WelchmanPierpoint - Delia Konizeski

Buildling Processes to Create and Govern Web Sites Panel Discussion

Delia Konizeski — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:52:09 -0700

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.

Ensuring Your Site is Compliant with Federal Web Mandates

Delia Konizeski — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:51:48 -0700

Content ROT: How to Find and Treat It

Delia Konizeski — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:41:58 -0700

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.

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.

Web Governance and Standards Compliance White Paper

Delia Konizeski — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:25:20 -0800

The Web is simply too mission-critical to operate in an ad hoc or informal manner. In order to effectively align the Web with strategic objectives, formal Web governance must be established and mechanisms to enforce compliance with standards must be incorporated into day-to-day operations.

Corporate Internet Executive Research Study Brief

Delia Konizeski — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:14:34 -0700

We underwrote the Internet Strategy Forum’s 2009 Corporate Internet
Executive Research Study which recently examined the scope, structure,
influence, education and salary levels of in-house Internet
strategists—employees responsible in some way for driving strategy for
their company's Web site(s), eMarketing and/or eBusiness initiatives.

The research indicates that Internet Strategists are
moving up the corporate ladder to positions of higher responsibility
and increased salary:

Majority of respondents earn more than $95,000, annually.
Salaries have increased from 2005, when the majority earned $50,000 - $95,000.
Respondents have sought higher education since 2005, with an increasing number holding a degree beyond their bachelors.
More than 60% of the Internet jobs are within 2 levels of the CEO or Division leader.

Download the research brief below; You may purchase the complete, 70-page research report from the Internet Strategy Forum.

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.

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.

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.

Web Governance Doesn't Come in a Box

Delia Konizeski — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:13:22 -0700

There's been lots of chatter online recently about Web governance... particularly when it comes to SharePoint. Just do a Twitter search on "governance sharepoint" and you'll see what I mean. Even sharepointgovernance.org launched recently. Can you tell it's a hot topic?

Aside from all that, Lisa Welchman blogged about it on CMSWatch.com ("SharePoint Does Not Give You Governance") last month after hearing a Microsoft product manager assert that SharePoint was helping to provide Web Governance with its workflow services. But here's the catch-- Web Governance doesn't come ready to deploy in a neatly packaged, one-size-fits-all box. It takes work. It takes understanding your organization.

I know I've talked about the myth of magic bullets before, but I continue to find people in the Web management trenches looking for boxes full of magic bullets, potions, antidotes and the like. (Full disclosure: I was once an avid seeker of such things.) Clients will say, "can't you just determine the Web Properties Creation and Maintenance policy for me?" and "can you give me an outline of what a typical Web governance framework should look like?"

Can I just pull it out of a box? Ah, no. Some things just need to be specific to your organization-- your needs, your culture, your risk level, your pain points.The components of governance are no exceptions:

Web Governance Framework
Simply put, the framework specifies the mechanisms through which policies and standards are set, maintained, and enforced. There are a few flavors (variations) of governance models. Which one is right for your organization? What teams are already in place that could be utilized in the framework? What are the escalation paths for decision making?
Web Policies
These are the legal, compliance-related, editorial and technical constraints for Web development. What legal mandate(s) for your industry should be addressed in a Web policy? How can interpretation of the mandate (law, guidance) shape the policy? Which organizational policies devised pre-Web need to be revised in light of the Web?

Web Standards
Standards describe specific parameters, limits, and exceptions for the development of Web products. What standards are necessary to support your Web policies? What sites and content can your site link to? In what cases are vanity URLs appropriate? Will splash pages and pop-up windows be allowed?

Surely, there's lots to consider here. I don't have the Web Governance answers for your organization-- the answers must come from you and be specific to your organization. This will take dedicated meetings, discussion and research. No box involved.

Best Practices, Magic Bullets and the Nitty Gritty

Delia Konizeski — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:35:49 -0700

So there I was facilitating a Web standards team meeting recently when I hear, "Could we just compile the best practices on all this instead of working on crafting Web standards in these meetings?" Hmm. I too wish it were that easy.

The Nitty Gritty

To be fair, crafting 150+ Web standards can be a bit monotonous if not boring (though there can be great excitement in the heated discussions). Standards get into the nitty gritty of your Web site where lots of us would rather not go. Here's an example of a "Published Corrections" standard and you'll see what I mean:

"Substantive changes to content that alters the previously published meaning, outcome or data and/or corrects errors that are critical to the integrity and meaning of the content shall include a brief notation explaining what was changed and why. The notation shall be placed in close proximity to the corrected content."

Even then, the work's not done. Am I losing you? Stay with me. To make this standard complete, you'll need to define "close proximity" and stipulate the components of the notation. See what I mean? We're in deep.

Calling All Best Practices

So naturally, I too would like to swipe a comprehensive set of best practices for a Web site, cross my fingers that it suits my needs just right, and head off poolside. But, if a comprehensive set truly exists, it (1) won't be tailored to your organization and (2) won't be easy to find (organizations keep their hard, internal work largely under wraps from the rest of us).

While best practices might commonly exist for other fields, the Web is immature and it's gonna take time and effort to build a Web standards set that will reduce risk to your organization. Even now, policies in long-established fields like HR are having to be updated in light of the Web. Yep, it's back to the drawing board for them too.

Truth be told, you can find some good examples of Web standards available for all to see. The Department of Health and Human Services deserves great kudos for their very comprehensive set. And check out the format of PBS' Web Production Manual.

No Magic Bullet Here

So it seems the Web standards team will be meeting for weeks to come discussing which standards to include and what they should stipulate. No magic bullet available, sorry. They're in the nitty gritty for the foreseeable future and there's progress in that fact alone.

Intranets with Business Impact Panel Discussion

Delia Konizeski — Fri, 01 May 2009 07:42:09 -0700

A Web Policy is a Policy, Not a Standard

Delia Konizeski — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:39:41 -0700

I've been spending a lot time lately crafting a solid list of Web policies and standards that organizations should consider. After all, the benefits of codifying and enforcing policies and standards are significant as they serve to limit risk and increase Web site quality and consistency.

So I've noticed recently that people (and organizations) often interchange the policies and standards labels as if there is no difference between them... like those who insist the Web and the Internet are the same.

I'm not one for splitting hairs, but in this case, policies are truly not the same as standards and it's important to be clear about the distinction.

Let's Define the Terms:

Web Policy: Basic set of legal, compliance-related, editorial and technical constraints for Web development.

Web Standards: Web standards describe specific parameters and limits and exceptions for development of Web products.

Simply put, policies and standards compliment each other but are indeed distinct. Policy specifies the "what" and standards respond with "how."

Here's A Quick Example of Each:

Web Policy for Business Language: The organization's Web properties shall utilize English as the official business language but account for cultural and location specific terminology.

Web Standard for Business Language: Utilize postal code instead of zip code as zip code is specific to the US.

So, there is a distinction between the two but people and organizations continue to meld them together. Even the Department of Health and Human Services which has extensive and solid standards is known to label them as policies. Take a look.

Understanding the distinction is one step, understanding how policies and standards align with Web governance and the categories they should cover should not be ignored. Be sure to read Lisa Welchman's Web Governance definition for a comprehensive explanation of policies and standards and what they mean to an organization.

Forcing Web 2.0

Delia Konizeski — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:54:01 -0800

When Traditional Media Outlets Fail, Web 2.0 Becomes Reactionary Tactic

The closure of The Rocky Mountain News in Denver and rumblings of closures at papers in San Francisco, Seattle and other cities across the country, proves that traditional media is ailing in the face of Web technologies, namely Web 2.0.

In the wake of these closings, it seems that organizations that relied heavily on these traditional outlets to spread their news are being forced into the world of Web 2.0. Forced is an unfortunate but accurate term here. Media relations managers within such organizations have been forced to modify their media placement goals since there are fewer outlets to gobble up their story pitches. In recent months, they've been forced to turn to tools like Twitter to spread their messages.

This hasn't been an easy transition for organizations stuck on the traditional media path. IT departments have been forced to face their Web 2.0 fear and stop blocking social media sites so that employees can more effectively do their jobs in the marketing and media relations arenas in particular.

You might consider that progress and it is, in a short-sighted, reactionary way. True progress in moving away from a dependency on traditional media wouldn't be forced by market conditions (literally) but rather spurred by market conditions. Spurred in such a way that the move to Web 2.0 was a strategic maneuver, part of an overall strategic Web plan done with great alacrity, rather than a disinterested, one-off panacea.

As we've pointed out before, organizations must strategically manage their Web infrastructure to fully leverage the power of Web 2.0 tools. In such a case, change would not be forced or born out of fear but calculated and planned. A governance structure paired with detailed policies and standards would be put in place to mitigate risk and alleviate perceived fear. But all that takes more work then simply opening up access to Web 2.0 tools and keeping fingers crossed that the organization achieves its goals (like more stories in more places) and nothing too risky happens in the process.

I'll keep my fingers crossed on that one while I continue to espouse the benefits of governance and strategy and the power of planning and the definition of true progress and...

Who Cares What They're Doing: Is it Right for You?

Delia Konizeski — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:20:37 -0800

I'm all for benchmarking-- examining and comparing your organization in light of best practices, industry standards and the like. The problem is, I've seen so many organizations use benchmarking of sorts as a crutch that gets in the way of online change. The problem usually crops up during times of change, say, creating a new Web design or devising a new IA.

Time and again, I've seen an idea proposed that makes sense for the organization and its online presence. It's also clear that it meets a user need. It could be as innocuous as needing a "Calendar" link on the homepage.

And time and again, senior management reacts with "What's X doing?" That X is usually anybody the organization (1) considers an esteemed peer or (2) a to-be-emulated competitor. We can lump that in with benchmarking but it’s often “unnecessary justification.”

But at a certain point, what's it matter what other organizations are doing if what you need to do is right for your organization? That is, it meets the needs of your audience. There’s a pervasive notion that "if they don't, we can't." How does that serve to raise the bar?

When you think about it, mirroring what others are doing without doing research with your own audience is a short sighted but an often-used driver for many decisions. So, benchmark all you want. But when decision time comes, don’t let another organization’s decisions define yours.

Ode to the Lonely Webmasters

Delia Konizeski — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:57:18 -0700

They’re a smart and dedicated bunch: the lonely and lowly webmasters. Actually, they’re not really a “bunch” at all considering they work alone—the sole members of their organization’s Web “team” or “department.”

Certainly, some organizations only warrant one webmaster if they need such a full-time role at all. But, you will also find lone webmasters in mid-to-large size organizations, usually those that lack strategic intent for their Web programs. Such organizations may have a content management system and a decentralized publishing model with users “in the field” updating and creating content but it’s the central, lone webmaster at a junior seniority level who keep the Web program functioning. They are multi-taskers who dream of a group of cohorts to divide and conquer the ever-increasing workload of tactical tasks.

Often, lone webmasters work for well-meaning but ineffective bosses who want to support online growth but only do so with one-off maneuvers and limited funding. In such situations, no one holds real power and no one is effective, let alone strategic. The lone webmaster is subject to the whims of their superiors who manage a strategic resource as a tactical, print-like brochure.

While such a scenario may also exist in larger Web teams, I suspect that there’s a shared burden and a camaraderie that comes from mutual projects, goals and professional interests. Not to mention that larger Web teams may be more prevalent in organizations that view their Web site as an integral, strategic component of their business model.

The lone webmaster is not doomed to such a lonely state. The antidote is for the organization to develop a Web Operations Management strategy that articulates guiding principles and objectives for their Web offerings based on direction from senior-level management. (After all, they’re the ones already driving the organization’s business objectives.) Strategy alone doesn’t do the trick. It must be put into action with a Web governance model outlining who is in charge of the site and how decisions will be made in regards to the content, data and applications on the site. But the model itself must also be put into action and not buried in a Word doc on the department’s shared drive. At the very least, the lone webmaster should become educated on governance and how it’s driven by strategy as education alone could be a sanity-saving measure.

Web Operations Management strategy and Web governance are key steps in maturing the organization’s Web operations and in helping the lone webmaster better manage the Web. And, with any luck the lone webmaster won’t be the lone one for long. Unfortunately, getting senior-level management involved at the strategy level in the first place is often a considerable challenge (and is blog post for another time).

Ok, so this wasn’t exactly an ode but you’ve gotta admit I’ve sung a pretty sad tune in this post. How’s this for a shot at a lyrical poem:

I promise to be more up tempo next time ‘round
‘Cause surely the message is getting out—
That positive results abound
When your Web governance is truly sound

(Kinda has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?)