WelchmanPierpoint - Blog

And Still We Rise: The Professionalization of the Web Vocation

Lisa Welchman — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:38:59 -0800

February was Black History Month in the United States. My birthday also falls in February and this year I was 46. These two events always weave themselves together for me because the year I was born is the year The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. Today, I own a business and am asked to speak as an “expert” at conferences globally. Some of these conferences are held in hotels that on the day I was born would not have seated me in their restaurants or let me spend the night in one of their rooms. So, every year when my birthday comes I am compelled to stop and acknowledge the efforts of others that made a way for me. A lot has changed in my lifetime and I am grateful to those who made it happen.

Change does not come easily or quickly especially when it’s significant change. And for every type of change, be it political, business, or cultural, there is a cadre of individuals who align or collude to effect that change. There are your quiet but brave types who might shy away from the limelight but take on the issue directly; and their natural counterparts, the righteously loud. And, there are charismatic visionaries who inspire the masses and make individuals feel as if they can change the world. There are those in “the system” who try to make change from within and the ones who put their heads down to do the mundane but necessary grunt work. There is even a role played by the complacent, the naysayer, and the cynic who insists that things can never change— if nothing else, they are the motivators.

Last week I was at the Web4Dev conference in Brasilia where more than 100 people from around the world (and over 1,000 others via Webcast) assembled to discuss how the Web could be used to forward the initiatives of the United Nations. And while there was a topical focus on the use of social media, there was a lot of talk about change. There was visionary talk about how the Web is changing the world and enhancing our ability to level the global playing field. There was talk from those in the Web trenches about how the Web has changed the role of organizational communicators. There were hands on Web professionals talking about how the ever-scaling Web has changed their role from the geeky Webmaster to chief advocate and manager of the organization’s most important communications and operational tool.

We discussed how significant change in organizational governance was required to absorb the Web’s impact. And considered how one might reinvent an organization like the United Nations using the capabilities of a powerful platform like the Web. The possibilities were exciting and awesome as we heard inspirational success stories from organizations like Save the Children, The World Bank, Ashoka, and the Communication Initiative Network.

It’s good to have vision and be inspired by early Web successes. But, at some point, it’s time to move forward in earnest to take the difficult steps that will lead to broad, sustained transformation. And these difficult steps, in many cases will need to be taken by Web professionals. If you are a Web professional, ready or not, the success of the Web in your organization is most likely in your hands and it is up to you to help your non-profit, corporation, NGO or government manage the change that is occurring organically all around us. But in order to be taken seriously as professionals who can effect real change for our organizations, we need to be taken seriously as professionals. And that mean that we need to take ourselves seriously as professionals by defining what it means to be a Web professional by establishing some best practices and a vocabulary for the varied work that we do. Here are some steps I believe you can take now:

Organize and Volunteer:

We can’t lead our organizations into the Web era if we can not articulate the nature and value of our profession. There are many organizations out there for people who work on the Web. Other than Web4Dev, the two I am most familiar with are Content Management Professionals which focuses more on the day-to-day of getting Web work done and the other is the Internet Strategy Forum which provides an information sharing and networking environment for those tasked with creating Web and Internet strategies for their organization. Join one, volunteer your time and help mature the Web profession.

Sit-in:

While I still believe that, over the long term, no Chief Web Officer is required in the executive suite, I do believe that the Web needs to be integrated into business as usual. And, in some cases, business as usual needs to be integrated into the Web. Some organizations have fallen into a routine where Web design and supporting back end technological choices are treated as if they are a matter of taste, not something to be determined by those with special skills. If you are a Web professional in an organization where the Web is inappropriately utilized, you should build a business case which articulates why the Web is important to your business and why Web professionals should be making the choices about how the Web is managed in your organization. Then, tell your story loud and clear to anyone who will listen. And don’t stop until the message is heard. Be civilized, be data driven, be appropriate, but hold your ground. This might involve some vocational risk and therefore is not for everyone… but change is not easy.

Boycott:

We all need jobs but there is no reason to work stupid. When someone in your organization asks you to do Web work that you know doesn’t make any sense, don’t do it. I’m not talking about the small battles. I’m talking about the long lasting technology decisions that make no sense coming out of the gate or thinking you can fix an entire broken Web presence with a social media strategy. You may not win every battle but with a reasoned argument that focuses on resource and creating value for your organization, you can win the war.

We are not oppressed, underfunded Webmasters. We are agents of change: the catalyst between where our organization is now with the Web and where it can be. That’s a morally powerful position to be in when your Web presence supports an organization whose role it is to alleviate human injustice. It’s a fiscally powerful position, when the goal of your business is to keep your stockholders happy. It’s a culturally powerful position when the goal of your organization is to educate.

Understand and realize your power. You are a highly skilled, highly specialized cadre of professionals. If you’re doing real strategic Web work, then no one else in your organization can do what you do. Face it; most people barely understand what you do. Perhaps that’s hubris and cynicism but there is some fundamental truth there and, professionally speaking, some advantage and power. Use it.

Characteristics of Productive Standards Teams

Delia Konizeski — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:05:45 -0800

I spent most of last month in meetings with Web standards teams as they debated and hammered out drafts of Web standards related to social media, Web records management, 508 accessibility and more. And, while the topics may not sound particularly exciting, the discussions were animated and interesting and the meetings proved productive. I credit the makeup and structure of the teams for that.

Below are the characteristics the individual teams had in common and what you should emulate when forming your own teams to draft Web standards:

Subject Matter Experts

Each team included subject matter experts from within the organization. Members of the Web records management team were very familiar with how paper records are treated in the organization and were working through NARA guidelines for Web records. The 508 accessibility team included the accessibility coordinator who reviews the Web pages to ensure they are 508 compliant. Some teams included subject matter experts from the parent company and/or contractors from specialized firms already on retainer, like research and PR firms.

Non-Subject Matter Experts

 A team comprised of only subject matter experts may lose perspective on standards which are crafted for use by those who are not experts on the topic. The chairperson of the Web records management team lamented that she was not an expert on the topic and felt perhaps she wasn’t suited to be on the team. In fact, the opposite was true. She was able to keep the subject matter experts from getting bogged down in minutia and made them explain what they were drafting so that it was in plain language everyone could easily understand and follow.

Cross-Representation

Each team was comprised of members to represent their various departments—specifically the viewpoints of their departments and constituents— across the organization. One member of the social media team was able to chime in with the viewpoint of researchers— and the draft was modified significantly as a result.

Willingness to Seek Additional Council

Each team was open to consulting subject matter experts who were not formally seated on the team to provide feedback on the drafts. The social media team set up meetings where representatives from the HR and Legal departments could review the drafts and suggest revisions or clarifications.

Small in Makeup

 Small groups are ideal for collaborating on standards. The trick is to actually keep the team small while also including subject matter experts and ensuring cross-representation from within the organization. The majority of the standards teams I worked with included four to six members though I have seen teams work successfully with more than 10 members.

Topic Specific

Standards teams should be created for a narrow focus. That is, they should be concerned with creating standards related to a specific topic. The teams I recently worked with were specific and focused: a social media team, a 508 accessibility team, a Web records management team, etc. Even broader, yet focused assignments will do; I’ve also worked with teams designated for Web design, Information Organization, Web Infrastructure and more.

So, be sure to take these characteristics into account when forming the Web standards teams in your organization. Who knows, you may even find they apply to any type of team or committee.

Enabling the Web Team Enables Business

Christine Pierpoint — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:01:45 -0800

I'm a sucker for "best of" and "top 10" lists. I enjoy them for the kernels of knowledge that I can file away for future reference. You never know when practical tidbits like, the Top 10 Herbivores You Probably Want to Avoid, may come in handy.

Recently I've been ruminating on one list in particular. The Harvard Business Review published their annual list of Breakthrough Ideas and, true to form, the list has some great insights. The first breakthrough in particular caught my interest. Contributed by Teresa M. Amabile and Steven J. Kramer, it challenges managers' perceptions about worker motivation. Turns out that the number one motivator for staff isn't recognition or incentives. It's progress.

That may seem counter-intuitive to some managers, but based on my experience talking with Web teams in every industry, the thing that seems to frustrate them the most is the inability to make progress. Unfunded mandates, lack of authority and disengaged management are the typical roadblocks that make life difficult for the Web team.

Just yesterday, I was talking with a gentleman who leads a three person team responsible for their company's global site, the employee portal and the customer portal. All three sites are considered "mission critical" by management, yet there is no central budget or strategic plan for the Web. Sadly, I find this to be the norm and not the exception. In organizations around the world, there are massive sites being held together by a handful of people who operate based on sheer will and bootstrapping.

Very often we find that the Web is off the radar screen of many senior executives. I was in another global organization that has a central Web team seated within Communications.The team manages a distributed publishing model with more than 300 contributors, yet the senior VP of Communications was under the impression that a single person updated the entire site. He couldn't understand why it took so long to update the President's photo across the site.

As a result of this disconnect, the Web team feels at best, misunderstood, and at worst, unappreciated and demotivated. No one wants to be in a situation where they're set up for failure, but that's exactly what happens when there is no legitimacy for the Web program. The Web team, rather than being viewed as subject-matter-experts and strategic thinkers, is perceived as "content putter-uppers." Attempts to improve the site holistically, like implementing a standard template or navigation, are often met with roadblocks because the team lacks the authority and resources to affect change.

The good news for managers is that boosting Web team morale and ultimately improving the quality of the Web presence is a relatively inexpensive fix. It doesn't involve investing in costly technology or incentive programs. It's a matter of formalizing your organization's approach to Web operations. Set a strategy by establishing guiding principles and key performance indicators for the Web. Then empower the Web team with the resources they need to execute in support of that strategy.

Managers who enable their Web team will get more value out of their Web products, which in turn enable the business.

Chop Code; Carry Content: An End of Year Thought

Lisa Welchman — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:37:57 -0800

I’ve had my head down the last few months working on a number of projects. But a couple of days ago, someone sent me an email note that inspired me to stop and write this blog post. He was asking me, 'what do you do if you work in an organization where the leadership just doesn’t get what you do? What do you do if you are a smart Web person— maybe a content strategist, a gifted designer or application developer— and your bosses (from middle management to CEOs) don’t appear to be strategically engaged with the Web?'

People ask me this question a lot. Frequently the person asking is angrily asserting that senior management is a liability and ought to be fired and replaced by them. Or, at the very least, they’ll argue that some position must be made at the senior level so that Web strategists can whisper smart Web nothings directly in the CEO’s ear.

In general, my answer has been prescriptive and action-oriented. I’ll either say something like, “they don’t get it but you do. Stand up and lead, and quit your whining!” Or, “learn to speak the language of management and stop saying stuff like ‘CMS’ and ‘metadata’ to high-level managers.” Or, “go to business school and become the CEO.” And, I believe those things. But the gentleman who emailed me knew all of this already. He wanted to know what to do if your calling is to design Web pages, or write elegant clean code, or define controlled vocabularies all day. What do those people do?

So, there is the other, less mouthy and in-your-face person who is frustrated and perhaps beginning to feel helpless as they realize that the coolness of the World Wide Web and its capabilities might just get rolled by the centuries old bureaucratic tendencies of the big bad corporation— that the cool work we Web folk do might be getting not-so-cool. There is a sense of negative inevitability as the gridlocked nature of a nested management structure makes it impossible for Web teams to function with the object-oriented speed required in the 21^st century. So, some of us are in mourning or giving up, assuming that we’ve lost the battle.

But I believe the mourning is premature. No, it’s not a do-it-yourself Webmaster world anymore where you get to call all the shots. But that doesn’t mean that the power of the Web will not be actualized in due course. And while there is no substitute for fearless, informed leadership, sometimes it just isn’t there.

Consider from your Web trench that the impact of the Web has been so strong that it has left leadership stupefied. It can be convenient and personally gratifying to criticize when you don’t have the ability or power to act. Being an armchair CEO for a meeting or an afternoon daydream is easy. But, you need to stay alert. The whole organization can’t be Web-stupid. If those who have Web expertise give up, become cynical, or over-compromise in execution, who will be there to execute when leadership does regain their vision?

And it will happen. Natural market competition will resuscitate business leaders. There might be a few more causalities but some old generals will get up off the ground and some new leaders will come up through the ranks. And, this effect will ripple through less market-focused organizations like higher education and the government, more or less. Just as it does now.

There’s a well-known Zen saying: "Chop wood; carry water." This thought, among other things, reminds us of the value of work even when it’s not clear where or what the result will be. Being a Web manger is a thankless and frustrating job in most organizations. But I’d urge those of you who care about quality, who care about the mission or bottom line of your organization, not to lose heart — even if there is no clear and sensible Web strategy. Don’t quit your personal vision of excellence:

Don’t be seduced by easy power of social media…use it well. The quick, cheap and deep Web channel can proliferate wrong just as quickly as it proliferates right.
Don’t forget to demand the same standard of yourself that you demand of your peers. Just because you work on the “cool” Web doesn’t mean that your motives can’t be skewed by a desire for power and control.
Accept the shifted and more mature reality of what it means to manage and collaborate through the Web. A blog post of mine wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t say “Web Governance” at least once. So, “Web Governance:” It includes Web policy which protects your organization from getting in trouble online and Web standards which enable collaboration.

The Web will rock the business world for decades to come—in ways we can’t imagine. Play your role in the revolution. If you are a leader, lead. But, if you are not: chop code; carry content. We need you to hold the place of sanity and stability. You are the sculptors of the technology. And I believe that you hold more of the future in your hands than you know.

Budget Planning for the Web

Christine Pierpoint — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:24:43 -0800

For many folks, the end of the calendar year means it's time to submit budget requests. Perhaps you're among the lucky few who have a comprehensive plan and budget for the Web. But if you don't, here are some guidelines to get you thinking about funding your Web operations.

First, make sure the scope is defined for the Web presence. Are you responsible for funding the public-facing site, the intranet, an extranet or the whole shoot'n match? A documented Web operations strategy will help you define budget parameters so when you make the ask, you can clearly state that you're seeking funding for "X" Web property.

Next, state the goals for the Web property and the planned strategies and tactics for meeting those goals. This process will allow you to identify quantifiable success metrics and provide rationale for funding. For example, you may have a goal to migrate 50 percent of content into your CMS. Once you have the goal defined, describe the approach and resource requirements for meeting that goal (ex. tools, vendors, training, etc).

At this point, you can begin to assign costs to each line item. Make sure you take into consideration the costs for hardware, software, design, implementation and maintenance. Other cost considerations are training, communications and change management. Depending on your organization, you may also need to cost out internal head count in addition to vendor fees. Specifically, how many full-time employees (FTEs) will you need to accomplish the Web goals?

Web goals should include specific projects (i.e, a site re-design) as well as day-to-day operations. People are generally good about budgeting for projects but rarely do we see organizations that budget appropriately for the care and feeding of the Web presence. Your budget should account for all the things that are required for maintaining a quality Web presence. This should include daily upkeep of design and editorial content, ongoing usability and analytics, R&D, and maintenance of Web tools and infrastructure.

Depending on how your organization budgets, you may have a stand-alone Web budget or you may need to collaborate with other departments to make sure they're accounting for the Web in their budgets. This may involve working with IT to address software and hardware-related items as well as working with individual lines of business to ensure they have budget for Web projects and ongoing Web operations.

A detailed Web plan for upcoming projects and day-to-day operations will help everyone understand priorities and costs for the Web presence. Share the plan with your Web stakeholders to ensure buy-in and support for the budget. That will keep the process transparent and help set expectations for the coming year.

Take Web Governance on the Road in Your Organization

Delia Konizeski — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:14:01 -0800

Lisa Welchman and Christine Pierpoint took to the road last month-- in New York and London with Vamosa-- to raise awareness about Web governance. They met a lot of people who know firsthand that the Web is too mission-critical to operate in an ad hoc manner. But, knowing and doing are different things. Lisa and Christine encouraged those they met to implement Web governance and offered a lot of practical advice on how to get started.

Consider taking Web governance "on the road" in your organization. Educate key Web stakeholders throughout your organization about how formal Web governance strengthens Web operations and benefits the entire organization. While "governance" and "Web" don't always go together in some employees minds, most are familiar with governance in other aspects of the organization, say finance or IT, and will listen when you outline the virtues of Web governance and its components-- a framework, Web policy and Web standards.

Frequently, when we work with clients, one of their major concerns is how to manage Web standards compliance for large and varied Web presence. Standards enforcement is not an after-the-fact action but something that needs to be incorporated into day-to-day Web operations.

In order to get you started with an effective strategy for standards compliance, take a look at our Web Governance and Standards Compliance White Paper which we handed out to those who attended our sessions in London and New York. I think you'll find it helpful as you go about enforcing Web standards in your organization.

In the Rush to Create Policy for Web 2.0, Don't Overlook Web 1.0

Christine Pierpoint — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:28:51 -0800

"OMG, We need a Social Media policy!"

This seems to be the current battle cry amongst executive staff and the Web team. Some organizations are still debating "should we or shouldn't we" when it comes to 2.0 practices. But the reality is that the social media cat is already out of the Web 2.0 bag. Somewhere in your organization, someone has already set up a Facebook page, formed a LInkedIn group and is Tweeting away completely oblivious to the fact that their actions could have a Butterfly Effect. Just thinking about the possible ramifications is enough to send legal council into a tizzy, and has brought executives from across the organization together to set policy.

To this I say, hooray! People are finally talking about Web policy...what took you so long?

Twitter and YouTube may just now be hitting critical mass in the business world, but your Web content has been out in the public domain for a long time. Do you have policy in place to govern your Web 1.0 sites?

As you weigh the implications of a Social Media policy, stop and think about the risk and exposure you may have because of the role the Web plays in your organization. Take a holistic view of the entire Web presence, Web 2.0 and 1.0, and consider what you need to do to ensure that your Web policy is sufficient. We recommend a three-pronged approach:

1. Examine all corporate policy - even those that seemingly have nothing to do with the Web and evaluate how the Web impacts existing policy. For example, you may have a records management policy. Does it cover Web-only records? You may find that you need to modify some of your "non-Web" policies to make sure the organization is adequately protected in a Web world.

2. Revise existing policy - some corporate polices, such as IT and Communications policy, are clearly impacted by the Web. Take a look at them to ensure they've been updated for the Web.

3. Create new policy as required - the final step is to define those policies that are required solely because the Web exists. Social Media is an obvious example, but you may find you also need policy about cookies, domain registration and what constitutes an official Web property for the organization.

Even if you have Web policy in place, it's still a good idea to go back and re-evaluate it in the context of Social Media. The Web is ever-changing and becoming more significant to your organization every day. Doing a regular review of corporate policy is a good practice for mitigating risk and keeping your organization aligned with the Web.

Crafting Social Media Policy: DoD Followed Web Governance Best Practices

Delia Konizeski — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:34:07 -0700

The Department of Defense (DoD) is set to release a final version of their much anticipated social network policy this year. They deserve kudos for soliciting input in an open, online forum and keeping the public informed of considerations and progress.

DoD utilized several Web Governance best practices in crafting their social media policy. Here’s a few that could be helpful to your organization:

Involve Senior Management

Social media policy, as with any Web policy, must be set a senior level of the organization as it affects the entire organization. This means that a working group can’t just be off in a corner crafting a policy that won’t have senior-level backing. Rather, a Web policy team comprised of senior management must craft policy and call in subject matter experts to provide guidance on key topics. In DoD’s case, the fact that a draft of the social networking directive was released by Defense Deputy Secretary William Lynn III indicates the policy is championed at the senior level. And, the DoD team includes a senior strategist for emerging media—no doubt a subject matter expert on social media channels.

Seek Input from Subject Matter Experts and/or Stakeholders

Policy teams should seek the input of subject matter experts for a given topic. For example, when crafting a Web policy related to HIPAA, policy team discussions should involve a member of the compliance department. Some topics are not as straightforward and might be particularly sensitive as the use of social media was for DoD. In such cases, it makes sense to solicit input from various stakeholders and constituencies in an open format to provide transparency and secure stakeholder buy in. DoD established the Web 2.0 Guidance Forum, a blog to solicit feedback from the public and dispel misinformation. DoD has acknowledged that the comments received have been helpful and have kept the blog up past its anticipated closure date.

Tame Transparency

Allow for transparency in the policy creation process and not policy creation itself. Keep stakeholders informed of how policy will be researched, drafted and codified and communicate at each step of the process as needed. Working drafts, on the other hand, should be confined to the policy team and subject matter experts so that stakeholders are not alarmed (and therefore reactive) or distracted by a version that is incomplete or not fully vetted internally. The Department of Defense did not release iterative versions of the policy on their Web 2.0 Guidance Forum. They did, however, release a draft version —anticipated to be released as the final version— to a member of the media to share. It was not posted on their guidance forum which suggests that they are at the end of their process and not seeking comments on their draft. It’s likely that the input they received from their forum during the drafting stage provided input enough and their draft is ready for imminent release.

Passing Along Some Kindness: One Free Day of Me

Lisa Welchman — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 05:56:05 -0700

The other day I came home from work and Mac, the man who cuts my grass, was working in my yard. I smiled and waved and asked how he was and he said “You know, I’ve been really blessed with work this year. I’ve been really fortunate. So, all the work I’ve done for you this summer and fall is free.” I paused for a minute, surprised, and then said. “Thanks. I’ll take that and pass it on.” And then I forgot about it.

The next day I was killing time in a small shop near my son’s school waiting for pick-up time and was looking at some necklaces and admiring them out loud to the shopkeeper. She said: “Yes, those necklaces are fun. My daughter does a silent auction for a youth group and I always donate one of those. They are very popular.” I said: “My son’s youth group is doing a silent auction…” with no intention of trying to get her to give me anything, it was the farthest thing from my mind. I was just making conversation. But, before I could get the story out, she gave me a necklace for the silent auction. And then I forgot about it.

Until I woke up in the middle of the night last night and remembered. I do my fair share of volunteer community work: sit on boards, food pantries, etc. But here was an example of two people who had given me some thing that they ordinarily sell. Two days in a row. And I had promised to pass it on. So, I’m using our blog to offer some organization a free day of onsite consulting services and some follow-up time on the phone.

I’ve spent the last 13 years of my life being fortunate enough to work with an emerging technology and have been privileged to see the inner workings of some really phenomenal Web sites. I’ve learned a lot about what works and what doesn’t work. I have concluded that the way people work and collaborate around a Web site impacts the quality and effectiveness of the site itself. So, I work with Web Teams to try and help them make right the way they work so the Web is better. I’ve built a decent reputation, a small business, and I am able to feed, educate, house, entertain, and clothe both myself and my son.

So here’s the deal:

You:

Send me your story. This is not a contest. I just need to know a little about you and your organization and understand what your problems are. A page is enough. Remember, I don’t design Web sites or implement technology. I work with the people who work on Web sites to help them improve the way they manage the Web so that the site and their overall Web presence can be better, more effective. Look at what we do and make sure I’m the right fit for you and that you don’t need a really good information architect or technologist. I know a lot about those things but it's not my core expertise.

Me.

At my own expense, I’ll take a plane, train, or automobile to wherever you are and spend a day with you and your Web team trying to help you sort out your problems and offer some advice. We can talk on the phone some before and some after. I won’t promise a miracle but I will give you the benefit of my knowledge and experience in Web management.

And, I won’t put your name (or anyone else who sends me info) on a marketing list, sell your name to anyone, or subscribe you to our newsletter, and I won’t try to up-sell you any of our services. I’m just trying to honor my promise to Mac.

Right now, I’ve got my head down writing an outrageously long blog post (that's probably really a paper) about Web Team structure and then I’ll be on the road doing a couple of speaking events in early November. So, if you are interested, please send me some info by November 30^th and I will take a look and see who seems like a good fit.

Send your story to me via our contact form.

Thanks.

Executive Staff is Responsible for Web Guiding Principles

Christine Pierpoint — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:43:50 -0700

In my last post I wrote about the differences between Web Managers and Mechanics. Both functions are vital to Web execution. Web managers turn Web strategy into execution plans and Web mechanics execute. But what about Web strategy? Who is ultimately responsible for establishing the underlying strategy for the corporate Web presence? That's actually the role of executive staff.

If that statement causes a record scratch in your head, then you might want to take a moment to re-read Lisa's definition of Web strategy. We're not talking about content strategy or who gets to decide on the look and feel. Those things are important at a tactical level, but the deep-down Web strategy is about defining the business objectives for the Web presence. How does the Web align with corporate strategy and which functions are supported by the Web? Those questions are best addressed at the executive tier of the organization. They're the ones driving the bus and suitably qualified to set strategic objectives for the Web.

We call this strategic direction guiding principles and, in general, they:

ensure that the organizational mission and values are reflected in all Web properties;
articulate high-level business objectives for Web properties, and;
establish basic compliance parameters for the organizational Web Presence.

Guiding principles are most effective when they align with the overall strategic plan for the organization. These help Web stakeholders to understand the business objectives of the Web and therefore make better decisions about execution.

Some examples of guiding principles include:

Creating a competitive advantage: "We will use the corporate Web presence to provide our customers with information and service that can't be found elsewhere."
Mitigating risk and liability: "Our Web presence shall comply with all Federal and state mandates that regulate our industry."
Driving operational efficiencies: "We will Web-enable our business functions to save overhead costs and limit redundant offline efforts."

Guiding principles for the Web are meant to be high-level and strategic. They don't go into execution details and shouldn't reference tactics like, "Web 2.0" or "content management system." Executives should use Web guiding principles to provide direction, not solutions. Leave it to Web managers and mechanics to come up with a plan that details how to act on the guiding principles.

If everyone is held accountable to the guiding principles then it becomes easier for Web managers to make strategic Web decisions. For example, Marketing managers could use the above principles to initiate a competitive analysis and drive content strategy while HR could use the same principles to make benefits administration Web-enabled.

Without guiding principles the Web presence will flounder amidst best intentions of the various functional areas and Web managers. Or, worse yet, there may be internal fighting as stakeholders vie for limited Web resources in the absence of direction from the executive team. The result is a haphazard Web site that distracts from corporate mission and creates a liability for the organization.

Web Policy, Standards and Guidelines – Do Not Mix

Delia Konizeski — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:45:05 -0700

During the discovery phase of WelchmanPierpoint's Web governance consulting engagements, I ask clients to share their policy and standards documents with me. Time and again, I’m handed a document that includes a mixture of policy, standards and guidelines. I see this mixture in online documents as well. In fact, I recently came across several social–media-related documents labeled as policy, guidelines and the like, when in actuality, they were a mixture of document types – or the opposite type of what they purported to be. Here are two literal examples from social media documents of how policy, standards and guidelines are often interchanged:

A cable broadcaster’s document labeled “Social Media Guidelines” states in the body, “For the purposes of this policy…”
A county in Virginia’s document labeled “Social Media Policy” states, “Violation of these standards may result in…”

This issue is not about semantics. Policies, standards and guidelines serve different functions, are set by different types of people, and have different levels of compliance. Given these tendencies, each should be distinct in its own right and should be parsed out in a separate document.

Consider the information you wish to express to your audience. Then, determine which content type (policy, standard, or guideline) best meets your objectives and required level of compliance based on the definitions below. You’ll see I’ve included examples related to social media to illustrate the difference between the types:

Web Policy

Web policy is a set of high-level mandates for what must be done on the Web. Web policy is set by senior leadership and is created to protect the organization from risk. It holds the highest level of authority among standards and guidelines, and it sets the tone for related Web standards. Compliance with policy is required and enforceable. A policy for social media might include this kind of language:

Any person posting information to a social media channel shall ensure that the information posted does not:

Conflict with our organization’s mission, objectives, and policies

Contain or link to libelous, defamatory, or harassing content, even by way of example or illustration

Web Standards

Web standards are statements that define how the policy mandates will be accomplished. They are set by subject matter experts and are created to support quality execution. As a result, they are specific and detailed. Web standards are enforceable; complying with a standard is not optional. Here’s an example of a standard taken from an Army Corps of Engineers social media document:

Do not use your army.mil e-mail address to establish an account on a social media platform.

Guidelines 

Guidelines are considered best practices for what should be done on the Web. Guidelines are not mandates; complying with guidelines is optional. Here’s another example from the same Army Corp of Engineers document:

Always pause and think before posting. If your comments give you pause, don’t post them.

Waivers Possible for Standards

Keep in mind that while compliance with standards is required and enforceable, waivers may be possible. A good Web governance framework specifies how one may request a waiver to a standard. It requires that a formal request be drafted that includes both a rationale and a remediation plan for meeting the standard in the future. The rationale, however, must present a solid business case and must be supported by metrics. A simple excuse won’t cut it.

Are You a Web Mechanic or a Web Manager?

Christine Pierpoint — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:43:10 -0700

A couple of weeks ago, I had a slow leak in my tire. I know this because a little light on the dashboard came on alerting me to the problem. I’m no car expert, but I do know that tires are kind of important. So I immediately ran through some possible scenarios: a) panic and drive straight to the nearest garage, hoping they have someone on duty who can fix it; b) ignore the light and risk a blowout on the interstate; or c) make an appointment with my regular mechanic to get the problem checked out.

I went with option "c" and kept myself busy using the garage’s free Wi-Fi to catch up on some work while I waited. Then the mechanic came out, his face puckered with the look a person gets when he has to break bad news. Now, I’m a pretty smart person, but as he started in with his preamble of tread depth, alignment and all-wheel drive, I could feel my eyes glazing over and my impatience bubbling up. Thoughts like, “Why would I ever need to know what constitutes a good PSI” ran through my mind. As he went on to describe the pros and cons of front-wheel drive, however, I found myself thinking, “Just net it out for me – tell me your recommendation and what it’s going to cost.”

For you car enthusiasts, my tire ignorance is shameful, but I bet most of us can relate to that scenario. To me, tire maintenance is number 8,642 on my list of priorities. When I’m in the car, I’m busy driving it. I’m not thinking about its mechanics. I suspect that’s sort of how some executives feel when they meet with a Web manager.

Web managers, in my experience, are passionate about the Web. They know the ins and outs of your Web site better than anyone else, in part because they have firsthand experience with building it from scratch. Many of them can regale you with anecdotes about coming in at three a.m. to push press releases to the live server or entertain you with a story about the day the site got 20 million hits.

They know about the latest and greatest Web tools and they are constantly on the lookout for best practices that can be used to improve your site. In short, they know a lot of details about what makes a Web site tick.

The problem is, when it comes to talking with executive staff, Web managers can fall into the same routine as my auto mechanic: hitting you with too many technical details and jargon.

Executives understand that the Web, just like tires on a car, is vitally important to their organization, but they are also mindful of the thousands of other factors that keep their organization moving forward. At the same time, executives are thinking about direction and anticipating what big things are waiting around the next bend.

Given all that, it’s probably not a good use of their time to spend an afternoon discussing the latest social media doo-hickey or evaluating COTS versus open source software. It’s too tactical for them. If they’re distracted by trying to understand the mechanics, who’s driving the car?

If you are a Web manager and you find yourself building a PowerPoint deck for an executive briefing that includes 52 slides about faceted taxonomy… then you might want to step back from the computer and take a deep breath. Think about your audience and how they depend on you to help them make informed decisions. Net out the situation for them and give them a solid recommendation that aligns with the overall Web strategy.

Here’s a real-life scenario where the Web team is making a pitch for a new project:

Web Mechanic – “We need to implement a CMS, taxonomy and IA. This will allow us to automate workflows and enforce metadata standards resulting in dynamic content, localization and improved search.”

Web Manager – “Based on our strategic objectives to become more efficient, we’ve identified a tool that will allow us to automate some production functions and quality controls for the Web. This will reduce redundant efforts and make it so we can better manage the content to suit our audience’s needs.”

The mechanic defaults to techno-speak and risks disappointment when executives who “just don’t get the Web” turn down their requests. Savvy Web managers, in contrast, understand the mechanics, but also have the ability to translate them to business-speak. They are better able to build a case for the Web by helping executives to correlate Web efforts to bottom-line objectives.

In the above scenario, the executive team may ultimately want to know the specific tactics and budget line items, but when making the initial case, start with the business objectives. Then demonstrate how your planned tactics will help the organization meet them. A deep understanding of the mechanics is vital, but being able to put the Web in the context of business is the key to gaining executive support.

No Chief Web Officer Required

Lisa Welchman — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:44:47 -0700

It’s a widely-held belief among various Web practitioners (from content strategists and information architects to Web infrastructure tool builders and application developers) that senior executives don’t understand the real power and capability of the Internet. And, that this lack of understanding has left Web Teams executing in a vacuum, with inappropriate funding and inadequate headcount. More importantly, it has left organizations exposed, as new Internet-enabled businesses sneak up and shut down the slower-to-react belle-weathers. The house is on fire and the C-Suite has got a garden hose.

To address this strategic deficit, there’s been a lot of discussion about the placement of a senior Web-savvy person in the C-Suite to drive the creation of a sensible Web content and information strategy. I’ve thought about this potential new role in the C-suite a lot and think that it’s not required.

My philosophy background always makes me apply Occam’s Razor to any solution, and thus I don’t see that real long-term value can be added by increasing the number of bodies at the executive level. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe there is a lack of Internet smarts in the C-Suite—my experience shows that the C-Suite in most organizations is not “Web-enabled” and frequently to the detriment of the business.

So, I’d like to illustrate how I see the problem and offer a suggestion about how the situation can be improved without creating a new role.

There are three players acting in this dynamic: The C-Suite, Middle Management, and Web Experts. Here’s how I see the existing interaction:

And here’s my explanation of the dynamics behind this scenario:

The C-Suite’s Lack of Web Understanding

Down-side: At the executive level there is an element of conservatism, resistance to change, or just general ennui about the Web, depending on the individuals involved. Organizations, led by executives that grew their careers prior to the advent of the business Web, have frequently segregated their organization’s Web efforts because these pre-Web executives view both the strategy behind the use of the Internet and the business process of building the Web presence as tactical. Their personal experience of business success did not include the World Wide Web. So, despite the Web’s growing operational primacy and the ever-growing opportunity for creating business, the Web, strategy and execution, is frequently off in a corner, an after-thought in business-process.

Therefore, middle management and the Web Team are forced to manage a sophisticated Web presence with inappropriate human and fiscal assets (often riding piggy-back on Marketing Communications or IT budgets) and with little or no organizational strategic guidance.

Up-side: These executives are super smart and the most strategic thinkers in your business. They steer the ship and step up to the plate daily to make the big and difficult decisions that impact thousands.They just don’t “get” the Web.

Middle Management Pulled in Two Directions

Down-side: Organizational middle managers are not taking any risks.They are doing what their superiors tell them. From time to time, if there is a Web Expert below them who is able to make a cogent business case for resources or change, they may shop that idea up to the C-suite. But, the middle manager is not swayed by the lure of a cool technology, as a Web Expert might be. They’re looking for business value and alignment with business strategy and objectives. And, what is core to the failure in this area is that they frequently lack the specialized expertise and understanding of the strategic and technical capabilities of the Web required to translate the “give me more” arguments of the Web Expert into a serious business case. So, a lot of business opportunity dies on the vine at this level.

Up-side: If you give them something to manage, they’ll manage it well. They know how to build consensus and get the resources to make things happen. In the rare case, when this manager is also a Web Expert, the positive impact on the quality of Web Execution, and therefore the quality of the Web presence, can be staggering.

Frustrated Web Experts

Down-side: Those who work on the Web day-to-day, from the most junior individual practitioners to the most senior gurus, are frequently weak in the area of business strategy and management. Often they lack the skill and authority to effect real change in the enterprise, but, due to the disconnect with the top of the organization, are frequently put in the position to make strategic decisions about the use of the Web channel which impact the bottom line.

Saddled with the task of operating without strategic business guidance and appropriate support from middle management, Web Experts frequently thrash about, executing on project after project, in quest of the magic bullet that will solve the Web problem. Consequently, resources are wasted or misdirected.

Up-side: Real Web execution maturity is coming into play 15 years after the advent of the commercial Web. In almost every organization we’ve worked with, the amount of real Web talent related to the strategic and tactical development of content, data and applications for the Web is staggering. The fact that, without guidance and resources, these people create and maintain what is probably the first (and sometime only) point of contact for a business, is admirable and deserves more recognition than it receives.

Web-enabling the C-Suite

So, what can be done about this?

I think the solution is simple—or certainly a lot simpler than creating a new role at the executive level. The answer lies in the education of the C-Suite. There are a few ways this could get done. For instance, an organization could use outside coaching by an Internet Strategist or, more drastically, replace some personnel in your executive suite. But I think that, for most organizations, change can be most effectively and less disruptively achieved through active collaboration by Web experts and middle managers.

Within an organization, there are usually a few Web experts with some strategic DNA and a few middle managers who understand the missed business opportunities that have occurred as a result of lack of integration of the Web function at the executive level. If middle managers and Web experts join forces, they can combine managerial courage and skill and Web expertise and vision to build a sound business case for strategic use of the Web. Be prepared for push back and have your facts and figures straight. This cannot be an emotional or “because it’s the right way to do it” appeal. It has to make business sense, not Web sense.

Business Value = "Instant On"

My experience has been that when shown business opportunity supported by quantitatively expressed value that benefits the mission or bottom-line of the business, most executives sit up and listen AND learn, AND integrate the larger lesson instantly when the actuality meets the projection. Showing how use of the Web will make the organization more effective or profitable should act as an "instant on" button for the C-Suite. If it doesn't, then the organization truly is in trouble from the top down. And no Chief Content Officer, or Chief Web Officer is going to fix that. You simply need a better CEO.

Yes, if you are a Web expert when you help make this translation, it might mean for an instant you might be doing part of the job of the C-Suite, but that doesn’t mean you belong in the C-Suite. At least not at this juncture for most. The function of the C-Suite is beyond the capabilities of even the most senior Web practitioners we have worked with—and we’ve worked with some genius-level Web folks. It’s just a different skill set.

For those Web experts that do have the constitutional make-up and the desire to reach the C-Suite, they need to educate themselves about the business, holistically, and make the natural progression to the executive roles--carrying with them their Web intelligence. It doesn’t make good business sense to promote a relatively junior resource to the executive level because of a temporary knowledge deficit at the top.

With a Web-enabled C-suite, all players should be more comfortable and effective in their roles:

All of that said, I’ll allow that some businesses might need a chief Content Officer or Chief Web Officer at the C-level because of their particular business model. If that’s the case, then so be it. But I don’t think there is a need for a new standard role in line with the CEO, CFO and CIO. You just need web-enabled versions of CEOs, CFOs and CIOs. Those in this role in a legacy capacity need to be educated. In a few years, I think much of this will be a moot point as the digital immigrant and digital native populations naturally progress to the executive level bringing with them all their Web savvy.

Maybe one of them will be you!

Social Media Policy: Consider the "What Ifs"

Delia Konizeski — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:25:17 -0700

One of the challenges around creating social media policy is whether or not it is appropriate to constrain an employee’s social media activities when performed in a professional and personal capacity. There are a few key considerations to talk through when crafting a social media policy: what is unacceptable; what can be prescribed ; and, what can be reasonably enforced? I call these types of considerations “what ifs” and I’ve included three “what If” scenarios below to get you started brainstorming on what should be your organization's policy.

What If An Employee Expresses a Preference for a Product?

What if your CEO tweets, “Starbuck's is my fav pit-stop b4 the Monday exec roundtable mtg at 7 am”? That could be construed as an endorsement. Consider if tweets that identify brands are allowable. At the same time, consider how to provide for an appropriate balance between content related to work and content that gives followers a glimpse into one’s personal life.

What If a Corporate Social Media Account Gets Off Topic and Personal?

What if the employee responsible for your organization’s customer relations Twitter account tweets, “Anyone going to Red Sox’s game this weekend? I need tickets b4 my vacation tomorrow. Be back online 8/6!!” Consider if a social media Web standard is needed to prohibit the use of “I” in social media content published on behalf of a corporate entity. Consider if responsibility for a corporate account should be divided among several individuals to ensure the account remains active despite a staff member’s vacation.

What If an Employee’s Personal Blog States He’s an Employee and He Covers Trends in Your Organization’s Industry?

What if an employee in your organization’s finance department has a blog where he describes himself as an “avid music lover, family guy and database administrator at XYZ financial corporation” (your organization)? And, what if he blogs about trends in the financial industry and gives his “expert” opinion on the financial markets? Given that he states his affiliation (title) with your organization, whatever he writes may reflect on the organization. Consider the topics personal blogs are to refrain from discussing (aside from proprietary information) and how to reasonably enforce those restrictions. Consider requiring that personal blogs that mention affiliation with your organization include a statement like, “the views on this blog are my own and not necessarily that of my employer.”

Consider how your policy would be different if the employee blogs about trends in your industry but does not mention his affiliation with your organization. Take ESPN’s Twitter policy as an example. The version specific to their talent, reporters, writers, producers, editors and other public-facing roles, states sports content is not permitted on employees’ personal blogs or Web sites. And while it’s not completely clear, it looks like it applies even if ESPN affiliation is not mentioned on the personal social media channel.

I'm sure more “what ifs” were entering your mind in each scenario. It is important to talk through each one. Assemble a cross-functional team(s) to discuss these matters including HR, legal and compliance representatives. This team should meet within the confines of your organization’s formal Web Governance Framework and be charged with developing policies and standards that cover all aspects of social media—from content to tool sets.

Task the team with research before getting started. Start by reading up-- CIO recently listed “Identify Twitter Accounts” as a step in writing a Twitter policy and Jeremiah Owyang recently identified four Twitter profiles and their specific attributes. These resources will be helpful even if your policy is not focusing specifically on Twitter.

If Sun Tzu Were a Web Manager

Christine Pierpoint — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:50:50 -0700

I admit it's kind of cliche to use an "Art of War" reference in a business blog, but I recently came across a quote from Sun Tzu that reminded me a lot of how I think about the execution of a good Web plan:

"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved."

All of us who work in the Web industry get jazzed when we see a well-executed site. For me it's the satisfaction I feel when I go to the BBC News site and experience the flawless integration of topics and media. That site is run like a good concierge service - you ask for something and it not only answers your question, but anticipates all your follow-up questions too. So hours after guitarist Les Paul dies, I can not only read about the event, but also read about his life, see videos of his performances, and learn about his guitar. A great site like this doesn't just happen through a series of random decisions. It takes careful planning and executing tactics that are defined by strategy.

If Sun Tzu was a Web manager, he wouldn't wake up one morning and decide it's a good day to launch a blog on the homepage. His site would have a well-thought tactical plan that links all the way back to the corporate strategy. Web projects would be designed to meet broader objectives and no resources would be wasted on pointless efforts. But to do this, Mr. Tzu would need to have the strategies which inform his tactical plan, and this is where most organizations fall short.

A successful tactical plan is the bi-product of a series of strategic documents. It starts with the corporate strategy, which informs the IT and brand strategies. The guiding principles for the Web are based on the IT and brand strategies, which, in turn, drives the strategic approach to content, data and applications. This pedigree allows you to first understand what it is you're building, then you can make a tactical plan to address how you will get it done.

At this time of year, Web managers start their planning for the coming fiscal year. If you're in the midst of budgeting and planning out Web projects, stop and see if you have adequate strategic direction. Without it you risk wasted efforts and a poor-quality site. Following this process will ensure your site will be a "victory."

Web Governance Use Cases

Christine Pierpoint — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:35:05 -0700

A lack of cross-functional representation is a surefire way to undermine your Web governance framework. Often organizations will default to the Web team as the group responsible for policies and standards; after all, they are the experts on Web technologies and best practices. However, having only "Web people" seated on the governing bodies means you may loose the perspective from the lines of business.

Business stakeholders have a vested interest in how the Web impacts "the bottom line," and therefore should have a seat at the table when defining Web policies and standards. Without representation from the lines of business the governance framework will lack legitimacy.

In helping clients to define a well-rounded Web governance framework, I've found that use cases are a good way to test whether or not there is adequate representation. Use cases are often utilized for technology selections and usability testing. Essentially, you develop a narrative that describes a very specific scenario relevant to your business. You then work through that scenario to determine if the tool (or site) meets the expressed need.

Using use cases to define a Web governance framework can help you connect the abstract of governance to everyday scenarios. I find that it makes it easier to explain the concepts to stakeholders and to ensure that the framework can stand up to real-life situations. Further, use cases allow me to clearly illustrate roles and functions specific to Web governance (i.e. rule making) versus the roles and functions related to execution (i.e. implementation).

When creating Web governance use cases, I make sure I account for the four drivers that impact Web policies and standards:

(click here to download a PDF copy of the diagram)

Changes to strategy - as management makes changes to the overall business strategy, how will that impact Web policy? For example, if senior management decides to go international, how will you ensure that the Web policies align with that strategy?
Government mandates - how will your organization respond to laws that impact the Web presence? For example, if there is a change to the Children's Online Privacy Act, how will you go about updating relevant policies and standards?
Changes in Web technology or best practices - this will be the most common driver for Web standards and policies. For example, as Twitter becomes more prevalent, what is the process for creating standards that govern how Twitter will be used? Are there broader policy issues to be considered (in this case, do you need a social media policy before you define Twitter standards)?
New projects/initiatives - as the lines of business develop new projects, they may include a Web component that triggers a need to create or modify standards. A typical example is what happens when a program office decides they need a 'micro site' that does not have the same look and feel as the main site?

By taking these drivers into consideration, we're able to develop a comprehensive set of use cases that illustrate real-life situations and help identify who in the organization needs to provide input and make decisions related to Web policies and standards. Overall it's a good way to test drive the framework before it's ratified. If you'd like to learn more about Web governance use cases or Web governance in general, feel free to contact us or subscribe to our newsletter.

Moving from Web Management to Information Management: Four Things You Can Do Now

Lisa Welchman — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:47:28 -0700

A few months ago I was at a conference in Philadelphia and had the pleasure of spending a lot of time talking with Bob Boiko. Bob is the author of the Content Management Bible and one of my favorite books, Laughing at the CIO. I enjoy Bob’s company because he’s a generous person, a great thinker, and he likes to challenge me. The theme of this particular encounter with Bob was: Why do I call what I do Web Operations Management instead of Information Operations Management? I took Bob’s point and told him that I had asked myself the same question since I started consulting 10 years ago.

My rationale to Bob was practical. I told him that most organizations that we work with have enough trouble trying to manage their Web channel alone and that, often, when I’ve suggested the idea of considering the total information universe (print, Web, mobile, face-to-face, etc.) and managing that holistically, most clients get overwhelmed. So, we help them with what we can and are always on the lookout for that client that might be ready or eager to work on the bigger picture.

Bob is part of a rare breed. He is an academic at heart with a lot of hands-on business experience. So, he accepted my response as valid—although I was left with the friendly impression that he thought I was wimping out. But, it did get me thinking more concretely about what challenges lie in the chasm between Web management and information management. More specifically, how does a Web manager manage the short-term Web presence while helping the organization move towards a longer term holistic information management vision? I think there are few simple things you can hold in mind now:

Manage the Web channel well and in an open manner. That means when designing and developing for the Web channel, use good practices. There’s a lot of well-meaning but slapdash development going on in Web development circles. Agile development doesn’t mean crappy development. And, when designing interfaces and systems, assume that other systems (information channels, etc.) will flow through and around the Web channel if not now, then in the near future and forever.

Look for obvious and simple ways to align and share with other information channels. RSS and a shared taxonomy with a controlled vocabulary are information-sharing manna from heaven. Use them to create quick and light integrations between various Web channels and to share and refer to information. That could be as simple as using a shared taxonomy to tag content for publication, which could lay the groundwork for deeper integration if required in the future.

Stop creating your Web sites in autonomous silos. It was very, very easy for businesses with silo’d business operational practices to fall immediately into a silo’d Web operations management scenario. The result of many different Web development schemes in an organization is, most likely, an incongruent Web presence—maybe difficult to navigate, unsearchable, out of date. Of course, we’ve been talking about the silo’d Web presence for the last fifteen years. And everyone knows it is bad but lots of organizations are still operating in a way that produces a less than optimal site. So, one more time: Stop developing the Web in silos. If you’ve sincerely tried to do this and can’t, it means that you probably have deep operational and cultural undercurrents in your organization that will need to be addressed in order for you to be able to create that unified Web presence your organization needs and your customer and partners want. And, you might need to ring up your CEO to get those changes made.

Learn from the older channels. We Web folks are lucky because we’ve got the fastest, sexiest and latest information channel to play around with. But don’t assume that the Web and the Web team have all the knowledge about how to manage information. Web Managers have a lot to learn from librarians, records managers, document managers and more. We’ve also got a lot to learn from business people who know how to manage programs and organizations in order to achieve a goal. And a front-line call center representative could tell you a lot about the appropriate-use cases for interacting with your public, customers and partners.

So, Web Managers must think globally (information) and act locally (Web) all the while trying to widen your universe and build the internal business relationships which will allow your organization to manage its information more holistically now or in the future.

The First Step: Realizing that you are powerless over your Web presence and that it has become un-manageable

Lisa Welchman — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:12:06 -0700

Setting: Lisa's neat and tidy office at WelchmanPierpoint, Baltimore, MD USA

The WelchmanPierpont Office Phone: Ring Ring

Lisa: Good Morning, WelchmanPierpoint

Web Manager: I want to talk to you all about your services

Lisa: OK, what do you want to know?

Web Manager: Who is this?

Lisa: Lisa Welchman

Web Manager: You answer the phone?

Lisa: Yes, there are only four of us here. Everyone else does actual work and I sit around all day answering the phone and writing annoying blog posts and presentations.

Web Manager: Wow, well I liked your last post on (fill in the blank).

Lisa: I didn’t write that one.

Web Manager: Oh, well...

Lisa: So, how can I help you?

Web Manager: (taking a deep breath) Well, we're kind of in an unique situation here. We need to redesign our Web site, implement a new CMS, integrate 8 sites into 3 and roll out 15 new social media applications before (pick a completely irrational, un-doable date).

Lisa: (trying not to choke on her gluten-free cookie) Oh. That’s sounds
interesting.

Web Manager: (nervous laugh) Yeah.

Lisa: So, do you think you can actually get it done?

Web Manager: Well, we could except that (pick one or more: my integrator sucks, marketing sucks, IT sucks, my CMS sucks, my manager sucks, the lines of business suck).

Lisa: (listens for 30 minutes about why they all sucks and can't get anything done and then says) Sounds like you really have a Web Operations Management problem. You need to:

Get your CEO to pay attention to your work in a strategic way and empower you with money and head count and reasonable expectations;
Put some accountability, policy and standards around your Web presence development;
Produce your site in a mature non-knee jerk, mature manner;
Prove your Web presence’s value to the organization by establishing key performance indicators and then measuring against them.

Web Manager: Don't you say those same four things over and over again to everybody? I heard you give a talk once. It sounded really good but we've got a special situation here...

Lisa: Well, I believe in those four things....

Web Manager: (cutting Lisa off) Yeah I know. And you're a genius. But I’ve got to get this Web site fixed by (date). After we do that we can fix all that other stuff. Plus, we’ve already tried to do this (pick a number from 1 to 5) times and never works. So, it’s crucial that it gets done this time (read, or I might lose my job).

Lisa: Well, I don’t think you can fix all that other stuff without doing the
stuff I said first because, blah, blah, blah (fill in the blank with 30
minutes of Lisa's Web operations management lecture).

Web Manager: Well, that sounds great but I’ve got a real job. Do you know anybody else who can help us redesign our Web site, implement a new CMS, integrate 8 sites into 3 and roll out 15 new social media applications before (pick a completely irrational, un-doable date)?

Lisa: Well, given the dynamics in your organization, I can’t really think
of anyone (...that I’d want to put in that position). We don't design or implement anything, we just fix Web teams.

Web Manager: Yeah, well we'll get to that at some point. And, thanks for your time! You really know a lot about this stuff and I read your blog posts all the time. They're right on target (but I'm not going to really do what they say because it sounds a little scary).

Lisa: Good luck! Call us if you can think of a way we can help.

Fast forward two years:

Phone: Ring ring

Lisa: WelchmanPierpoint

Web Manager: Is this Lisa?

Lisa: Yes.

Web Manager: You probably don’t remember me but my name is Well Meaning but Overambitious Web Manager #5645 and I talked to you a few years ago...

Lisa: Ah yes,I remember you well. You were the one who wanted to redesign your Web site, implement a new CMS, integrate 8 sites into 3 and roll out 15 new social media applications before (pick a completely irrational, un-doable date). How did that work for you?

Web Manager: Well, we’re kind of stuck. We picked a CMS but it doesn’t really work that well with the Web site we designed and the Web teams of three of the organizations didn’t want to do the site consolidation. So, we’ve kind of scaled back on that. But we did roll out all 15 social media applications. Three of them are great. One of them kind of got us mixed up in a lawsuit and the other 11 no one uses.

Lisa: Hmmm. Sounds like you have a Web Operations Management problem.

Web Manager: Yes, it does.

The Web Manager Scapegoat

Christine Pierpoint — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:38:41 -0700

To the lone Web manager pining away for the day when senior management will finally 'get' the Web, some advice: be careful of what you wish for.

The day is coming when executives in your industry will recognize that the Web is a strategic function. They may never be savvy about technology or social media, but they know business. It doesn't take an MBA to pick up on the industry-altering impact the Web is having on traditional business models like newspapers, broadcasting and advertising. If institutions like the Tribune Company go bankrupt because they can't compete in the Web world, then every CEO is asking him (or her) self about how they will keep your organization relevant in the digital age.

When that happens, will you be ready? Really?

It's not atypical to meet a present-day Web manager who cut their teeth in the late '90s by being the one person who stepped up when someone said, "hey, does anyone know HTML?" Ten years later, you're probably not coding pages any more. You've likely survived 4-5 major site re-designs, a painful CMS implementation and too many battles over homepage real estate to even count. You've evangelized about graphic standards; accessibility and user experience until you're blue in the face and stayed up late many a night in order to publish critical content. In short, you're the go to person to get things done on the Web site, and that is something to be proud of.

But now is the time to ask yourself, what do you want to be when you grow up. The day is soon coming when senior management will turn to you and say, "what are we doing with the Web?" When that happens, they aren't asking about the latest app. They're asking you to demonstrate how the Web is meeting strategic objectives. They're going to come at you with things like key performance indicators and balance scorecards and ask you for an honest-to-goodness business plan. If you're not able to respond in kind, be prepared for the consequences. Suddenly the title, "Web Manager" will be tied to bottom-line objectives. Fail to meet those objectives, and you'll be out of a job. I've seen it happen. More often then you'd like to think.

I raise this issue, not to be a harbinger of doom, but to give you time to think seriously about your career. As the Web becomes business critical, traditional Web managers will have a decision to make. There will always be a need for hands-on practitioners to oversee the day-to-day implementation of tactics. But a new role is forming. One that is a senior-level administrator of the Web program. This person will be accountable for meeting business objectives and reporting directly to the CEO. Someday, they may even BE the CEO.

As you mull this over, you may want to learn more by connecting with your peers through communities of practice facilitated by organizations like JBoye or joining professional organizations like the Internet Strategy Forum. They're having their annual summit July 23-24 in Portland, Ore. and Lisa Welchman will be there to talk about this very issue. If you're in Portland, I hope you get the chance to hear her talk about the gossamer ceiling for Internet executives -- good career advice in these uncertain times.

Why estimate? I'm not getting more resources for this site migration.

David Hobbs — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:44:09 -0700

We recommend that clients do a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation to determine if they have the resources they need for a site migration. One response we've heard more than once goes something like "Why estimate? I'm not getting more resources for this migration."

Example rough calculation: Let's say that you discover or estimate that on average a person can migrate 4 pieces of your content a day. If you have 20 people working on the task then that's 80 pieces of content a day. If you have 80,000 pieces of content, then that's going to take 1,000 days.

Even if we assume that you cannot bring in more resources, these are some of the actions you can consider if you discover you don't have the resources you need:

Migrate less. Similar to moving from one house to another, a migration can be a good time to get rid of old (or redundant or trivial content). If you see you don't have time to move everything, then you could decide to not move sections of the site, certain content types, certain ages, or content that is viewed very infrequently (or a combination of the above). Also see The Web Diet: How To Simplify Your Web Site.
Migrate at lower quality. This one sounds crude, but it could be that some content (probably the same stuff that was being considered not to be moved at all) could be moved with less quality than what you were hoping for (for instance, maybe it has some tables that aren't sized correctly or other formatting that's a bit messed up). Obviously this probably only makes sense when migrating a larger site. Also, it's better to do this proactively in a controlled manner than in an uncontrolled manner in the middle of a migration (so that, if unplanned, you may inadvertantly migrate important content at lower quality).
Automate more. This can be related to the previous bullet, since you may discover that you can automate large swaths of content if you're willing to deal with a bit lower quality. That said, a knee-jerk reaction (especially from the technical team / systems integrator) may be that it's "not possible" or too hard. If you have the facts of the resources needed for manual migration, you may discover that it actually is worth it to dig a little deeper to determine more of what can be automated. A common complaint will be that the content isn't consistent enough, but there is often more consistency / patterns than immediately obvious, especially if you're willing to scrape pages in creative ways. At any rate, even if you are attempting to migrate and the technical team provides reports of what cannot be migrated, I would recommend digging deeper if the same issue is happening frequently.
QA less for some content. It may be that key pages need to be manually reviewed, but this doesn't necessarily mean that all pages need this treatment.
Phase. In general, a pilot can help you work out the kinks in your processes before the masses start using your new CMS. Also, a pilot can help you better gauge how long things will take, so you can re-run your estimates. After pilot, if you know you don't have the resources you need for the entire migration to occur in the needed timeframe, you can phase them more confidently based on your estimates.
Improve training or the content entry tool. You may discover that users are getting tripped up on particular steps of the content entry. Sometimes this could be improved by training, or you may find that rearranging the content entry screens would vastly speed up the task.
Set expectations. Communications during a migration is key, and easy to overlook in the heat of a complex migration. One of the main steps is to create, communicate, and re-enforce a compelling vision for the migration. In addition to that, if you discover that the migration will take longer than desired, you can *communicate* about it. Hopefully that compelling vision is strong enough that people will be ok with a longer migration time if that's just the fact.

The bottom line is to be realistic about your planning, so that your reasonable estimates align with what you are attempting.

A brief note on estimating: as the example above illustrates, you want to start by estimating the number of content items someone can migrate in a day. Depending on the complexity of the migration, you may want to dig one layer deeper to break this down a bit more by type of resource (for example, staff, intern, outsourced) or content type (simple flat page vs. complicated structured page vs. old crusty page with bad HTML). Also, if you are planning on using non-staff resources, then be sure to consider the extra documentation, training, communication, coordination, and QA time that may be required of folks that don't have all the implied context of your site and organization that staff have (an upcoming blog post will probably cover this in more detail).

Also, see Large Web Site Migration Checklist and Five Suggestions for a Successful CMS Migration. The topic of migration is firmly in the Execution layer of Web Operations Management, so please also see our definitions of Web Strategy and Web Governance which need to be in place for a successful migration.