Articles by Month: May 2006

IT and intranet ownership

Time and time again in my workshops, I see the same issues come up regarding the role of IT and the ownership of intranets. This is expressed in phrases such as:

"We handed the intranet back to the corporate communications team, and it was a disaster."

"We've tried handing back sections of the intranet to the business, but they just aren't interested."

"We can't get business areas to take responsibility for updating their own areas."

"Once we delivered the intranet to the business, we've had real problems."

These all reflect a fundamental mistake made by some IT areas, which boils down to:

Either own the intranet, or not. Then act accordingly.

To expand on this: IT has a very simple choice, whether they want to be the owners (in every sense) of the intranet, or not. The choice that is made then influences the role they have to play. Let's explore this further:

IT owns the intranet

Great, I'm happy with that. As our earlier intranet survey identified, a lot of intranets are owned by IT. At the end of the day, I don't care where the intranet team is located, as long as they have the right skills and focus.

But, if IT owns the intranet, then they are responsible for the intranet as a whole. This includes managing the content, setting policies, defining strategies, conducting communications, plus more. Basically, all of the things that any true intranet team are responsible for.

IT doesn't own the intranet

I'm happy with that too. IT is responsible for the underlying technology platform, but the intranet is owned by another business area (such as communications, KM, etc). The other business area has overall ownership of the intranet, and directs IT (and seeks guidance from them) regarding technology matters.

But if this is the case, then why is IT rushing off to:

• create a brand new intranet from scratch, when no-one has asked for one
• buy a new content management system
• "pilot" or implement a new collaboration tool (such as Sharepoint)

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If IT doesn't own the intranet, then why is it acting like it does? This is the sole cause of the problems of "handing over" solutions or activities to the business, and it should never occur. If the business isn't ready to do something (or anything) with the intranet, then IT has plenty of other useful things to get on with.

Own or do not own

So in summary, there should be clarity about who owns the intranet. The owner should be making the decisions, setting the direction, defining the agenda. Everyone should be helping, but not trying to have the fun without taking the responsibility...

Posted by jamesr at 06:02 PM | Permalink
Categories: Intranets

Why defining requirements is not good enough

Patrick Cormier has written a blog entry on the importance of having an integrated information management plan. To quote:

It is not good enough to adopt, as a starting point, "we need a content management system", or "we need a document and records management system". Other starting points are equally not valid: "we need a new records management policy", "we need a new training program". The optimum starting point should be: "we need a sound information architecture promoting integrated information management".

I definitely agree on the importance of not starting with just a single system, but instead taking a more global view of information needs in an organisation. I remain concerned, however, that the desire to create an integrated plan can lead to either over-simplification or "analysis paralysis"...

Posted by jamesr at 11:24 AM | Permalink
Categories: Information management

Creating & maintaining a web style guide

Maish Nichani has written a comprehensive article on web style guides. To quote:

A web style guide is a key deliverable at the end of a website design/redesign process. It is a document (usually a subsite in itself) that describes what needs to be done to maintain and grow the website according to a common set of principles derived during the design or redesign process.

Posted by jamesr at 08:45 AM | Permalink
Categories: Design & usability guidelines

Exploring user mental models of breadcrumbs in web navigation

Angela Colter, Kathryn Summers, Cheri Smith have conducted research into the use of breadcrumbs on websites. To quote:

Our research explored how many sites currently use breadcrumbs as a navigation element, what conventions have developed, and whether users notice, use, and understand what breadcrumbs are. To pursue these questions, we surveyed 4,775 catalog Web sites to find out how many implement them and what connector character is used, then conducted qualitative user testing with four Web sites that use breadcrumbs to determine user mental models.

[Thanks to Henrik Olsen.]

Posted by jamesr at 10:46 AM | Permalink
Categories: Information architecture, Usability & user-centered design

KM review session

We've recently been doing some interesting knowledge management work with a large law firm, and I thought it would be interesting to share some of the process.

We were called in to conduct some needs analysis research with staff, to build up a clear picture of working practices, needs and issues. This evidence would then be used to guide the review (and then implementation) of an existing knowledge management strategy.

The process started with one of our team (Patrick Kennedy) conducting three days of interviews with staff from a range of areas and levels. These interviews focused on how staff worked, targeting specific areas that were known to be of interest to the KM team.

This initial round of interviews generated some useful findings. More importantly, they were used to tailor the set of questions to even better target specific issues. At this point, the existing knowledge managers (and other team members) were then brought into the process, to conduct a second (and wider) round of interviews based on the updated questions.

Staff from across Australia were involved in the second round, and over 60 interviews were conducted. Each of the KM team members took their own notes, to help them remember key details afterwards. The challenge was then to pull together this huge amount of research into a single set of coherent results...

This is when the fun really began.

A two-day facilitated workshop was organised with all those who conducted the second round of interviews, with the goal of drawing out the key findings and getting them documented.

Before the session, each of the participants had been given homework to identify the top ten:

• Key findings
• Most unexpected findings
• Greatest variations between offices/service lines
• KM issues to address

We then started the session by getting everyone to write down their findings and observations onto sticky notes. Each team member also got 20 minutes to talk through their overall findings. We ended up with plenty of notes, as can be seen here:

Affinity diagramming was then used to pull together these findings and issues into coherent groups. After an hour or two, we identified some clear patterns and groupings, as shown here (the groups were later labelled):

We also used the Microsoft Product Reaction Cards (Word document) to explore how staff in the firm currently viewed KM, and how we wanted them to view KM. This proved to be a good break in the proceedings, and it identified some important characteristics of a successful solution.

Once we had up the overall shape of the findings, it was then down to defining and documenting each specific finding. This took us another whole day (with a little left to do), generating a good thick pile of flip-chart paper.

Overall, the process has proven to be very enlightening, highlighting a number of key issues that are impacting on the success of knowledge management at the firm. It's also been amazing to see the degree to which the KM team is willing to explore the really challenging issues, even though they have the greatest invested in the current approaches.

There's much more to do yet, but this has proven to us that it's possible to get a broad team to conduct user research and still deliver a coherent set of results. It's also reaffirmed the value of "in the field" research, both in terms of identifying unexpected issues, but also its ability to shape the direction of overall KM strategy.

Posted by jamesr at 05:45 PM | Permalink
Categories: Knowledge management

Using eye tracking to compare web page designs: a case study

Agnieszka Bojko has written an article on eye tracking to compare designs. To quote:

A proposed design for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Web site was evaluated against the original design in terms of the ease with which the right starting points for key tasks were located and processed. This report focuses on the eye tracking methodology that accompanied other conventional usability practices used in the evaluation. Twelve ASCO members were asked to complete several search tasks using each design. Performance measures such as click accuracy and time on task were supplemented with eye movements which allowed for an assessment of the processes that led to both the failures and the successes. The report details three task examples in which eye tracking helped diagnose errors and identify the better of the two designs (and the reasons for its superiority) when both were equally highly successful. Advantages and limitations of the application of eye tracking to design comparison are also discussed.

Posted by jamesr at 03:14 PM | Permalink
Categories: Usability & user-centered design

Design patterns: part 1

Luke Wroblewski has interviewed a number of people regarding design patterns. To quote:

Design patterns describe solutions. Solutions that we know can work 'positively' for specific problems in specific contexts. The solutions are documented as a 'pattern' where all aspects can be described, even implementation issues if that is helpful and relevant.

[Thanks to elearningpost.]

Posted by jamesr at 12:49 PM | Permalink
Categories: Usability & user-centered design

What is good intranet content?

Nick Besseling has written an article that asks: what is good intranet content? To quote:

Making pages 'sticky' with irrelevant material does little to help you achieve your goals as an intranet (i.e value to the organisation) and does little to support the users themselves. There are some areas for less work focused content such as news/ social community areas but content approaches to these areas should not encroach on your key operational and informational content.

Posted by jamesr at 09:05 PM | Permalink
Categories: Intranets

Email and content management

Seth Gottlieb has written about email and content management, highlighting the problems that email overuse causes, as well as discussing some possible solutions. To quote:

Never to be one to rant without a solution, here are some tips to solve the information management problem. I refuse to believe that the solution lies in building a better email client or integrating into email (other than sending an email notification of some event).

Posted by jamesr at 08:44 PM | Permalink
Categories: Content management, Information management

Report on last CM Pros meeting (Sydney, Australia)

We had a lively meeting of the CM Pros Australia group in Sydney on 11 May 2006. A facilitated discussion format was used, which allowed everyone to contribute to the exploration of content authoring challenges and processes. (PS. join the mailing list to hear about future meetings in both Sydney and Melbourne.)

Here are the rough (unedited) notes from the evening:

What are the challenges in creating good content?

• Need professional writers
• What does it mean in practice?
• Consistency
• "Consumption is invisible"
• Must be maintained
• Happy talk
• Temporal issues (content dates!)
• Content may only last a day!
• People must be trained to write for the web
• Need to realise it's needed and read
• Recognising the value
• Historically, published by other means
• Cultural change
• Not all content is equal
• Different to print
• Approval, workflow
• Editing
• Audit trails
• Decentralised?
• "Bucks per tag"
• Rest of content/info out there
• Line between communications and IT?
• Role of IT in content today?
• Need for executive champion?
• Align with revenue/profit
• Content processes add more overhead than value of content
• Does good content connect you to people?

Role of technology in creating good content?

• Reduce the _cost_ of delivering content
• Automating
• Storing
• Tracking
• Publishing to multiple points
• Smart reporting, analytics
• Replacing ink & paper
• Displace costs
• Real usage known
• Managing repetition:
  • compliance
  • consistency
  • style/guidelines
  • templates
• Redundancy check (CRC check by system)
• Audit trail
• Risk mitigation
• Helps to demonstrate value

Centralised vs decentralised

Centralised:

• Consistency (sort of)
• Enhances user experience
• More relevant
• Takes too long
• Can be more disengaged from use?
• Ownership of site, not content
• Just final edits?
• Overall perspective
• Web strategy

Decentralised:

• Greater spread of output
• Disparate
• Subject matter expertise
• More relevant
• Harder to control
• Immediacy
• No clue about web audience?
• Inconsistency
• More authors
• Content ownership

Hot topics for future meetings

• Workflow
• Transition into a CMS
• Governance
• Reuse
• Accessibility
• Data mining
• Personalisation
• Integration
• WCM vs CM

Posted by jamesr at 06:28 PM | Permalink
Categories:

How much effort does it take to create a great user experience?

John Rhodes has written an article on the effort required for great user experience. To quote:

Even if you don't buy into the formula outlined above, you should still consider the principles I've described. Namely, it is possible to systematically approach the level of effort you need to expend in order to satisfy customers and create a great user experience. Metrics can guide you. The formula is simply a way to align customer UX factors with your organization's UX factors. For what it is worth, I am convinced that there is a better formula waiting to be born. I'd be happy to have someone come along and blow mine out of the water. That's fine, but until that happens, let's use what we’ve got.

[Thanks to Usability News.]

Posted by jamesr at 05:57 PM | Permalink
Categories: Usability & user-centered design

Web 2.0 meets the enterprise

Howard Greenstein has written an article on web 2.0 in the enterprise. To quote:

An umbrella term for an emerging core of technologies, trends, and principles, Web 2.0 is not only changing what's on the Web, but also how it works. Many believe that CIOs who understand these new applications and technologies --- and apply the benefits early on --- stand to greatly improve internal business processes. Among the biggest advantages is better collaboration with customers, partners, and suppliers, as well as among internal users. Clearly, Web 2.0 is already taking hold: Perhaps wikis are being used in your R&D department, or the marketing team is experimenting with blogging. Ignoring these technologies won't serve a CIO, or the company, well at all.

[Thanks to elearningpost.]

Posted by jamesr at 10:34 PM | Permalink
Categories: Content management, Information management, Intranets

Intranet roadblocks (Perth, May 2006)

I've just finished running one of our Intranet Planning Day workshops in Perth, and right at the outset of the workshop I got the participants to brainstorm the roadblocks that were preventing them from delivering a great intranet.

This is the (unedited) list that they came up with:

• Lack of leadership
• No budget, resources
• Too big!
• Trying to please everybody
• What is it for?
• Unclear ownership
• Viewed as a one-off project
• People are happy with what they've got
• Change is resisted
• No methodology
• No buy-in
• Problems with the previous intranet
• Technology, not customer, focus
• Too many ideas that aren't used when implemented
• Authoring
• "Not being done for staff"
• Apathy

This is an excellent list, and I would make a few observations:

• This list is almost entirely to do with organisational and cultural issues, not technology, design or day-to-day management problems.
• The biggest issue is the lack of leadership, direction and buy-in.
• Practical issues (such as the design and structure of the intranet) are comparatively easy to solve, and are at least known problems.
• Intranet teams recognise very clearly the true nature of the challenges confronting them, even if they don't always deal with them directly (or at all).

Posted by jamesr at 08:21 PM | Permalink
Categories: Intranets

More on starting with the intranet homepage

Iain Barker's article this month on starting with the homepage has generated some excellent discussion and debate.

First there was Peter Van Dijck who suggested that starting with the homepage will send us straight to politico-hell. To quote:

I have a lot of respect for James, but that's the WORST advice ever. Starting with the homepage is a direct road to political hell in any company. I usually do my best to keep the homepage out of discussions until we've done other parts of the site. These days, I'm doing the same with the main nav - it all comes out of working on the rest of the site. James, this one's just wrong, I find it hard to imagine you won't go straight to politicohell (don't pass by START).

Then Jane McConnell joined in the debate, suggesting that the homepage can't be redesigned on its own. To quote:

As an external consultant, I might add that "starting with the homepage is the fast lane to losing your job!" because it's real dynamite in most organisations - you've got to know your way around before you'll know how to best deal with the homepage.

Thanks for the great debate! This is the sort of thing that keeps me interested and enthused. :-)

First off, let me say that I wouldn't disagree with any of the comments made by either Peter or Jane (they're both very experienced in this area). I will, however, expand on what we've written so far (in brief form):

• We aren't suggesting that a complete redesign isn't appropriate in many (most?) situations.
• Generally speaking, if you can gain the support (and resources!) for a complete redesign, then that's the best solution.
• When we wrote the article, it was drawn directly from a client situation where it wasn't possible to redesign the whole site (no CMS, no resources, little support).
• In this case, we highlighted that some short-term benefits could be gained by refining the design of the homepage, within the constraints of the overall (broken) IA.
• We also highlighted that the homepage itself can be a major problem, beyond the broader problems of the site, and that something can be done about it.
• I would also draw attention again to the list of purposes for a homepage, and encourage everyone to re-read those. Any design (or redesign) that emphasises just one element (such as news) over the others may be doing little to support the success of the intranet.

So in summary, to build some momentum, there may be value in incrementally improving the homepage, leading onto a broader redesign. There is certainly much that can be done to the improve the design of the homepage, recognising that it is as important to support good navigation as it is to provide a home for news...

Anyway, it's great to have this sort of debate amongst peers in the intranet space, so thanks to all that have commented so far.

Posted by jamesr at 05:14 PM | Permalink
Categories: Intranets

The guided wireframe narrative for rich internet applications

Andres Zapata has written an article on wireframing rich internet applications. To quote:

The key to using a low-context medium (wireframes) to illustrate high-context information (rich internet applications) is to narrate the information in layers or in dimensions. In short, because we couldn't build a prototype (due to time and budget constraints), we built a story. But because it wasn't a linear application, multiple stories needed to be constructed. We call these stories the Guided Wireframe Narrative.

Posted by jamesr at 11:44 AM | Permalink
Categories: Information architecture, Usability & user-centered design

Savoring our design mistakes

Jared Spool discusses what to do when design mistakes are made, starting with a first post and then a followup. To quote:

Assuming the developer had the best of intentions (and why *shouldn't* we assume that? --- after all *we* do, don’t we?), the developer who produces a non-optimal user experience has actually done the team a favor by making obvious an important design requirement. Every time a team member bumps into a boundary of what good experience should be, we learn something we didn't know before.

I think this is a much more mature approach than another notable guru, who called these types of design mistakes "lazy, stupid and evil". At the end of the day, it's about building bridges and working well with others, and not about taking the high ground or demonising others...

Posted by jamesr at 09:24 PM | Permalink
Categories:

Decoupling CMS features

Apoorv Durga has written a blog post exploring the issues with decoupling CMS features. To quote:

In general, I think that when one buys a product, one should avoid extending it too much. The philosophy should be to customize rather than extend. If you require too many extensions, the product is probably not a right fit for you.

Posted by jamesr at 09:11 PM | Permalink
Categories: Content management

One CMS or two?

Martin White has written an article that discusses whether one CMS or two should be purchased. To quote:

In my view there are some significant risks associated with specifying a CMS for either a Web application or an intranet and then assuming that it will be an ideal solution for the other. Of course the driving force behind consolidation decisions is usually an economic one: just one license fee to pay, and as a plus, everyone can be trained up on the same software. The reality is different. I always advise my clients that the only way to select a CMS that will meet the requirements of a Web site and an intranet is to develop the specifications for both and then look at the trade-offs that have to be made to accommodate the requirements of the two applications in the same CMS.

[Thanks to Tony Byrne.]

I agree completely with Martin, and a while back I wrote an article on the differences between websites and intranets.

Posted by jamesr at 04:39 PM | Permalink
Categories: Content management

Second CM Pros Australia meeting in Sydney

The next meeting of the CM Pros Australia group is rapidly coming up. This is a great opportunity to meet up with others interested in content management, and the meeting is open to all. Details below:

DATE | Thursday 11 May 2006

TIME | 6.00PM to 8.00PM

VENUE | Sydney Mechanics' School of Arts - 280 Pitt Street (near Bathurst Street), Sydney NSW 2000

COST | FREE (small donations appreciated)

FACILITATOR | James Robertson

TOPIC | "Getting the right content: workflow, authoring models, and more:

This will be a facilitated open discussion format, moderated and led by James Robertson (CM Pros Australia Community Co-Chair and internationally renown thought-leader on content management issues).

As with past meetings, the aim is to build a robust content management network in Australia, discuss topics of relevance and provide broad based learning opportunities for all participants in the industry (whether technical, content, editorial, administration or management related). For those who can stay on after 8.00PM, we will retire to a nearby venue for a few drinks and an opportunity for open discussion on CM Pros, Content Management and related topics of interest.

Please RSVP to help us manage catering numbers.

Posted by jamesr at 05:16 PM | Permalink
Categories: Conferences & presentations

Website competitive analysis – a visual approach

Maish Nichani has written an article on a visual approach to website competitive analysis. To quote:

This article describes a simple visual approach to competitive analysis that can be used to quickly gain insights into what’s being used and what’s interesting at your competitor websites.

Posted by jamesr at 03:17 PM | Permalink
Categories: Information architecture, Usability & user-centered design

Why you shouldn't start IA with a content inventory

Leisa Reichelt has written an interesting blog entry that argues that we shouldn't start with a content inventory when redesigning a site. To quote:

Personally, I am of the opinion that starting your project with an inventory of this kind is probably one of the *worst* ways to go about developing a good IA. Not only is it the fastest way to lose enthusiasm for a project (hey, you don't do a Content Inventory for fun… they're really the most tedious work that an IA has to do). It is also the best way to ensure that you’re *not* taking a fresh approach to how the content might be structured and related.

Posted by jamesr at 11:01 AM | Permalink
Categories: Information architecture

Podcast on how to start a content management project

Well, I'm excited! Rahel Bailie has recorded my first podcast on selecting a CMS. To quote:

James Robertson, internationally-known head of Australia's Step Two Designs, speaks frankly about a good starting point for content management implementations. Robertson asserts that a content management system solves no problem.

To be honest, it's weird to hear my voice online, and I don't think it sounds anything like me at all (Rahel sounds on tape like she does in real life, so I think it's something about the timbre of my voice). Anyway, it was great fun to do, and I look forward to more opportunities like this. Rahel has also published many other very interesting interviews over the last week...

Posted by jamesr at 11:22 AM | Permalink
Categories: Content management, James' articles

10 words to describe successful intranets

• Innovative
• Trusted
• Productive
• Useful
• Pervasive
• Usable
• Essential
• Collaborative
• Coherent
• Strategic

[CM Briefing 2006-08, read the full article]

Posted by jamesr at 04:21 PM | Permalink
Categories: Intranets, James' articles

Full site redesign? Start by addressing the home page

When an intranet isn't working effectively, many organisations attempt to tackle the problem with a full-scale redesign of the site or the implementation of a content management system. But these major projects can create as many issues as they resolve:

• they are time-consuming to specify and implement
• they often involve the acquisition of new technology
• there is no guarantee they will address the real issues
• major IT projects don't have a good track record of being successful

Rather than embarking on a major project at the first sign of trouble, consider tactical solutions such as the redesign of the home page.

Most home pages don't work

The main purpose of an intranet home page is:

• to provide staff with a starting point from which they can intuitively and confidently step towards the content they require
• to present a clear and consistent intranet brand that is discrete from, yet in keeping with, the parent brand of the organisation
• to provide staff with a daily snapshot of the most important news and updates
• to provide staff with a quick way of getting to the most visited/useful content

[CM Briefing 2006-07 written by Iain Barker, read the full article]

Posted by jamesr at 11:17 AM | Permalink
Categories: Information architecture, Intranets, Usability & user-centered design

Nine ways to fix intranet search

Search is often the greatest source of frustration on intranets. Irrelevant results, hard to read results pages and 'untitled document' entries plague many intranet searches.

With the size and scope of most intranets, search is a key tool used by staff to find information. While the expectation is that it should be quick and easy to find information on the intranet, this is often not the case.

Beyond generating staff frustration, these problems can reduce trust and confidence in the search tool. More broadly, the issues with search may be having a significant impact on the usage of the intranet as a whole.

This article therefore outlines nine steps that can be taken by all intranet teams to improve the effectiveness of search. References are made to previous articles that outline specific steps in greater detail.

Not a technology problem

On the whole, this is not a technology problem. Most modern search engines provide more than enough functionality for corporate intranet sites. The problem is that in too many cases, the search is simply installed 'out of the box', and then left untouched.

This default installation is rarely effective, and there is a modest amount of tuning and design work that is required to deliver a solution that matches the specific characteristics of the intranet being searched.

This article focuses on these design steps, and assumes that the currently-deployed search engine can be made to work much better without having to be replaced.

[May KM Column, read the full article]

Posted by jamesr at 11:09 AM | Permalink
Categories: James' articles, Search tools

Task oriented information architecture

Michael Andrews has written a blog entry on task oriented information architecture. To quote:

Most discussion of information architecture relates to finding information. There are articles people want to read, or catalog items people want to browse. What receives less attention in information architecture is how to organize user interfaces to perform tasks, particularly tasks involving complex, drawn-out processes. After recently working on an enterprise application, I have concluded that task-oriented information architecture involves unique issues.

Posted by jamesr at 02:51 PM | Permalink
Categories: Information architecture