one huge site, who is going to have editorial control? Will it remain with local editors – in which case the various sections of the mega-site will at least be accurate, but totally out of sync, style- and content-wise with all the other sections? Or will there be one central editor – who will ensure consistency but won’t possibly be able to have all the knowledge required to get the policy details right?


8. It doesn’t distinguish between success and failure

Let’s not throw too many babies out with the bathwater.

While some of these sites are awful, and genuinely need getting rid of, there are also a good few on that list that have been reasonably successful – ‘fit for purpose’ even – and we’re going to lose what made them work.

Please, above all else, can we just make sure we’re not destroying what little good comes out of the public sector?