Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Web Governance: Becoming an Agent of Change


Go to article

Web Governance: Becoming an Agent of Change
Editor's note: A List Apart readers can use the discount code ALISTAPART to save £150 off the regular conference rate for Content Strategy Forum, London which takes place from September 5th—7th.
The web’s hit the big time in a way few of us imagined possible. So as people who make websites, you’d think we’d be celebrating our repeated successes in designing amazing user experiences, as the organizations we work for become increasingly successful. But many of us have noticed a problem in our work: the user experiences we deliver don’t meet our expectations. Here’s the problem: organizations are the context for our work, and when it comes to the web, organizations are broken.
Consider these common project scenarios: a website redesign, a web application, or an email or social media campaign. We keep hitting brick walls because the organization has problems with strategy, governance, execution, or measurement. We know that the project won’t achieve its objectives, because we’re working on the wrong horizon of focus. To fix this problem, we need to start talking about web governance.

Defining web governance

What is web governance? That’s a difficult question to answer, because business language is slippery and organizations and modern web management are complex. Luckily for us, Lisa Welchman has pioneered this space. She’s already defined the areas we need to learn about.
We’ll use “web governance” as an umbrella term to cover the four components of web strategy, web governance, web execution, and web measurement. Let’s take each in turn.
  • Web strategy should be created by senior management to establish guiding principles for the web: high-level objectives and metrics based on the organization’s business strategy. It also formalizes authority and funding for the web within the organization.
  • Web governance defines decision-making processes for the web, and sets policies and standards for web content, design, and technology—in a way that respects subject-matter expertise. (For example, your CEO shouldn’t be setting standards for markup or tone of voice.)
  • Web execution ensures that the organization has an appropriately staffed and resourced web team that can realistically execute the web strategy. (This is where most A List Apart readers work at the moment.)
  • Web measurement measures web performance against the high-level objectives and metrics set by the web strategy. While web analytics help to achieve this, we should be careful not to confuse the numbers we read in analytics tools for web measurement—we need to relate those numbers to business objectives to truly measure success.
One more definition: Key Performance Indicators, or KPIs, is business jargon for the numbers managers use to measure the success of their organization. The point of a web strategy is to relate the success of the organization’s web properties to its overall performance—in other words, to engage senior management with their online successes or failures. To do that we need to talk about the KPIs they care about. Unsuck It defines KPI as, “Measurement (of success).”

The web changed the world and organizations are in denial

Organizations have been using the web for more than 15 years. During that time, it’s grown from being one channel among many to being the channel: the website is now the digital manifestation of the organization, critical to marketing and sales, communications, branding and reputation, and customer service and support. The internet revolution has created huge social change: it’s changed the way people relate to organizations and it’s already destroyed several once-mighty industries, like newspapers, travel agents, and music publishing.
Although we’re comfortable with the idea that the web is critical to organizations, we often miss the corollary: the web has changed the way organizations operate, and in many cases it’s changed their business models, too. When executives can’t see that, it causes a crisis. Welcome to your daily web-making reality.

ORGANIZATIONS MANAGE THE WEB BADLY

To stay competitive, modern organizations need web strategy, web governance, web execution, and web measurement. But most organizations suffer from:
  • organization-centric thinking and widespread denial about web-related change, combined with no formalized authority for the web, resulting in weak web strategy,
  • a lack of standards, policies, and decision-making processes for the web, combined with turf wars between organizational silos, resulting in no web governance,
  • inappropriately staffed and resourced web teams, resulting in lackluster or patchy web execution, and
  • a lack of appropriate web metrics linked to KPIs, resulting in no realistic web measurement.

DENIAL ISN’T A STRATEGY

By sticking to what they know—that is, pre-web operational practices—executives are crossing their fingers and hoping that time will run backwards. This is crazy. Consider some of the risks they’re taking:
  • legal and regulatory risks caused by out-of-date, inaccurate, or poor quality content (i.e., no content strategy),
  • reputation and brand risks caused by lack of web policy (e.g., for the corporate social media presence),
  • compliance risks like violating regulations about accessibility, data protection, consumer protection, or disclosure caused by lack of standards and policies (web governance),
  • risk of losing market share to more agile competitors who can respond more quickly to events, caused by poor web governance (which leads to slow decision-making),
  • customer relationship risks when customers have difficulty completing top tasks, caused by a lack of web measurement, and
  • financial risks associated with wasting customers’ and employees’ time, caused by poor web strategy.
Organizations are like oil tankers headed the wrong way as if the web never happened. And we can see the approaching iceberg.

We need to tackle organizational change

As web professionals, we strive to serve users’ needs while simultaneously achieving business goals. Although that sounds great, nowadays it’s actually impossible to achieve without tackling organizational change.
We’ve learned that effective user experience work isn’t about taking a single channel, campaign, product, or website, and designing the smoothest possible experience. To actually improve user experience in a sustainable way—that is, while achieving business goals—we need to help organizations deal with the revolutionary changes that the web has created in their business models, operational structures, and customer relationships. As Adaptive Path argues in their book, Subject To Change, organizations need user experience design as a core competency.
You might call this approach service design, multi-channel user experience, or top task management, all of which are valid labels. Today we’re calling it web governance.

ASIDE: WHY EVERYONE’S TALKING ABOUT CONTENT STRATEGY

This helps to explain the huge impetus behind the discussion of content strategy. Web content is the one thing you can’t touch without involving every part of the organization, which is why most organizations are in denial about it—they’ll do anything to avoid talking to each other. It also explains why so many web teams attempt to bypass the thorny issues surrounding content by repeatedly redesigninglaunching short-term tactical campaigns, or spending money on technology. Smart web professionals realize that we can’t deliver great user experiences without content strategy, so it’s our most obvious blockage. But it doesn’t follow that getting better content will solve the web governance problem. It’s the other way around: we can’t sustainably create, publish, and govern quality content unless we start to solve the organizational problems around web governance. As Karen McGrane puts it, content strategy is change management.

WEB GOVERNANCE IS ABOUT CHANGING WORKING PRACTICES TO MATCH REALITY

Simply telling the organization that it needs to change won’t have any effect. We have to become change agents ourselves.
More specifically, we can’t change organizational culture on our own. That culture is being forced to change by outside forces, so our job as change agents is to help to change working practices so they start to match the organization’s reality. It’s about pointing out risks, shining a light on organizational denial, overcoming resistance, and facilitating constructive discussions about change.

WE’RE FACING A STARK CHOICE

If that doesn’t sound like what you want to be doing with your career, stay with me. There’s a huge upside: actually shipping user experience work that meets user needs while achieving business objectives. How much of your work so far has achieved that over a sustained period? Speaking for myself, not much. As web professionals, we’ve always wanted to make meaningful change in the world. Tackling web governance will get us there, even if the journey scares the hell out of us.
We’re facing a stark choice right now: keep whining or start leading.

Are you crazy? Why me?

You might be thinking: “There’s no way I can do this. I’m a designer, developer, or copywriter, not an organizational change maker!” But we can do it, and we should. Because nobody else will do it for us, and if nobody deals with the problem, we won’t be able to do great work.
Today, the critical skills of a web professional aren’t technical. They’re skills like advocacy, facilitation, diplomacy, pragmatism, and patience. Technical skills still matter, but they don’t differentiate us in the market anymore, and we can’t use them effectively without tackling organizational change. To be effective, we need to leave our comfort zones.

THE SKILLS MARKET IS CHANGING

The choice is stark because the skills market itself is changing. The era of charging a premium simply for knowing how to code HTML and CSS, install a content management system, design wireframes, or write for the web are behind us. And if you live in a high-cost location like North America or Western Europe, sticking to your professional comfort zone will likely lead to commoditization, low pay, and ultimately frustration and depression.
Another way to look at the problem is through the organizational context for our work. Until recently, we got away with a Wild West approach to web management: anything goes, no accountability, no measurement. As Christine Pierpoint argues, executives won’t put up with this attitude for much longer.

IT’S TIME TO BROADEN THE SCOPE OF WEB STANDARDS

We learned from the web standards movement (and parallel campaigns to demonstrate the value of information architecture and user experience) that we have the power to make a difference, if we do the work of articulating why the practices we advocate can help people achieve their goals. It’s time to broaden the scope of web standards beyond interoperable, accessible markup and scripting languages for web content. Organizations need web standards that cover these areas, but they also need web standards for editorial considerations (see content strategy), design (see user experience design), and technical considerations (see structured content, interoperability, data governance, hosting, etc.).
As a community, this is something we know how to do. Let’s rise to the challenge.

Start a web governance campaign

So we’ve decided to give this web governance thing a shot.
The most important step we can take is to get started, which means leaving our comfort zone. Becoming a change agent means getting used to doing things that we find scary: challenging assumptions, asking questions about business goals and risks, and facilitating discussions about change. We need to articulate the problem so that our stakeholders will understand it and find it difficult to ignore. To get there we need to do some homework. Here are some questions to get started:
  • What are our business goals? Do we have a written web strategy? (We need one.)
  • How does the organization make money (or equivalent for non-profits), and how are web operations linked to that? How is that measured?
  • How much do our web operations cost, and how much money do they make? (In most cases nobody can answer this question, which is a problem.)
  • Has anyone documented the decision-making process for the web? Do we have any standards and policies?
  • How are our web teams staffed and resourced? Do we use external agencies, or is everything in-house?
  • How are we measuring success on the web? Are web metrics linked to the organization’s KPIs?
  • Has anyone documented the legal, financial, and reputation-related risks we’re taking on the web?
As well as asking questions, we’ll work with what we’ve got: web analytics, sales numbers, data from annual reports like KPIs, and web case studies like A/B test results, especially anything that demonstrates how a design change influenced customer engagement or profitability.

ARTICULATE THE PROBLEM

We’ll attempt to articulate the problem in a way that relates directly to:
  • the executives’ actual jobs, e.g., their targets and renumeration,
  • the risks we’re taking (legal action, lost customers, competitive advantage, profitability), and
  • what the competition are doing, and how that might impact profitability and market share.
In short, sell to their pain. For maximum influence, we must speak in management-friendly language, making them feel smart by avoiding tech-speak and jargon and being as clear as possible.

BUILD A BUSINESS CASE

As bland as it sounds, organizational change happens when people build a compelling business case. If we can put dollar signs behind every recommendation we make, our stakeholders will be more likely to listen. We need to combine the scare tactics of pointing to risks and lost revenue with specific, positive suggestions of next actions that will start to address the problem. For example, check out Melissa Rach’s guide to putting a dollar value on web content.

GET HELP FROM THE OUTSIDE WORLD

We can get help from the community outside of our organizations by attending meetups about web strategy, content strategy, web management, or intranets, to share our knowledge and learn from other people’s experiences. If there’s no meetup in your area, start one. We can also attend relevant conferences, pitch presentations to those conferences, and blog about our experiences (without revealing anything confidential, of course.)
Another way to get an outside perspective is to commission a study from consultants. We could also try some targeted usability testing to demonstrate the influence our web governance problems are having on real, live customers. Once our stakeholders understand that effect on a personal level, they’ll find it easier to see the bigger picture.

Build support for change within the organization

Get a sponsor: someone senior in the organization who cares about this problem and wants to fix it. Let’s find that person, and get them to teach us how change happens: who should we speak to, when, and how should we present our case?

MAKE ALLIES

Web governance isn’t about getting our own ideas implemented—it’s about building support and awareness among other people in the organization. Why not treat our web governance campaign like a communications project, complete with target audiences, key messages, and business goals? For example, Sarah Marx Cancilla’s team built support for content strategy within the engineering-led hacker culture at Facebook with their “Friends of Content Strategy” campaign of group lunches, practical tools, targeted case studies, and cool tee-shirts.

GET PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT GOVERNANCE IN A POSITIVE WAY

We’re trying to create an open, non-confrontational context for stakeholders from different organizational silos to start talking to each other, so they can align around goals, work to find differences of perspective, and clarify objectives, metrics, and challenges. Once people get used to talking about the issues—and they see that alignment is actually possible—it’s easier to convince them that working together on web governance will help them achieve their goals.

Keep your eye on the prize, but be realistic

It takes a long time to turn an oil tanker. Instead of setting ourselves up for failure by trying to fix everything at once, let’s make our objectives realistic. For example, in a large organization we might need to spend weeks on the road visiting different teams just to get alignment on a project.

START A PILOT PROJECT

Choose a pilot project that has a good chance of getting results: an easy win. For example, is there a section of the website with dire analytics, or a piece of content that’s clearly losing money because of poor web governance? Once we’ve found our pilot project, we’ll state what we’re going to do, and set a clear metric so everyone knows what success looks like. Then we’ll start the pilot project and measure the results. If it succeeds, we can make a big deal of it, write a case study, and use that to build a business case for broader change. If it fails, we’ll reframe the problem incorporating what we’ve learned, and then try again.

KEEP UP THE MOMENTUM

Once the boost of our initial success fades, we’ll enter a dip in enthusiasm. Lesser mortals would give up at this point, but it’s crucial that we keep going. If that sounds like too much work, ask yourself how committed you are to this organization. If you don’t genuinely care whether the plan works, consider your options. This place might not deserve you, and there are hundreds of other places that desperately need your help.

The opportunity of a lifetime

We’re living through a revolution as significant as the industrial revolution—as Clay Shirky has pointed out—and it’s already had a huge influence on our personal and social lives, the way our organizations operate, even our politics and civic institutions. Although working on web governance might sound like the last thing we’d want to do, I think we’re lucky to have the opportunity: our skills and experience as web professionals mean we’re uniquely placed to do this work. Our parents never had it this good.
Let’s get out of our comfort zones and start to make some change within our organizations, so that they can begin to deal with their new internet-era reality. We’ll be glad we make that choice. 

The Rise of We-Commerce


The Rise of We-Commerce

Print Version
E-Mail Article
Reprints
The Rise of We-Commerce
Can't decide what to buy? Ask a friend, or your mom. Shopping's always been a social activity, and social shopping sites are now harnessing the power and promise of networks. They are evolving along with consumer expectations and desires, shaping a new world for e-commerce.

Gain the critical knowledge to lead successful projects and prepare for PMP® or CAPM® certification exams with Villanova University’s Project Management program - 100% online dynamic instructor-led online learning. Get started now.
t just makes sense that consumers tend to trust the opinions and recommendations of friends before they trust those of advertisers, promoters and retailers. Social shopping sites, which combine features of social networking 6 Ways to Use Social Media for Business. Free Guide. with online sales, seek to capitalize on the sharing and trust that exist between friends.
"Sharing is one of the inherent human behaviors," explained social shopping siteShopSocially's founder and CEO Jai Rawat. "People share all the time. It's a natural thing for them to do. People love telling other what they bought."

Consumer-to-Consumer Channel

Traditionally, the model of selling goods has relied on a one-way communication channel between retailer and customer, via advertising, targeted emails, or even texts, but new social shopping behaviors are throwing that model into question.
"ShopSocially is creating a consumer-to-consumer marketing  channel for online retailers," Rawat told the E-Commerce Times.
ShopSocially calls itself a "shopping recommendation engine," meaning that it gives consumers a way to recommend purchases to their friends via social networking sites. Retailers can purchase a subscription to ShopSocially's service, which, among other things, embeds a social widget on their checkout pages so customers can share their purchases onFacebookTwitter and via email. Consumers can also post purchase information and recommendations through ShopSocially's site.

Networked Fashion

Social shopping lends itself particularly well to the fashion world, which has spawned several sites and services. One of the largest, Kaboodle, lets users create profiles, save wishlists, and communicate with other shoppers.
"Like Facebook, it allows you to build profiles and connect with other people," Kaboodle's CMO Steve Chien told the E-Commerce Times. "But people are coming to Kaboodle to talk specifically about fashion."
Comparing dresses, purses and shoes -- the kind of social banter that typically takes place in the shopping mall -- happens virtually on Kaboodle, which has about 1.5 million users.
"The power of Kaboodle is tapping into the word-of-mouth marketing that's happening in real life," explained Chien. "There is an element of social discovery that we are replicating online."
It's also just a good way of keeping track of multiple items from various online retailers, and creating a wish list for holidays, birthdays, weddings and other events.
"It's useful to organize your shopping," said Chien. "You can build a wishlist that crosses multiple retailers."
WingTipIt.com is another social shopping site that allows consumers to save items, create lists, and interact with friends, and it also sends out daily emails with information about products consumers have saved, including tips about sales.


"We looked at how consumers were shopping in bricks-and-mortar stores and gave them the gratification they were getting there online," explained WingTipIt's cofounder Carla Holtze. "We built our product on consumer and retailer insights."
Most social shopping sites have business models that rely in part on commissions from sales referred from these sites to retailers, and in part on other continuously evolving strategies such as advertising, direct marketing, cross promotions and data analytics.

Members-Only Model

Another model, used by Gilt Groupe, gives a sense of exclusivity to the experience of social shopping. This site offers invitation-only access to sales and special promotions to its members, who can register for the site for free.
"Gilt Groupe provides access, by invitation only, to its members to the most inspiring merchandise, culinary offerings, and luxury experiences every day, many at up to 60 percent off," explained Jyothi Rao, general manager of women's at Gilt Groupe.
"Gilt works directly with the brands as often as we can, including fashion for women, men, and children; home decor; artisanal ingredients; hotels and travel experiences on every continent; and unique activities to make sure that we offer our members the best deals," Rao told the E-Commerce Times.
As a curated flash sales site, Gilt Groupe gives its members opportunities not available to non-members, while at the same time offering a sense of community.


"I think they enjoy it because it gives them a nice break in the middle of the day. It's something to look forward to," said Rao. "The mystery of what is going to be in the sales each day gives a nice sense of discovery and anticipation. Also, there's a gaming quality to shopping on Gilt.com -- the items are available for only for 36 hours and in limited quantity."

New Models for E-Commerce

All social shopping sites are evolving along with consumer expectations and desires, and they are shaping a new world for e-commerce.
As Deena Varshavskaya, the founder of social shopping site Wanelo, explained to the E-Commerce Times, her site came about because she was trying to conceive of a new model for advertising, marketing and selling.
"The idea for it came out of a conversation with a friend about the future of advertising," said Varshavskaya. "My main thought was that with users getting more and more control of what and how they consume, there's no way that advertising will be the future, at least in its current form. So how will people find out about new relevant things? Through each other, of course." 

Freelance writer Vivian Wagner has wide-ranging interests, from technology and business to music and motorcycles. She writes features regularly for ECT News Network, and her work has also appeared inAmerican ProfileBluegrass Unlimited, and many other publications. For more about her, visit her website

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

The 3 Hats of a Content Strategist: What We Really Do


Link to article

MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 2011



In my practice as a content strategist, I have come to realize that I actually do three different things that in actuality separate from each other and yet still inform my practice of each.

I think most content strategists feel that the definitions of content strategy are still milling about in the air like many uncaught fireflies on a summer night. For the purpose of bringing some added clarity (and not further confusion), I will seek to summarize what it is in fact, I think we do.

As content strategists, we create or help to create:

1. Messaging Strategies—the specific and targeted messages about the overall brand as well as the detailed nuances of how that is played out in cyberspace

2. Content Strategy—a digital publishing strategy that will include four phases: plan, create, publish, govern

3. Content Design—this combines both the messaging strategy and editorial guidelines to create supportive content and linguistic cues that support the users in all of their tasks

Now, you may only do one of the above, or maybe even part of one of the above as a content strategist. But what I find, from my readings of others’ blogs and talking to other content strategists, is that we all kind of do a little bit from each section. It’s essential for us to know this as an operating community because when we sell our capabilities, we can delineate where we can be most effective for a client.

So if you’re a writer, or a content marketer, or a content strategist, or a UX professional, or even a client, I’m interested to hear if you agree.

What’s the buzz about content strategy?


link to article

by Rahel Anne Bailie

A story that drives home the place of content strategy in the field of user experience is about my mother: When she was diagnosed with cancer, I, as the eldest child, went into research mode. I scoured the web for any information I could find about uterine cancer so that I could be informed and offer some support, if not help, around her treatment. I would do a Google search, then head for the information about symptoms, treatments and survival rates. There is a lot of information out there, and a lot of conflicting information, so I went to a lot of websites.
Sometimes, I found the information I was looking for, and other times I didn't. When I found what I was looking for, I was relieved. But when I couldn't find the information, I didn't stop to marvel about the taxonomy or navigation, the color palette or the affordance on the buttons. I felt that I had just wasted time looking on a site that was missing the information I had hoped to find. It's not that I didn't appreciate the navigation and colors and affordance and all the other good things that make up a smooth user experience (UX). It's that the beauty of the hunt is negated if the treasure is lacking or missing.
This is an all-too-common occurrence, the good-scent, bad-content user experience. Many theories have arisen about why this has become a recurring theme in the web world. The most plausible one is a variation on Alan Cooper's The Inmates Are Running the Asylum. The developers of software and, later, web applications drove the projects and had the power to determine the user experience. The focus was on technological possibilities, and the interface was an engineer's view into their world. They wanted to code, not plan, and transmuted their mental model, whatever it might be, by developing code.
Cooper championed the value of investing in the user experience, and we saw the shift to emphasizing user-centered design, whether that morphed into user experience, experience design, service design or one of the other variations on the UX theme. The commonality is that before any code is written, we need to understand the consumers – from how they will typically use the product to the cognitive processes that help users process the information to the human factors involved in its use.
In the world of user-centered design, there was room for user analysis, information architecture, transaction design, visual design and usability testing. While this was an important step toward the maturity of the field, there was still a conspicuous gap in who got a place at the table. Content was considered outside of the scope of the user experience and often left to the client to figure out.
The problem with the model as it stands now is that content is still considered "the stuff that goes into the design." Content is populated into the design; it is migrated from its previous location to the new design. The problem with this development model lies in the placement of content as an adjunct to the primary process, instead of its placement at the center of the process. One system designer, Dorian Taylor, captured the essence of this conundrum when he asserted that the web doesn't have content, it is content.
Giving content a peripheral role creates spin-off problems that are not easily rectified through a tweak to the design or even through a change order. Putting content at center stage means changing some of the fundamental ways we think about content in the content of development projects:

Form follows function. The principle of form follows function states that the form of an object must be based on its intended purpose. If the purpose of the site is to inform, sell, share or entertain, then the consumption of content is the function. When the primary function for a site (or application or software) is to provide information to content consumers, then the design should be created to support the content. If the content is not created before the design begins, then form is not following function. Instead, the function is being crammed into the form.
Content is the treasure; UX is the treasure hunt. The elements of design – from the architecture and navigation to the look and feel to the code functionality and everything in between – are all components that come together to help the content consumer reach the information needed in the most efficient way possible. But in the end, if there is no content, the experience has failed. The UX treasure hunt was a success, but the experience will be remembered by the lack of treasure at the end.
Clients are subject matter experts, not content experts. Content development has become too complex to be left in the hands of the client. We don't expect clients to be experts at information architecture, though they know how to create folder structures on shared drives. Similarly, we shouldn't expect clients to be experts at content strategy, just because they know how to use a word processor. Writers cannot be expected to know enough about content standards and content modeling, re-use models, content for metatags, microformats, writing for syndication and componentization for content management systems to make informed decisions about how to pull all of the pieces together.
Content has become a major pain point. When project managers say that the content aspect of a project is the major pain point, they recognize only that the launch is being held up by lack of content. The absence of content can often be attributed to a few key failures:
  • Content migration didn't go as planned, because the content on the old site was unsuitable, inconsistently structured or unmappable to the new site. The content could also be trapped in attachments, such as PDF files, which can't be migrated without several passes requiring manual intervention.
  • The content, whether written or migrated, is unusable in the new site or app. It may describe outdated functionality, not be chunked in ways that are suitable for integration with the new design.
  • The new software/app/site design doesn't accommodate the content. There is no way to provide the necessary information or instructions within the design that has just been, no doubt, approved in a lengthy and painful sign-off process.
  • There is simply no content for certain areas – often the new, key areas – because there was no understanding of how long it takes to create suitable content, or there is a lack of understanding about why accurate, readable content is important.
  • There is no budget. Content is a major budget item, so the redesign proposal omitted content, in order to lower the project cost. Now, the organization is told they are responsible for content development, and they realize they have a combination of no time, budget and/or expertise to start churning out content.

Enter content strategy

The creation and delivery of content is often examined during some period of change, perhaps during a website refresh project or a knowledge base upgrade. In those cases, developers own the code side of a project; the UX professionals own the design process; but when it comes to content, there is a vacuum. And as the saying goes, nature abhors a vacuum. As a result, content strategy has begun to fill the vacuum in what is generally an unclaimed and misunderstood space.
Content strategy is a repeatable system that governs the management of content throughout the entire lifecycle. This is a brief statement, and looking at it more closely gives us some insights into the nature of content strategy:
  • It’s strategic. It governs what happens to content during the implementation phases. This is the stage where the planning and analysis happen. It's not only where the "how" is addressed but also the "why." It's about processes within.
  • It’s repeatable. A content strategy is not a one-off activity. It’s a way to handle content within a corporate context and moving up the publishing maturity model to a place where a commitment has been made to manage and sustain the content lifecycle. (See the information process maturity model for an explanation of the levels.)
  • It's about process. The processes within a content lifecycle are system-agnostic, though any organization with a large corpus likely uses some sort of system to assist with process management. The processes are established as part of the strategy phase and implemented during the content lifecycle.
  • It’s governing. Content strategy is being the guardian of content and the content strategy. It’s making all the important decisions about how content is created/collected, managed, published and curated.
  • It’s a system. It’s not a technology, though it can be technology-assisted. It describes an organic system that covers content from cradle to grave and all the iterations along the way.

Benefits of a content strategy

Having a content strategy acknowledges that content is an asset and needs as much asset management as the other corporate assets – physical, financial and information. It is also an acknowledgement that managing content is different from managing data or information. Content is more complex and nuanced, and as a result, needs to be governed by its own strategy.
The bottom line for any effort undertaken by an organization is return on investment (ROI), and content strategy is no exception. The expectation is that developing and adopting a content strategy will create a benefit, either through increased revenue or operational savings. This rationale is fundamental for any asset management through an organization.
The Institute of Asset Management defines asset management on its website as "the art and science of making the right decisions and optimizing these processes" to determine "the operational performance and profitability of industries that operate assets as part of their core business." From this point of view, having a content strategy puts into place a framework that allows organizations to measure investment and results.
These measurements are highly situational and are generally tied to an organization's marketing or operational goals. A content strategy allows an organization to look at effort throughout the content lifecycle. If the content is tied to entering a new market, with a resulting increase in sales, the ROI becomes readily apparent once the numbers have crunched. If the goal is operational efficiencies, the payback is in terms of internal rate of return. The investment in a content strategy can be measured by shortening the turn cycle, savings in translation costs or a number of other possible operational goals.
Likely the best benefit of a content strategy is the peace of mind that comes with knowing that your content assets are present and accounted for and that you can use them to their fullest potential without the machinations and tribulations associated with ad-hoc or rudimentary systems.

The content lifecycle

Simply acknowledging that content has a lifecycle is a large step for many organizations that traditionally think of publishing content as a linear activity. A content lifecycle is present whether the content is controlled within a content management system or not, whether it gets translated or not, whether it gets deleted at the end of its life or revised and re-used. The content lifecycle covers four general areas (Figure 1): the strategic analysis, the content collection, management of the content and publication, which includes post-publication maintenance and a loop back to analysis for the next cycle.

Figure 1: The Content Lifecycle

Further information

  • Haller, Thom (Ed.) (2010, August/September). What is information architecture? [special section]. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 36(6).
  • Shubin, H., & Bator, E. (2001, September 1). Transaction-based web design: Increasing revenue by using site traffic as a design tool. Belmont, MA: Interaction Design.
  • Taylor, D. (n.d.). The web doesn’t have content: The web is content [blog comment] Dorian Taylor: Make things. Make sense.
  • Bailie, R. A. (2010, June 16). Skills to transition to content strategy. Intentional Design, Inc. The Rockley Group. (n.d.). Content reuse. The Rockley Report, v. 2(3).
  • Gross, M. (2008, February). Improving your legacy content with content tagging. DCL News.
  • Microformats [website]: http://microformats.org
  • Bailie, R. A. (2009, April 7). Content strategy includes convergence, integration and syndication. Intentional Design, Inc..
  • Doyle, B. (2009, April 7. Component content management. EContent.
  • Hackos, J. (2004). The information process maturity model: A 2004 update. Denver: Center for Information Development Management.
  • The Institute of Asset Management

Friday, July 29, 2011

The Things We Make and Do


Link to Article

by Erin Kissane on July 28th, 2011
If you’re new to content strategy, or if you’re thinking of hiring a CS person or an agency to help you deal with your own content, you’ll probably be tempted to spend a lot of time looking at the documents we call “deliverables.” Deliverables are concrete, which is reassuring. They’re also repeatable (in theory), so looking at documents for one project should tell you something about the kinds of documents required for another project.
It’s easy to focus on the concrete and the repeatable—sometimes to the exclusion of other aspects of content strategy work. But the concrete things we make don’t always reflect the whole of the work that we do.

Things To Make and Do
Things to Make and Do, Volume 9 of a 1970s edition of Worldbook’s Childcraft encyclopedia of awesome things. Volume 9 is, objectively, the best. Note well the hypnotic effect of the paper-plate dragon.
Image credit: Awful Library Books

DOCUMENTS ON THE BRAIN

In the last few years, the content strategy community has begun to standardize on a central set of documents, and we’ve been thinking and talking about them … a lot.
And that’s fine, as long as we maintain perspective on what deliverables really are, what they’re not, and how they fit into our work as a whole. It’s easy to conflate what we produce with what we do—to confuse CS documents with CS itself.
Deliverables are great. Especially those that are repeatable in form, if not in content. They can save us tons of work reinventing the basics. They help us scope projects, teach new practitioners, and reassure clients that their money buys something they can touch (and write on with a ballpoint).
But they’re still what we (visibly) make, and not what we do.
Deliverables accomplish three main things:
  1. They force us to standardize our processes
  2. They document some aspects of the work we do
  3. They help us sell our ideas
To understand the distinction between making and doing, let’s step through those functions, one at a time.

Process organization

Standardized documents—those we carry from project to project in one form or another—tend to impose repeatable processes. If we’re going to deliver a competitive analysis document, we’re going to have to … analyze the competition. In an orderly way that makes sense when set down in crisp black toner. And if we’re going to deliver content audit findings, we’re obviously going to need to audit the content.
This stuff gets much more nebulous as we move into vaguer document descriptions like “high-level content strategy recommendations,” and that’s because those processes really aren’t as repeatable. Each client’s strategy must be built from scratch, and although we can decide to arrange our recommendations in standardized ways, their actual contents will necessarily be unique in every project.

Selective documentation

Documents communicate our analytical, synthetic, and creative ideas to other people so that they can evaluate and use the ideas themselves. They may also let us “show our work,” justifying our recommendations, explaining the steps in our analyses, and offering views of the data we’ve consumed along the way. But there are also scads of ideas, processes, discussions, and other kinds of brainwork that don’t make it into deliverables. Not in a recognizable way, at least.
For example, collaboration on work that “belongs” to other disciplines, from feature/interface design to microcopy, rarely shows up in CS deliverables. And much of the groundwork for high-level recommendations—things like audits, gap analyses, stakeholder interviews, and user research—should usually be present in deliverables only as brief summaries, lest decision makers be bored into a coma by too many spreadsheets.
There are usually other types of internal, non-deliverable documentation that track many of these different kinds of work, but by definition, those other forms usually aren’t public. For these reasons, looking at deliverables alone can produce a distorted picture of the efforts required to get to final recommendations.

Persuasion

Because we live in reality instead of a scholarly abstraction, deliverables must also help us sell our ideas to clients and managers. Excellent deliverables are persuasive … and persuasive in ways that are specific to the project and surrounding situation. No boilerplate allowed.
Of course, deliverables can’t be useful sales tools unless they’re a solid manifestation of our consultative work. Smart decisions don’t quite sell themselves, but smart decisions supported by concise explanations of the reasoning behind them are usually quite persuasive. Especially if the decisions and rationale are explicitly connected back to the goals and requirements everyone agreed on at the beginning of the project. (You did do that, right? Get everyone to agree on those basics? If not, start with this post.)

DELIVERABLES AREN’T …

Let’s flip it around for a minute and consider what deliverables aren’t. They’re not:
  • A replacement for good processes
  • A comprehensive record of our work
  • A substitute for the synthetic, analytical, and creative thinking and problem-solving that constitutes content strategy
If you’re trying to get your head around content strategy, either as a new practitioner or a client/manager, deliverable reviews can help quite a lot. But remember always that what you’re seeing on paper is the visible tip of a much larger and more complicated chunk of ice.
(And those slightly terrifying goggle-wearing seals that keep swimming under your boat carrying underwater welding equipment? Those are the content strategists. Don’t worry. They’re your friends.)

GOING DEEPER

What does that mean, in practical terms?
If you’re trying to learn more about CS, or about the capabilities of a particular firm or practitioner, don’t just talk deliverables. Ask about process. Ask about philosophy. Ask to talk through completed projects and the results CS produced.
If you’re a new practitioner or someone who’s curious about CS, talk to people who work alongside content strategists, like designers and project managers. Talk to clients or managers who’ve seen a CS project all the way through. Think about all the underwater effort that goes into producing the shiny deliverables you can see and touch.
If you’re on the client/hiring side, remember that in the end, it’s not the deliverables or even the thinking behind them that matters, it’s whether those things produce results: whether they save money, make money, bring order to chaos, produce intelligence from messes of data, communicate ideas more effectively, prevent derailments, and meet the goals you set out to meet. And if you’re the one championing a CS project, a lot of that is under your control, even if you don’t produce a single deliverable.
Do all of that and no matter who you are, you’ll go into your next project with a much better understanding of what’s going on under the surface of all those painstakingly proofread deliverables we love so much.