WelchmanPierpoint - Blog

Web Enabling Your Business Strategy: Blockbuster & Nordstrom

Lisa Welchman — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:28:17 -0700

I’ve been spending a lot of time this summer working with leaders to help them crystallize web and digital strategy for their business. At first, they seem to be disinterested because they think I’m asking them to determine their organization’s web design, content or technology strategy. But I try to hold their feet to the fire and explain to them that an organization’s online strategy is about business, about profit and meeting the mission and performance indicators. I tell them if they aren’t driving the organizational digital strategy, then there is a high likelihood that the strategy is missing the mark. I tell them that if they think they don’t have to understand the fundamental capabilities and impact of the web because they are executives, then they are missing the mark. In the web age, digital strategy and business strategy are the same thing. People who are accountable for profitability need to engaged in setting the digital agenda. Even then, digital direction can go very right or very wrong depending on who is in charge and how in tune they are with the substantive business change that has occurred since the advent of the web. There are two examples that have been in the news this summer that illustrate what can happen when business leaders “get” the web—and when they don’t.

Nordstrom

There was a great article in the New York Times in August: “Nordstrom Links Online Inventory to Real World.” If you work with the Web in your organization and are trying to get your executives to be more engaged, this is a good article to bring to their attention. In short, Nordstrom (a US retail department store) decided to surface real-time inventory information on its web site so that (for example) a San Franciso buyer can buy that last Prada bag from the Towson, MD Nordstrom and have it sent to them. It seems very simple but, according to the article, this type of real-world/web integrated inventory management isn’t common for department stores and that in the 11 months since Nordstrom made the inventory change, its same-store sales has “out-performed it’s competitors.” That’s real dollars and web sense-- not just a feel good social media experience (although Nordstrom does a bunch oft hat as well). Nordstrom effectively merged data from an aspect of traditional supply chain management with its digital presence for a positive result. This type of change generally requires internal collaboration and sponsorship at the executive level.

Blockbuster

On the other hand, there’s Blockbuster (video rentals) that has been steadily going out of business over the last few years. I like this CNET report from earlier this summer at CNET "Blockbuster stock to be delisted from NYSE". And then there is the more recent news of a possible bankruptcy. For some reason, it has been particularly hard for companies that distribute and sell media and information products to figure out profit strategies in the face of the web (despite upstart competitors showing them the ropes). But, unlike newspapers and another print periodicals, the consumer market never really believed that the were going to really get movies for free. Blockbuster had the market and didn’t react fast enough to the change in distribution channel from brick and mortar stores to (of all things) snail mail, then kiosks and now streaming media. And that's not to mention the missed opportunities at building communities around folks that watch movies. That means someone in the executive suite at Blockbuster didn't get it; so, at a critical moment, the Blockbuster business strategy didn’t include a mature view of the web and its capabilities.

Only time will tell how many more market leaders will get Blockbusted by more innovative and web-saavy competitors. The web has a way of changing rules that seasoned executives think of as immutable business fundamentals. So, if you work in the web arena of your organization and see the holes in the approach to web strategy, do your best to get the attention of your leadership and help them bring you organization into the web age.

Federal Register 2.0 is the Real Deal

Christine Pierpoint — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:16:15 -0700

To anyone who thought government is too big, too set in its ways to truly embrace Web 2.0, I say, "phooey."

On July 26, just in time for it's 75th anniversary, the Office of the Federal Register rolled out Federal Register 2.0. Perhaps the "2.0" name isn't all that innovative, but the site itself is a fantastic example of what happens when agencies collaborate, citizens are engaged and Web standards are enforced.

The Federal Register originated in 1935 as a result of FDR's New Deal. With so many new programs, rules and regulations coming out of the executive branch, government needed to ensure that the public had transparency into Federal rulemaking -- sort of the original push for Open Government. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the Government Printing Office (GPO) were given joint responsibility for aggregating and printing the Federal Register, and that's the way it's been done for nearly a century. If you've ever seen a printed or online copy of the Federal Registry, you know it's not exactly what one would call "user friendly".

After all that time, getting the government to change the way it operates would be difficult... difficult, but NOT impossible. Props to everyone from the Office of the Federal Register, NARA and GPO who saw the opportunity to use Web 2.0 technology and best practices in user experience to create a whole new approach to the Federal Register. Equally exciting is the work that was done by Andrew Carpenter, Bob Burbach, and Dave Augustine who developed the site and originally caught the attention of the Office as a result of the work they did in Sunlight Lab's Apps for America 2 competition.

Overall this is an exciting case study for Federal agencies who are looking to their peers for best practices in Gov 2.0. I can't wait to see who's next.

The Gov 2.0 Condundrum

Christine Pierpoint — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 02:23:38 -0700

Without a doubt, there's a lot to be gained when government leverages Web 2.0 tools to provide better communications and service. But for every success story there seems to be an equal number of roadblocks preventing public servants from venturing into Gov 2.0.

Last week there was a Congressional hearing before the Information Policy, Census and National
Archives Subcommittee on the use of Web 2.0 Technologies by Federal agencies. The hearing was a review of Federal use of Web 2.0 technology and an examination of the records management implication of those technologies.

Dr. David McClure, Associate Administrator of the GSA Office of Citizen
Services and Innovative Technologies gave testimony about the strides US Federal agencies have made to leverage Web 2.0 technologies. Several case studies were cited such as the State Department utilizing social media to mobilize their response to the Haiti earthquake or the numerous mashups that have spawned from Government data. Reading McClure's testimony and accompanying timeline reminds that the Federal government has not merely jumped on the 2.0 bandwagon, but uses the technology to innovate the way agencies deliver on their mission.

Despite these examples, not enough agencies are fully leveraging Web 2.0. A recent study by Harris Interactive found that 57% of US citizens feel that agencies are not taking the Open Government Directive seriously. My experience working in the Federal sector has also shown that many agencies struggle to formally adopt Web 2.0 practices.

The reasons for slow (or no) adoption of Web 2.0 can be linked back to restrictions that are unique to Federal government. Gregory Wilshusen, Director of the Information Security Issues of the General Accountability Office (GAO) also gave testimony before the Congressional sub-committee and spoke about the privacy and records management risks that inhibit agencies from jumping into the 2.0 fray.

The potential value of using social media and new technologies to enable government is great, but at the same time, agency leaders are confronted with very real concerns related to Federal privacy and records management issues. Increasingly, agency leaders will find themselves confronted with conflicting expectations. On the one hand, the demand for Gov 2.0 increases, while at the same time, the outcry against collecting personally identifiable information and maintaining and providing access to public records are equally high.

At the Federal level, steps are being taken to evaluate existing laws and mandates in light of Web 2.0. OMB recently clarified how the Paperwork Reduction Act applies to social media and use of third-party tools, like Facebook. During the Congressional hearing, David Ferriero, U.S. archivist at the National Archives and Records Administration testified that NARA
will release updated policy and guidance on how Web 2.0
platforms affect records management.

GSA, OMB and NARA are all making a strong effort, under the direction of the current administration, to re-think standard operations for government in light of new technology and citizen expectations. Agency leaders should follow this example and evaluate their own policies to determine if they need to be updated to keep pace with Web expectations. Existing policy concerning privacy, records, security and information quality are critical for maintaining the credibility of government agencies. But given the change in technology and the need for citizen engagement online, leaders should be proactive in making sure those policies are current. Without clear direction and top-level policy leadership, Federal Web managers will be limited in their ability to realize the full potential for Gov 2.0.

Web Governance is not for Weenies

Christine Pierpoint — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 06:41:17 -0700

I had a great time giving a workshop on Web Governance in the Federal sector earlier this week. It's always rewarding to spend a day sharing best practices and lessons learned with Web managers and this workshop was an especially good one. We got to roll up our sleeves, pull apart some Web governance models, and discuss what works and what doesn't. At the end of the day, the group confirmed two things: 1) just about everyone is messed up when it comes to managing the Web and 2) Web governance isn't easy. In fact, the line that sums it up best came from a participant who said, "Man, Web governance is hard!"

Yes. Yes it is.

Good, effective governance of an organization's Web presence is challenging for a couple of reasons. First, the Web likely started off as a series of ad hoc projects that germinated in different pockets of the organization. As such, there wasn't much thought put into setting policy or enforcing standards for the Web. Trying to do that after 10+ years of unchecked growth is like trying to settle the wild west.

Second, many senior mangers have not yet clued into the organizational risk of having an ungoverned Web presence. Some choose to dismiss the Web as too technical or tactical to be given policy consideration. And to be fair, senior leaders have a lot of priorities vying for their attention, so the Web may not be seen with a sense of urgency.

Web practitioners therefore try their best to establish policy and standards based on best practices. However, these groups lack the authority to actually make their decisions stick. I've seen a lot of good attempts at implementing Web governance in Federal agencies, but the models struggle to be truly effective. Generally it's because the governing body is too junior to set policy and/or they haven't done a sufficient job of getting cross-functional input and buy-in. The result is a group of well-meaning, but very frustrated Web practitioners and a Web presence with inconsistent quality.

Making Web governance work in the Federal sector (or any large organization, for that matter) is not an easy process. Culturally these organizations are slow to change, which can be especially frustrating given the pace of Web growth. If you're in the situation where you're trying to make a go of Web governance, here are some tips we discussed in the workshop:

1. Draft a Plan

Take the time to map out what you think the governance framework ought to be for your organization. Think through the roles and responsibilities of senior leadership and Web practitioners and draft a charter describing how these groups will collaborate to govern the Web presence. This may not be the model that is ultimately implemented, but once you have the attention of senior leadership, you'll want to be ready with a framework for them to consider. It's much easier to get a reaction to a draft plan than it is to ask them to start from scratch.

2. Find a Champion

Identify the person(s) in your organization who has access to the senior management team and gets the Web. Perhaps there is a golden boy (or girl) who is building momentum to take on more of a leadership role or looking to make a big win for the organization. This is the person you want to meet with and explain to them the challenges and opportunities with the Web and the need for Web governance. Vet your draft framework with them and get them behind the vision. Once they are, they can help garner awareness and buy-in at the management level and position the governance framework for top-down approval.

3. Start Socializing the Plan

People are less resistant to change if they feel they've had a part in the process. I find that using real-world scenarios are a good way of explaining to folks the challenges of having informal or no Web governance and help them see how formal governance can make their lives easier. Doing a roadshow within your organization will help garner support for the effort and increase the demand for better Web governance.

At the end of the day, implementing effective governance will take a lot of dedication and effort. Change doesn't come easy to large organizations, and this is especially true in the Federal sector. But don't lose sight of your long-term vision. A quality, mission-driven Web presence requires appropriate governance. It will take some doing to get the momentum for Web governance going, but like all good things, it will be worth the effort.

Web Governance in (Federal) Action

Delia Konizeski — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:44:18 -0700

Oftentimes, clients express that setting up governance in their agency seems like a very academic exercise. They are skeptical (though also very hopeful) that such a time-intensive task will be worth it. I know my federal client was recently feeling the same. After all, we’d spent countless hours in working sessions carefully reviewing more than 100 Web standards to go along with newly drafted Web policy. We had set up a new governance structure in which my client was established as the Web Product Manager and given the authority to approve standards drafted by ad-hoc standards teams dedicated to hot topics like social media and 508 compliance.

So there we were toiling in a working session and reviewing Web standards related to domain names one particular day. The standards are quite detailed and answer questions like, ‘Are vanity domain names permissible in all cases?’ and ‘Is it OK to create a domain for my department’s campaign site that does not use .gov?’

And that’s when the client realized just how timely and practical (and productive) our working sessions had been. He’d recently been asked similar questions and didn’t have a sound answer. Having these standards in place, he said, would solve a couple of key issues for him. First off, he wouldn’t have to run around figuring out the answers or worse, make something up. Second, he’d now have a definitive source for the answer so that its validity could not be readily questioned.

What a relief this was to him—he had the support of a Web governance structure and definitive answers in the form of Web standards tailored to his agency:

Vanity domain names are allowed so long as the domain name redirects to a Web site using the agency’s .gov domain name

Any agency domain that is not a .gov domain must redirect to the agency’s .gov Web site. (Exception was given to Web sites developed in partnership or through grants or cooperative agreements with non-Federal organizations.)

I bet you’re thinking you’d like to have answers to those questions and lots more. Perhaps you have a style guide that answers questions related to content and visuals. That’s a good start, but there’s lots more topics there to consider.

For those who are interested in learning more about Web governance best practices—including Web policy and standards creation—but are not quite ready for a comprehensive consultation, consider the workshops we offer. Our next workshop, “Federal Web Governance,” is set for July 12 in DC and covers all you need to know about getting started on Web governance in your agency. You can also get the scoop on Web policy at the Potomac Forum next week where I’ll be talking about the significance of federal Web mandates.

Web Execution (Web Team): A Definition

Lisa Welchman — Fri, 28 May 2010 10:43:14 -0700

One of the oldest Web management problems is determining the structure and make-up of the Web team. A well-formed Web team allows an organization to build its Web presence effectively and efficiently. Historically, the organizational Web team has evolved from a single individual who had the foresight to purchase a domain name and post the organization’s first Web pages. From the 1990s do-it-all Webmaster, this sole person eventually developed into today’s more sophisticated Web division, with organizationally distributed content publishing, application development and data management, and a gaggle of external support vendors.

In consulting practice, I use “Web Execution” instead of “Web team” to broaden the scope of what the latter typically brings to mind. More specifically, I transform that image from a group of folks off in a corner working on a Web site to the reality of what it takes for an organization to produce and manage a Web presence—that is, an execution strategy. Solid Web development requires a number of resources, both in and outside of the organization, solidly executing against the Web standards and towards performance indicators established by their organization.

Some of the questions addressed in the Web Execution realm include: When it is appropriate to hire new resources? When is it appropriate to outsource development? What should the senior roles be for the Web and where should they be seated in the organization? The specific answers to these questions will be unique for every organization. Every business will have to determine how to: 1) organize those functions; 2) optimize their interactions; and 3) specify what job roles will be derived from these functions. It’s an art, not a science. So there is no universally “correct” team structure for producing a Web presence. There are, however, some things to keep in mind when you are staffing for Web Execution. There are also some good practices for Web Execution and Web team formation.

The Business Case for Web Execution

Fifteen years ago, most organizations interacted with their constituents, customers, members, or citizens via print, the phone, or face-to-face communication channels. Today, many organizations find that their first, primary, or only point of contact with these same people happens on the World Wide Web. Despite this change, very little formal attention has been paid to the appropriate structure for getting Web work done. There are two main dynamics that contribute to this lack of attention:

Organizations, led by senior management teams that grew their careers prior to the advent of the business Web, have frequently segregated their Web Execution efforts. Their experience (or lack thereof) of business success did not include the World Wide Web. So despite the Web’s operational primacy in communications and transactions, the Web team is frequently off in a corner, serving as an after-thought in business process. Subsequently, a lot of business opportunity is being missed.
Conversely, Web management personnel, while forward-looking with respect to the use of technologies, are frequently weak in the area of business management. So although they understand that the Web Execution function is not being properly funded or managed, they lack the management skills to turn the situation around. In response, Web personnel 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 given the strategic objectives of the business.

These two dynamics produce a Web Execution quagmire, from which most organizations have been unable to escape. The Web team is in an organizational blind spot. Consequently, the Web Execution function is compromised, and Web presence quality and effectiveness are generally low or otherwise off target.

While a low-quality Web presence can be a liability, the real inherent risk in a segregated and immature Web Execution function lies in an organization’s inability to proactively take full advantage of the Internet as a business platform. This oversight is illuminated not only with respect to e-commerce transactions, information, and data dissemination but also with regard to the invention of the 21st century integrated real-world/Web products and service that will be demanded by the maturing digital native population. An organization that refuses to take steps to improve its Web presence quality may ride rich and happy on legacy Web-disabled products and services. But in reality, there’s likely a slow leak in the business’s bottom line or ability to meet mission objectives.

A mature approach to Web Execution can help stop this leak and move the organization’s business practices into the 21st century.

What Is Web Execution?

Web Execution is the definition, coordination, and support of all the tactics required to produce and maintain a high-quality Web presence.

There are two core sub-functions of Web Execution:

Product Management
Program Management

Web Execution must be tuned to the objectives of the organization (ideally expressed as Web performance indicators) and must be supported by a mature approach to Web Governance. When executing within these considered and relevant constraints, the freedom and flexibility to break away from linear, slow, and traditional IT development processes increases. This flexible liberty allows the organization to react quickly to new possibilities in Web Execution while maintaining the quality and effectiveness of its Web presence. Standards will enable both collaboration and fast, quality development, not hinder them. Key performance indicators will provide a framework of organizational relevancy for the Web team so its members can make the right decisions about which content, data, and business processes should be enabled via the Web channel. Without standards and key performance indicators as a nucleus for orienting it, Web Execution will be chaotic.

Web Execution Atom

(click here or on image for more eye-friendly PDF- new window)

What Web Execution Means for the Organization

When Web Execution is functioning properly, the old broken Web team function becomes an optimized and flexible Web production machine. As a result, the organization is able to react quickly to new requirements, technologies, and business goals. In this world, the organizational Web site contributes to the bottom line and/or mission of the business in a substantive and measurable way. Web personnel morale also improves, and, in the best cases, the entire organization becomes Web-enabled as the collaborative best practices of the Web team extend outward into the organization and interact with legacy informational and operational management arenas, such as records management, human resource management (Intranets), sales and marketing, or IT.

Web Program Management

Web program management has to do with the administrative and communications functions of the Web team. It entails getting the money and headcount for projects and evangelizing and communicating the value of the Web internally to help align non-Web personnel with the organizational changes that might need to happen because of the reality of the Web. Some of these changes might be tactical (e.g., learning to write for the Web); others might be strategic (e.g., helping the organization understand that a core operational function is obsolete or of minimized value as-is in the face of the Web.) A traditional support call center is an example of the latter.

There are several main areas to consider with respect to Web program management:

Tending to the Web budget;
Emplacing mechanisms to evaluate Web performance;
Managing the Web portfolio;
Supporting the Web stakeholder community; and
Optimizing business process management as it relates to Web Execution.

What Web Program Management Means for the Organization

Web program management functions can be addressed by a Web team Program Manager. Alternatively, they can be outsourced or distributed across the organization. Completeness is more important than the organizational placement of these resources. In other words, a complete Web program management function that is ill-placed will outperform an incomplete Web program management function that is well placed. That said, don’t get hung up on where the Web team should “live.” Rather, when looking at Web resources in aggregate across the organization, get hung up on making sure the function exists and is complete and orchestrated.

Web program managers tend to spawn from both the traditional management arena and the Webmaster arena. But no matter where there initial experience is derived, Web program managers understand the value of the Web as a transformative tool for business. They are good managerial diplomats and can effectively navigate the sometime bureaucratic channels of management as an advocate for the Web program. As such, they send a message of value and opportunity upward and bring down guidance so that Web product management is relevant.

Web Product Management

Product management is the orchestration of the full arena of Web development, from editorial to technical. This is the area most think of as the Web team—where actual Web pages are designed, systems and applications developed, and Web sites are spawned and maintained. Ideally, Web product management has both operational and research and development aspects. While requiring strong elements of creativity and invention, Web product management must execute against a standards-based framework in order to scale. Therefore, product management should be guided by Web measurement tactics, both qualitative (in the form of user experience testing) and quantitative (by way of Web analytics). When consistency and horizontal alignment are not required, a more individualistic craft model of Web product management might be feasible.

What Web Product Management Means for the Organization

When managed as a product and not a series of individual projects, the Web becomes a sustained operational asset for the organization. Both the Web platform and the team that supports it are available to the entire organization. They can uphold initiatives and implement cutting-edge or practical solutions that contribute to the organizational mission and/or bottom line.

Finding the right blend of resources to keep the Web site’s quality high and expedient is a challenge, but when actively defined and formalized, Web Execution can be brought under control. It can then move Web development and the organization into an arena where business opportunity is high and the ability to actualize online functionality is greatly heightened.

A Message to Fellow Gen Xers: The Web Isn't Cool Anymore

Christine Pierpoint — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:01:17 -0700

The other day I was giving a presentation to a client and, in the midst of describing my background, realized that most of the people in the room were still in middle school when I started my career in the Web. It's times like this that I step back and remind myself that the mainstream Web has been around for more than fifteen years (which is about the same span as my professional career to date).

Like many Gen Xer's, I gravitated to Web work in the mid '90s because it was new and cool. When I graduated from college in '93, the Web hadn't really hit critical mass. I was just looking to start a career in Communications when I was offered a job to build Web pages for a magazine publisher. It seemed like a great opportunity to make a mark, so I bought an HTML book and hacked my way through my first Web site. And, like a contestant on American Idol, I became an instant rock star. I was a "Web Master" and went from office peon to the person invited to senior management meetings to demonstrate the latest and greatest Web practices. Every day was an opportunity to discover new tools and tricks and get well-paid for it too. And that was really cool.

We've learned a lot since those first heady days working in the 'Net. We've seen technologies come and go, survived the dot-com bust and watched as companies struggle to define how to weave the Web into the corporate fabric. So where does this leave Generation X? The Web has matured, but have we done the same professionally?

Lisa's last blog post challenged us to become agents of change in our organizations. College graduates this spring have never known a world where the Web didn't exist. To these digital natives, social networks, open source and cloud computing aren't novelties. They just are. They know how to use these tools and will be able to adopt them faster and use them more efficiently than we. What they don't have is experience. There is a real need for mentors and managers who actually get the Web and who can guide them as they bring an arsenal of new tools and skills into the workplace.

We're not the coolest kid in the cubicle any more, and that's how it should be. Our opportunity (or obligation?) is to become that Web-savvy manager we always wished we had when we came up through the ranks. Now's the time for Gen Xers to step up and lead the next generation of Web professionals. Recognize that our value lies in being leaders and inspiring those who look up to us. How cool is that?

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!