|
JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
CIDM Director
www.infomanagementcenter.com
Managers are struggling to identify the changes that are
needed in their organizations if they are going to be
successful in implementing a content-management solution.
Some insist that they can incorporate content management
without making significant changes in the roles and
responsibilities of staff members. Most of these managers
decide to pursue a rudimentary level of single sourcing.
Staff members add conditional text to FrameMaker book
sections to accommodate differences in software or hardware
product versions or other similarly well-structured
variables. We refer to this practice as stage 1 single
sourcing.
Other managers recognize that they need a more sophisticated
form of content management to achieve their goals for
reusing content and meeting a wide variety of customer
requirements. They encourage staff members to investigate
levels of single sourcing that require a complete
restructuring of existing information, the use of
content-management tools to help track and reassemble
content, and links to Web content-management systems that
enable dynamic output and customer personalization. Their
organizations begin to pursue stage 2 single sourcing
(components of content are reassembled into collections by
staff members), stage 3 single sourcing (components of
content are targeted for automatic assembly into
customer-focused collections), and stage 4 single sourcing
(components of content are reassembled by customers for
their own personal use).
What enables one organization to take a more sophisticated
approach to the design and development of its information
and another to create a simple reuse design? In part, the
answer is size and funding. Larger organizations are more
likely to have management support to fund the acquisition
and implementation of content-management systems. But size
is not, in my observation, the defining factor. I argue that
the more mature an organization is, the more likely it will
be able to pursue successful development of a
content-management solution that enables dynamic publishing.
Content Management Requires Level 3 Process Maturity
I first published the Information Process Maturity Model (IPMM)
in 1994 as a chapter in Managing Your Documentation Projects
(Wiley, 1994). I later developed a more detailed account of the
IPMM in a Technical Communications article (http://www.comtech-serv.com/pdfs/Strategic%20Planning.pdf).
The IPMM identifies best practices that are characteristic of
more mature and successful technical information organizations.
In observing the progress of single-source initiatives and moves
into content management, I conclude that organizations will not
be successful in implementing full-scale content management without
at least a Level 3 in the process maturity model.
Level 3 process maturity is called Organized and Repeatable.
A Level 3 organization has its "ducks in a row." That is, a
Level 3 organization has made progress in implementing a
number of key practices, the first of which is
organizational structure. A Level 3 organization is
centrally managed—the writers and other staff members
report to a professional information-development manager,
although they may also be matrixed to other organization
areas, typically product-development teams. In large
organizations, more than one management structure may exist,
but for the most part, staff members report to professional
managers who understand the information-development process.
Without a central organizational structure, individual
writers working alone or in very small groups are unlikely
to have the ability to garner the institutional support
required to pursue a content-management solution. They are
more likely able to use existing tools in a limited way
individually or in small teams to avoid duplication of
effort and enable them to publish content in multiple output
media.
Centrally managed teams have managers who provide the
leadership and support to develop business cases,
communicate the needs to senior management, and get the
funding required to move into more sophisticated, and
costly, solutions. They also have a structure that can
enforce standards and a collaborative working model among
all staff members.
In addition to the critical ingredient of organizational structure, a Level
3 publications organization must also have in place sound practices
in at least two other key practice areas: information planning
and information design. When we look at Level 3 organizations
in information planning, we find that they have processes that
require a planning phase for all projects, no matter how short.
For example, a publications organization at Level 3 develops Information
Plans for each new project, outlining the business goals of the
project, the audiences being addressed, the extent to which new
content must be developed and existing content must be updated,
and the time needed to complete the project with the assigned
staff. Typically, a Level 3 organization assigns a publications
project lead who is responsible for developing the Information
Plan for the project, estimating staff and schedule, and ensuring
that sufficient resources are available to complete the project
by the deadline.
A content-management implementation is a complex project. It
requires strong leadership, sound planning, estimating,
milestone tracking, and adequate staffing. To be successful,
a content-management project needs someone who understands
what must be done and knows how to monitor progress, assess
risks, and bring the project to a successful conclusion.
However, such a leader will not exist or will be
frustratingly unsuccessful without a strong, centralized
organization behind him or her.
A Level 1 or 2 organization already has a difficult time
planning, estimating, and implementing its ordinary
projects. It lacks the process skills necessary to carry off
a complex project requiring new skills, practices, and
processes.
A Level 1 or 2 organization also has staff members who are
used to working alone, developing their own projects without
much, if any, interaction with colleagues. Typically, staff
members do not work in teams and are unfamiliar with a
collaborative work environment. To implement a
content-management solution, however, requires teamwork and
collaboration. It requires that individuals come together
and agree on a single structure for the content they create,
even when that structure and style may not be "the way I
would do it myself."
Without sufficient dedication to teamwork and collaboration,
an organization attempting a complex content-management
solution will dissolve into internecine wars.
Information design is a cornerstone of successful content
management. If writers do not use standard structures to
communicate information, then the opportunities for reuse
decline. I find that organizations that have neglected
information design have difficulty transforming their
content from a book-centric to a topic-centric model. Rather
than work within a consistent design model, writers in
Levels 1 and 2 organizations are more likely to develop
their own books idiosyncratically, without regard to how
other books in a library are being developed. Looking across
documents, particularly across product lines, our
process-maturity audits typically uncover great diversity in
the approaches writers take to their information. Procedures
are written from different perspectives, some assuming
considerable knowledge among the users and others little.
Some writers include information about the underlying
engineering concepts, while others focus on simple
"how to..." information. This lack of a consistent approach
to information design at Levels 1 and 2 make the migration
to content management and single sourcing extremely
challenging.
By Level 3, an organization will have standardized its
information design, in part because Level 3 organizations
have sufficiently developed their processes to leave time
for customer studies. Publications groups that engage in
serious customer studies almost always develop information
types that support users rather than indulging in
individualistic design approaches. The results of customer
studies generally lead to streamlining of content and a
focus on a smaller number of consistent information types.
For example, a design team I advised at a large,
multinational company arrived at an elegant design of five
simple information types to handle a diverse subject matter.
This simplification ensured that they would be ready for
content management and successful in their pursuit of the
cost savings promised by single sourcing, once the
technology became available.
A Level 3 organization typically will have a rudimentary
process in place for Quality Management, one of the most
difficult of the eight key practices. Quality Management
describes a customer-centric approach to information
development, rather than a system- or an author-centric
approach. With Level 4 process maturity, even more time and
resources become available to partner with customers. As a
result, information design becomes simpler and better
structured, a key ingredient of a successful
content-management implementation.
An Implementation Methodology for Single Sourcing
When I begin work with organizations contemplating a move
into content management and single sourcing, I insist that
we look hard at current processes. In fact, what occurs in
an information audit is an abbreviated evaluation of process
maturity. This evaluation gives me a good indication of the
potential challenges an organization will have in
implementing change.
I often advise managers with immature practices that they
must first find ways to correct the problems, or they should
stay with rudimentary stage 1 single sourcing. They will
often be able to achieve some repurposing of content using
desktop publishing tools that permit conditional tagging. In
that way, they can create help and print documentation from
a single document (generally a book) or they can allow for
some variation in product-specific content within the book
structure. Generally, I suggest that Level 1 organizations
carefully consider moving into XML authoring. In most cases,
the move is expensive and produces few returns on the
investment.
The question remains, however, whether the increases in
efficiency from repurposing are sufficient. Organizations,
for example, put great effort into producing help systems
that are used very little by customers. After much effort,
they discover that the customers prefer manuals to unusable
help. Single sourcing appears to take on a life of its own
in such situations. The writers learn something new, but the
users don't benefit.
The real rewards of content management come from new
approaches to the delivery of information to users. The
rewards to users come when they can find exactly the
information they need to accomplish tasks, make better
decisions, and troubleshoot problems efficiently. Successful
outcomes derive from content that is thoughtfully designed
and well managed so that it can be delivered appropriately
for a myriad of existing and new outcomes. Having the focus
to design information for users and the time needed to
implement a content model that supports the best design
requires an effectively managed organization with strong
leadership and skilled team members. Level 3 and above in
the IPMM represents a strong predictor of success.
|
