<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Puffbox.com &#187; digigov</title>
	<atom:link href="http://puffbox.com/tag/digigov/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://puffbox.com</link>
	<description>Adventures in government, politics and open source. Mostly WordPress-related.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 13:41:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The open source answer to website auditing</title>
		<link>http://puffbox.com/2009/03/31/coi-audit-open-source-analytics-piwik/</link>
		<comments>http://puffbox.com/2009/03/31/coi-audit-open-source-analytics-piwik/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:41:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Simon Dickson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[e-government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[analytics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coigovuk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digigov]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opensource]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piwik]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://puffbox.com/?p=833</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I wrote the other week about 'the implications of free': how the widespread availability of high-quality technology changed the rules when it comes to project management. Another example struck me today, around COI's ongoing consultation on improving government websites. There's a lengthy section on measuring website usage, with detailed proposals around the new requirement for [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wrote the other week about '<a href="http://puffbox.com/2009/03/19/the-implications-of-free/">the implications of free</a>': how the widespread availability of high-quality technology changed the rules when it comes to project management. Another example struck me today, around COI's ongoing consultation on <a href="http://www.coi.gov.uk/improvingwebsites/">improving government websites</a>.</p>
<p>There's a lengthy section on <a href="http://www.coi.gov.uk/improvingwebsites/draft/category/usage/">measuring website usage</a>, with detailed proposals around the new requirement for <a href="http://www.coi.gov.uk/improvingwebsites/draft/usage/auditing-requirements/">website auditing</a>, kicking in imminently with the aim of ensuring that 'the rules for measuring the number of Unique User/Browsers, Page Impressions, Visits and Visit Duration have been implemented correctly'. Government websites' data will be audited twice a year, at a minimum cost of <a href="http://www.coi.gov.uk/improvingwebsites/draft/usage/appendix-b-website-auditing-costs/">£1,740 per audit</a>.</p>
<p>So what's the alternative in the post-free world? How about a centrally managed, mandatory, open-source web analytics package - like <a href="http://piwik.org/">Piwik</a>?</p>
<ul>
<li>It would place the absolute minimum demand on individual departments: all they'd have to do is include a few lines of javascript at the bottom of their page templates - just like Google Analytics.</li>
<li>It wouldn't stop departments running their own analytics packages, if they so desired. Not that many would want or need to.</li>
<li>Implementation of appropriate standards - statistical, technical, privacy, transparency, etc - could be guaranteed by experts at the centre.</li>
<li>Lower overall cost: in terms of purchase, ongoing licensing &amp; support, <em>and of course, auditing</em>.</li>
<li>Freedom to tailor it to particular government requirements, if any.</li>
</ul>
<p>I must say at this point, I've got no direct experience of Piwik myself: but the <a href="http://piwik.org/demo">demo</a> looks great, and it's used by people I respect - such as Sourceforge and MySociety (eg <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/">TheyWorkForYou</a>). Plus, as TWFY demonstrates, you can use Piwik alongside other tracking methods: they seem to have two others on the page too. It's still at version 0.something, but they're pledging to hit v1.0 '<a href="http://dev.piwik.org/trac/wiki/Piwik-Vision-Roadmap">in 2009</a>'. (Actually, can any of the MySociety gang share their experiences?)</p>
<p>Instead, where will the COI guidance leave us? Website owners will face a financial penalty (admittedly a relatively modest one) if they aren't using a <a href="http://www.abce.org.uk/cgi-bin/gen5?runprog=abce/abce&amp;type=page&amp;p=current_associates.html&amp;menuid=associates|current_associates#a">2-star rated ABCe Associate Subscriber</a>. And how many of these 'recommended' analytics tools are open source, do you think?</p>
<p>Perhaps COI might want to take another look at the Open Source Strategy, <a href="http://puffbox.com/2009/02/25/govuk-tips-scales-in-open-sources-favour/">(re)published just a month ago</a>: for example, the part where <a href="http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/cio/transformational_government/open_source.aspx">Tom Watson says in his foreword</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>We need to increase the pace. We want to ensure that we continue to use the best possible solutions for public services at the best value for money; and that we pay a fair price for what we have to buy. We want to share and re-use what the taxpayer has already purchased across the public sector – <strong>not just to avoid paying twice, but to reduce risks and to drive common, joined up solutions to the common needs of government</strong>. We want to encourage innovation and innovators - inside Government by encouraging open source thinking, and outside Government by helping to develop a vibrant market. We want to give leadership to the IT industry and to the wider economy to benefit from the information we generate and the software we develop in Government.</p></blockquote>
<p><em>I'd be grateful if COI would consider this as Puffbox Ltd's contribution to the consultation exercise. Thank you.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://puffbox.com/2009/03/31/coi-audit-open-source-analytics-piwik/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

