Regular

posted 8 Nov 2006 in Volume 3 Issue 4

Intranets

Optimising content management for intranets

Successful intranet content management system implementations require a focus on the end-to-end process of content management – not just content contribution.

By Stephen Musselwhite

Why do so many intranets suffer from out-of-date, poorly structured, inaccessible and missing content? Didn’t the content management system (CMS) vendor claim that its product would eradicate these problems? What is going wrong? Is the problem really down to exaggerated vendor claims or, rather, to badly defined processes behind the CMS?

The ability of an intranet to deliver what is required is, of course, related to a combination of the processes, people and technology involved in the end-to-end management of content – but it is the technology behind the intranet that is the enabler and so often receives the most attention.

The danger of this excessively technological focus is that CMS implementations are often viewed as discrete technical projects, rather than the start of a process to manage the full ‘content lifecycle’ throughout an organisation.

A lack of usability testing of the CMS itself, undertaken throughout the implementation, often compounds this problem by delivering a system that is not fully optimised to achieve its objectives.

At the very least, this can result in a system that is an inefficient tool for managing content, requires more end-user training and support than should be necessary and creates delays in content being published to the intranet.

In worst case scenarios, a poorly implemented CMS can challenge the very existence of the intranet itself, as employees’ confidence in the system plummets.

Aims of this workshop

This workshop will focus on how to deliver an effective content management process for an intranet through the considered implementation of a CMS by:

* Recognising the characteristics of a poorly implemented CMS;

* Optimising the usability of the CMS;

* Raising the credibility of the CMS with the key stakeholders;

* Providing training and ongoing support for the use of the CMS.

The credibility that the CMS has with the various stakeholders involved in the process from the implementation onwards will be critical to the success of the intranet. Stakeholder support gained from a successful CMS implementation encourages the creation of a ‘virtuous cycle’ of development and usage. A poorly implemented content management system can achieve the opposite and run the intranet into the ground.

The characteristics of a poorly implemented CMS

Assuming that a clear intranet content management process and policy is in place (given that the CMS can only really be as good as the process it enables), there are a number of clear signals that a CMS implementation has not been quite as effective as it should be or that something is going awry. These signs are easy to spot, provided regular audits are conducted. However, they will ensure the continued health of the system.

The signs include:

* Out of date content on the published intranet site;

* Long delays in the process for contributing content;

* The system is frequently unavailable to content owners;

* A poor perception among the system’s users (content contributors and content approvers view it as difficult and/or inefficient to use);

* Sponsors of the intranet find it difficult to encourage their teams to spend more time managing intranet content because it is a time-consuming process and competing approaches better serve their needs;

* A general lack of usability of the published site;

* ‘Old ways of working’ are favoured.

Identifying and resolving the most pressing CMS-related issues

Figure one highlights the most common issues related to intranet content, but all of these can be solved (or at least minimised) through the creation of proper end-to-end processes for managing content and the enforcement of that process through the implementation of a CMS.

Optimising the usability of the CMS

Following on from the identification of the numerous issues associated with intranet content, it is clear that there are a number of key areas where the technical CMS implementation team has to get things right.

Each of these stages needs a clear requirements definition, together with an understanding of how best to optimise the CMS to provide a streamlined process for the ongoing and flexible management of content into the future. Figure two provides a simple illustration of the continuous content management process a CMS must facilitate.

Let’s now look in a little more detail at the stages of managing content from creation and contribution through to the removal of content from the system.

Contributing content

Evaluate all stages of the process content contributors need to go through in order to add content to the system during the CMS implementation testing phase. Ensure the process is as refined as possible, taking any opportunity to improve the efficiency of the steps. Consider using common scenarios to truly test the performance of the system.

Such scenarios will include such factors as: if a time-sensitive announcement needs to go on to the intranet, how quickly can this be achieved? Is the publication process optimised to achieve this? Can the workflow process be overridden by a central authority in the case of exceptional circumstances?

Usability best practice dictates that intranet content is available in web page format, wherever possible, rather than documentation attached to a page. The CMS should provide the opportunity to do this easily and in a way that ensures that content is presented clearly and adheres to usability best practice and accessibility requirements.

Workflow

Implement workflow with care and don’t create more bottlenecks. A central goal of the implementation of any CMS will be to divest the responsibility for managing content away from a central team and directly to the creators of that content. To ensure that only approved content is then published, approval can be sought from the sponsor responsible for that area of the intranet or the central team.

Workflow can become complex and, if not properly constructed, can reintroduce the bottlenecks in publication that the CMS was introduced to remove. A simple workflow will be flexible and easy to adjust when change is required. Flexibility in workflow is critical and this is why simplicity is key.

A convoluted or complex workflow will do nothing to endear the CMS to sponsors, whose perception of the value of the intranet will be influenced significantly by the efficiency and perceived usability of the system.

Publication

It is essential that publication of intranet content is reliable and rapid for an intranet to become the trusted source of organisational information. A realistic and, indeed, necessary goal of any intranet is for it to be the source of organisational announcements.

This means that the intranet is the place users go to for updates and that those updates are timely. E-mail announcements cascaded across the business should be replaced by CMSmanaged communication flows, but this can only happen if the CMS is able to publish content responsively. Delays in publication are a frustration to the contributor and author (sponsor) of the message and can damage sentiment towards the system.

Reviewing content

The CMS absolutely has to encourage the timely review of content so that content owners can make the decision to update, archive or delete that content in a properly controlled manner. The process will, of course, be clearly documented as part of the intranet’s content-management policy – but the CMS has a crucial role in enforcing this. Content owners should not get the opportunity to postpone action indefinitely or to ignore CMS reminders.

It is therefore useful to encourage users to set aside time to review pages properly to make this more than just a token exercise. This approach to ‘content life-cycling’ will obviously require the full support of the sponsors. A CMS should also allow the transfer of ownership of content away from an individual that may, for example, be changing roles or leaving the organisation, to another owner to ensure continuity of content ownership across the intranet.

Archiving content

Is archiving an automated process or one that requires substantial manual intervention from the content contributors? Are content contributors fully trained and familiar with the archiving process? The process for removing or archiving old content in many content management systems is very often an afterthought, rather than a central component of the implementation, training and support.

Archiving requires a structured process and recognition in the role of the content manager, as well as careful management. The CMS needs to enforce archiving best practice.

Deleting content

At the end of its useful life, or when legal requirements dictate it, content must be removed from the system. Again, this is a process that could be automated, but manual intervention will often be required to ensure only the right content is deleted.

Getting the technical implementation right gives the system base credibility to build upon, so the technical team behind the implementation of the CMS needs to understand the broad requirements of the system in detail and should be available for consultation while the requirements-definition phase is underway.

Input from the technical team will be important in evaluating how best to support the system in the future. The technical team is best placed to examine and extrapolate from past growth trends and to consider the other factors that will influence the growth of the content within the system.

For example, will a significant increase in the number of trained contributors result in significant increases in the volume of content? What affect will a shift in focus of the types of content managed, or the introduction of archiving for policies or process, actually have? What impact will so-called Web 2.0 technologies have on the management of content within the organisation?

Raising the credibility of the CMS with the key stakeholders

Credibility among the full range of stakeholders is central to the success of the implementation, the adoption of the intranet, and the process and system behind it. To be successful, intranets, and the implementation of the CMS need to have credibility with a number of different audiences.

Senior management sponsors

Acceptance of the use of the tool and future support for it will depend upon the credibility the system achieves at the upper levels of the organisation. Senior management needs to firmly set the organisational strategy that the intranet must support and, where possible, enable.

Senior sponsors are required to not only provide the funding to put the infrastructure and systems in place and to help cut through any political obstructions that may exist, but also to use the intranet as a communications channel. It is essential that sponsors are fully aware of their responsibilities, not just in commissioning the creation of information, but also in properly life cycling that information.

If they view the intranet CMS as an inefficient tool for managing information, they will not provide the necessary encouragement to the content editors or managers to use the system and may, in worst case scenarios, reinforce old and inadequate ways of working.

Departmental management sponsors

These individuals will often be sponsors of specific intranet sites and provide the strategic direction for the development of sub-sites or discrete areas of the intranet. The success of the intranet can be impeded if these individuals are not convinced of the efficiency of the CMS. For instance, will important communications be sent via e-mail, instead of via the workflow system if the system is not seen to perform?

The requirement for specific applications, personalisation and tools is provided at this level and if these cannot be fulfilled in a timely manner and to the satisfaction of the sponsor the perception of the system will not be improved. A potential danger here is that failure to provide required functionality may result in maverick developments taking place – a clear signal that the CMS provided does not meet the approval of departmental management.

Content approvers

Anyone approving content (particularly if these individuals are also members of departmental management teams, as above) will need to be fully trained, not only in the mechanics of the approval system, but also in the need for responsive approval. Failure to approve content in a timely way introduces another bottleneck into the system. Is the process simple and suitably flexible? Does support exist to help resolve content approval issues rapidly?

Content contributors and editors

All of those responsible for putting content in place will need to be able to do so as quickly and efficiently as possible. Migrating from one system of contribution to another requires significant change management investment.

The health of the intranet and the perception around the organisation relies on the quality of the content to be found there. As we’ve already seen, even small problems in managing content through the CMS can have big implications on the sentiment users feel towards the system.

End users

The aim of the implementation of any content management system must be to provide content that translates as readily as possible into action. Content that meets the needs of users generates credibility and creates the crucial virtuous cycle that fuels the continued development of the intranet.

A system that hasn’t been implemented efficiently and doesn’t allow for the responsive management of content will devalue the intranet by increasing the likelihood of inaccurate or out-of-date content being present.

This means that time-sensitive content, such as announcements, may not be available in a timely way (particularly when a process needs to be in place to translate those announcements into a number of languages for distribution across a number of geographies with different time zones) and the ‘old ways of working’ will proliferate.

Redesigns, the introduction of new areas of functionality or content and radical changes to the information architecture of the intranet are all times when users may need a little more help in efficiently using the intranet. If the CMS fails at these times of high visibility, the consequences could prove costly.

Providing training and ongoing support for the use of the CMS

Training

All users of the system must be fully trained to their satisfaction in how to use the system correctly and in accordance with the process and policy. Training must cover usability issues across the full content lifecycle and focus on the end-to-end process, not just on the creation of content.

Support

Is the intranet regarded as business critical? If not, it should be! To be of real value, it has to contain the tools and content that is used to support decision making. To achieve that, it must be reliable. Is the appropriate level of support in place to ensure that the intranet is always available?

Is the CMS fully supported, either by the internal implementation team or through the appropriate third party? Is upgrade support adequate? Is the implementation partner available to provide support? Lack of availability of the intranet and the tools that reside there could have a significant impact on the organisation – and has to be avoided at all costs.

Summary and conclusions

* Content management that focuses on the creation of content at the expense of the process of end-to-end content management is creating problems for the future. It will challenge the credibility of the intranet itself at every level of the organisation, making further development of the intranet more difficult;

* Successful implementation of a CMS for an intranet relies upon the identification of a simple process for improving the flow of decision making information, exposing the information individuals need to make decisions, and then exposing the related applications to allow action;

* Intranet credibility is easy to lose and, once lost, difficult to repair. The launch of a site redesign or the implementation of a new CMS are two occasions when credibility can be restored. Maximise these opportunities;

* Intranets built upon the solid foundation of a well implemented content management system makes an organisation more efficient by releasing information flows, enabling more rapid decision making. Remember: implemented well, content management systems are a source of competitive advantage.

Stephen Musselwhite is global intranet manager at Electrocomponents Plc, theparent company of industrial product distributor RS Components. Stephen joined Electrocomponents in 1999 as an e-commerce analyst within the e-commerce department before moving into his current role in 2002.

Figure one: Identifying and resolving the most pressing CMS-related issues

Issue: Old, incomplete or inconsistent content

Description/causes: Nothing challenges the credibility of intranet content more than inaccurate data. The CMS does not enforce an end-to-end content management process.

Resolutions: The CMS must help to enforce the accuracy and timeliness of information by enforcing an appropriate process.

Issue: Missing content

Description/causes: Key decision-making information simply doesn’t appear on the intranet – possibly because the CMS is too difficult to use.

Resolutions: Identify the decision-making information gaps with intranet sponsors and users of the information in the organisation. Optimise the process for content contribution through the CMS.

Issue: No ownership details for the content

Description/causes: Content that is unable to put users in contact with the ‘owner’ of that content misses the mark. If the content itself cannot facilitate decision making directly, it should speed up the decision-making process by putting subject expert and decision maker in contact.

Resolutions: Ownership details must be mandatory for all content on the intranet. The CMS must enforce this so only content with legitimate contributor details can be submitted to the workflow and published by the system.

Issue: Poor/inconsistent navigation between sites and/or pages

Description/causes: A host of different approaches to navigation between and within sub-sites and pages have been implemented.

Resolutions: Enforce a standardised approach through the CMS. Enforce usability and accessibility standards.

Issue: Poor in-page navigation

Description/causes: For optimum usability, pages should comply with all the rules of good web page usability. Page structure should follow the inverted pyramid style with a clear introduction followed by the detail, good clear readable structure and the use of headings to separate sections, and the use of in-page links at the top of the page to take the user through the page content.

Resolutions: The CMS enforces the rules for good page construction and presents reminders and useful tips on how to improve pages. Non-compliant pages should be flagged and submission to workflow prevented. This must be supported by a clear training and support process.