Scottish Government

CHAPTER ONE BACKGROUND, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Background (Context, Scoping and Pilot)

What is the Rural Community Gateway ( RCG)?

1.1. Scotland's Rural Community Gateway ² ( RCG) website or portal was launched in 2003, following a consultation and piloting period which took place during 2001-2003. The website has two main purposes:

• to act as a 'one-stop shop' for information by providing up to date news, information and documents as well as links to guidance and other websites on a range of services and advice of interest to rural communities; and
• develop further as an 'online community' by facilitating networking, debate and the sharing of ideas/good practice between organisations (public, private and voluntary sector) and individuals in rural communities.

1.2. The Gateway therefore aims to: provide a knowledge bank, links to other useful sites, facilitate consultation, provide information on rural projects, capacity for online discussions, and most importantly - not replicate information held on other sites. The added benefits of the RCG are to: (i) facilitate networking between rural organisations across rural Scotland, and between rural communities and service providers/policy makers; (ii) stimulate debate and the sharing of ideas with regard to rural development generally and in taking forward projects locally; and (iii) encourage rural communities to feel a sense of ownership of the site.

The rationale and development of the RCG

1.3. The Scottish National Rural Partnership ( SNRP) report Services in Rural Scotland (2001), recommended a study to investigate the setting up of a "rural community gateway" website (p.37). The anticipated priorities of such a "gateway" were to:

• Link community groups
• Provide a database of successful projects
• Spread best practice in rural service delivery
• Be a source of advice to communities in remote and rural areas of Scotland
• Encourage networking amongst service providers, and between service providers and rural communities
• Signpost to other relevant websites and organisations
• Bring together relevant publications online for ease of access
• Facilitate networking amongst agencies, local authorities, partnerships, businesses, communities and individuals in remote and rural areas.

1.4. In 2002, SEERAD commissioned a Scoping Study to assess who would use such a website and for what purpose; determine the requirements of potential users; identify those groups that may require representation on the website; and determine how best to represent such groups on the site. The findings of the Scoping Study indicated that the RCG should achieve the following:

• Act as a one-stop shop, providing easy access to information on rural issues;
• Provide links to other useful sites, adding value by including information to explain why the link may be useful;
• Enable the sharing of information and good practice within and between rural communities;
• Provide a knowledge bank, which contains information on rural issues and allows users to 'drill down' by providing details of where to get further information;
• Facilitate consultation by linking rural communities into local and national government consultations;
• Provide a search facility, which has the ability to search the site contents, and to drill down into the documents and files in the library and into links to other websites;
• Provide the opportunity for individual users of the website to personalise the website to reflect their preferences and reduce the time spent by the user browsing through material that is not relevant to their needs;
• Enable users to set up automatic prompts on the site, to trigger the website to send them an email whenever a new entry is added to the library, for example;
• Provide easy maintenance, to reduce the need for, and hence cost of, routine maintenance of the website and its contents;
• Be easy to use, with on-screen help when required, and back-up from support staff when required.

1.5. Further, in the view of the respondents to the Scoping Study, it should not: (i) replicate information held on other sites; (ii) duplicate the role of local, rural community websites and organisations; or (iii) be allowed to become out of date or lacking in up to date references and material.

1.6. It is important to note that all of the above listed bullet points refer to the information cataloguing and provision functions of the RCG, rather than the human networking and communication attributes of such an online resource. This is an important distinction, in terms of the ongoing expectations of the RCG.

1.7. In June 2002, SEERAD then issued an invitation to tender for the operation of a substantive Rural Community Gateway website, and in November 2002, the contract was awarded to Sift and SCVO for an initial 18-month period. The RCG was then launched publicly in March 2003, with the following objectives:

Content:

• Act as a one-stop shop and provide information and an easy link for rural communities on a range of services and advice;
• Provide a knowledge-bank, which contains information on rural issues (regardless of where it is held) and allow users to 'drill down' by providing details on where to get further information;
• Provide links to other useful sites, adding value by including information to explain why the link may be useful;
• Facilitate consultation by linking rural communities into local and national government consultations;
• Provide information on projects that are being taken forward in rural areas;
• Provide capacity for on-line discussions and advice surgeries;
• Not replicate information held on other sites, become out of date, become a lobbying vehicle or attempt to serve the purpose of a local community website/local rural organisation.

Added benefits:

• Facilitate networking between rural organisations (public, private, and voluntary) across rural Scotland, and between rural communities and service providers/policy makers
• Stimulate debate and the sharing of ideas (within and between communities)
• Encourage rural communities to feel a sense of ownership of the site

1.8. It can be seen that the objectives listed above for this first full phase of the RCG's operation closely reflect the findings from the Scoping Study's focus on information retrieval for rural users. This is particularly the case in terms of Content priorities for the RCG.

1.9. In 2004, SEERAD then issued a Call for Tender for the next 18 months of the RCG, allowing for its further development. Here, the objectives were listed as two-fold: (i) to act as a one-stop-shop for information, by providing up to date news, information and documents as well as links to guidance and other websites on a range of services and advice of interest to rural communities; and (ii) develop further as an online community by facilitating networking, debate and the sharing of ideas/good practice between organisations (public, private and voluntary sector) and individuals in rural communities. Thus, we see central stage again, the dual roles of information provision with online networking. These were to be achieved by, for example:

• Further developing the content of the RCG, ensuring that an increasing percentage of the content is generated by users;
• Increasing the number of users, including the number of active users who provide content and take part in online debates and discussions; and
• Increasing the use of the interactive aspects of the site, such as online discussions, debates and networking opportunities.

1.10. It was therefore anticipated that the Gateway's content would increasingly be generated by the members and users of the portal, rather than largely remaining the responsibility of the content manager at SCVO. This is a key point and is returned to later in the evaluation. The following Timelines summarise the above developments (Fig. 1.1.), and the activities relating to content management of the Gateway (Fig. 1.2.).

Figure 1.1. Summary of RCG developmental stages

Figure 1.2. Setting up the RCG, and subsequent content management activity 2003/2004

Evolving backdrop to the development of the RCG

1.11. We are living in what has variously been described as an 'information age' and 'knowledge society' (Castells, 2001; OECD, 2001; Allen & Dillman, 1994). Information provision, and networking (allowing for exchange of information and experience), are seen as critical for survival, socially, economically and environmentally (Servon, 2002). Access to information, support, individuals with expertise, and up-to-the-minute news digests, are seen as important elements of 'social justice', and as such, should be available to all, irrespective of geographical location (Scottish Executive, 2000).

1.12. However, the largely metropolitan trend towards '24/7 connectivity' at high speed, facilitated through a range of Information and Communication Technologies ( ICTs) and their associated infrastructures, is increasingly seen as the norm. There is, according to some commentators, an apparent ubiquity of access to always-on, high-speed, computer-mediated communication ( CMC) through broadband-enabled email, websites and portals. This, in turn, skews channels of information and service provision towards online media. As stated by the OECD (2001), 'The Information Society and the New Economy, based on virtual networking and knowledge oriented activities, are rapidly becoming a reality…' (p. 15). The implications of this connected, digitised 'society' are highlighted in key European documents relating to e-Europe, for example:

"As the knowledge-based economy advances, the exclusion from ICT becomes more and more a barrier to economic, employment and social opportunities and to using public services. Disadvantaged areas and groups are at higher risk of lagging behind for various reasons including low income and poverty, lack of ICT infrastructures, awareness and training opportunities, or difficulties of access because of disabilities. On the other hand, ICT can overcome barriers of distance, distribute more equally knowledge resources, and generate new services. … Thus, the risks of the digital divide need to be transformed to digital opportunities by actions focused at disadvantaged groups and areas." (European Commission 2001, p.17).

1.13. Specifically then, rural areas can be characterised in terms of the dispersed nature of their population, with associated 'frictions of distance' (Grimes, 2000), comprising specific challenges to accessing a range of services. In addition to the dispersed nature of rural populations, the agencies and individuals that seek to support rural development priorities, and provide information, are often themselves geographically spread. This can, and does, lead to a sense of isolation from one another, and from the information and debate on rural regeneration problems and solutions. Such individuals experience frustration, knowing that 'all that information is out there somewhere' and that 'someone else must have faced what I am facing' - but who they are, where they are, and what they have learnt and found out, remain inaccessible.

1.14. The increased understanding of territorial digital divides ( OECD, 2001) is paralleled within Scotland by policy developments and commitments aimed at ensuring that all sectors of the population can participate in the digital revolution. Since 2000, we have witnessed a number of developments in broadband rollout (Skerratt, 2005), training, public access centres, and a widespread increase in electronic government commitments to servicing and engaging the e-citizen. These recent developments are summarised in the Timeline below (Fig. 1.3).

1.15. The development of the RCG, therefore, sits within the wider context of this evolution in policy and perspective. In particular, its recent inclusion (in January 2006) as a short-listed contender for the e-government awards is indicative of its perceived potential for delivering in part the e-government and e-inclusion agendas.

Figure 1.3. Timeline illustrating the key developments in thinking and policy, 2000-2005

Aims and Objectives of Evaluation

1.16 The external evaluation of the RCG was commissioned in December 2005 and coincides with SEERAD's reviewing of their sponsorship role beyond August 2006 (the point at which the current RCG contract would otherwise terminate). The findings from this evaluation will therefore be considered by SEERAD when planning the Next Steps phase of the RCG.

1.17 The aim of the evaluation was to evaluate the performance of the RCG website and to examine options for its viability via alternative funding.

1.18. The objectives of the evaluation were four-fold:

• To evaluate the RCG against set objectives
• To locate the RCG in the prevailing community web environment
• To explore possible further developments/improvements to the RCG with regular users and irregular users
• To explore the future of the RCG in terms of direction and sustainability