Archive for October, 2008

Managing Content Management

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

“Make content owners responsible for their content.” That’s long been the mantra of web content management. IT departments and business units have embraced the concept. Highly-evolved enterprise content management systems (ECMS) have been designed so that content owners can manage their own content.

What many of us have come to realize is that enterprise content management operates under two fundamentally different rules from other enterprise systems.

Difference 1: Content is created in Production.

In a traditional enterprise application, code is developed and tested in a non-production environment and promoted through environments to a production system. Well-managed applications are supported by a set of non-production environments, each carefully configured for development, testing, disaster recovery and the like.

While code promotion is the same in an ECMS, the exact opposite is true for content. Content creators and editors work in the production system. The ECMS provides a content deployment process to publish the content to a live site, but the content is not promoted from a non-production environment into production. If production content is needed in a lower environment, it must be demoted, not promoted.

Difference 2: Content owners, not IT, change the system.

IT is normally responsible for configuration and change management, user access and permissions management. IT policy, process, and governance structures have all evolved to a culture of IT control over enterprise applications.

Again, ECMS is different. Content authors, editors and managers can use complex content types that change the behavior of portals, web sites and other applications that use and present content. Content management groups can, and often should, control user access and permissions – both within the ECMS and through personalization of content. Powerful workflow capabilities can be modified to meet changing business rules for how content is created and published. The organization and responsibility for the integrity of content resides outside the IT organization.

These differences create conflicts between the IT and business owners of an ECMS. Some of the more common conflicts are:

  • Disputes over who owns the application
  • Inadequate support funding because no one person is responsible for the full scope of support
  • Arguments over accountability when something goes wrong
  • Problems coordinating code releases in an environment of constant content updates
  • Challenges finding the root cause of problems
  • Insufficient business continuity because disaster recover sites lack current content
  • Gaps in documentation, training and end user support

These conflicts may seem irresolvable and they certainly are daunting.

We need a different approach to managing content management. Creating the right management structures and processes begins, like all change, with recognizing the problem. You will hear more from me over the coming months about both the dimensions of the problem and solutions you can bring into your organization. And I encourage you to make this a dialogue. I’d like to hear from you about your challenges and – even better – your successes. In the meantime, look for the next entry in this series, where I will look specifically at configuration management for an ECMS.

Does Ebay beat Google at its own Game?

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

I just read a New York Times article recommending we use Google for everything including searching Ebay, and while I can see the reasoning, I can see at least one critical feature Google must add before I can recommend it as the ideal search experience: Faceted Search.

When our Enterprise Search clients think of improving the search experience for their users, they want to learn from the best, and frequently they look first to get great ideas from Google. Nobody questions that Google is the King of Web Search. Google has captured our hearts and our clicks, and profited tremendously. But is the Google search experience the one to copy for Enterprise Search?

I find it very interesting that Ebay has Faceted Search, yet Google still doesn’t. Why does Google omit this feature? I can see many reasons…but then I could see many reasons they omitted suggest as a default feature, and they surprised me last month and added it to their default search box. So Google may soon surprise us and add Faceted Search, but for now I will keep telling clients that the Ebay search experience is a better one to copy than Google’s.

The first step on Ebay is what we all expect: enter a few keywords, and get back the best results the engine could find based on those keywords. The second step on Ebay is not found on Google: click the most appropriate category link on the left to narrow results to what you were really looking for (box A below).

You’ll also notice several other very handy ways to filter there on the left: by price, new/used, auction/buy it now (box B above). But these filters apply to any product on Ebay. Now comes my favorite feature of all when you click on the “Laptops & Notebooks” category, you now get filters especially helpful for narrowing to exactly the laptop and notebook you’re looking for, like screen size, processor speed, and memory:

The fundamental difference here is that Ebay is working with more structured information, whereas Google is working with mostly unstructured information. The better the structured information, the better the Faceted Search experience. Of course, Google is expert at taking unstructured information and extracting structure, as best shown by the amazing features on Google Map’s Local Search. If only they would do the same for Froogle, it could quickly be as good, or better, than the search experience on Ebay.

I know the search experience on Ebay isn’t perfect, none is…but with the powerful Faceted Search offered by Ebay, we have a much higher chance of finding what we’re looking for. Don’t your users deserve the same? Next time you’re contemplating improvements to your one of your organization’s search interfaces, don’t forget to include Faceted Search.

Fixing Enterprise Search: Turning Find into Act

Friday, October 3rd, 2008

Large organizations and software companies are spending millions of dollars to make Enterprise Search effective. Unfortunately, search continues to be a huge source of frustration for most users. In this recent survey, I saw a statistic that 59% of all users were unhappy with their Enterprise Search implementation.

So how do we fix Enterprise Search? Well, it won’t be fixed by making technology changes – instead it will be fixed by changing the way we think about search. Your users are not searching to get an ordered list of results. Finding information is just the first step of what they are trying to do. Your users are searching in order to take an action. Find out what action your users are attempting to take and develop a search that helps them do it and your users will be pleased. Turn Find into Act and you will be an Enterprise Search star.

Google offers a great example of an action based search. Go to http://www.google.com and search for “Mexican Restaurants in Reston VA”. The first result is a map with pushpins showing the location of all of the mexican restaurants in Reston, VA. Now, this search is really not about finding a restaurant – it is about making it possible for me to take action (whether that action is me heading out to the restaurant for lunch, recommending it to a colleague who is driving through the area and calling me for suggestions, etc). What do you need to know when you are looking for a restaurant?

  • How close is it to where I want it to be?
  • What is the phone number so that I can call for reservations or ask questions?
  • Will I like it?

The first result in your search is a map with pushpins on it representing each restaurant that matches your search criteria. Next to the map is a list of each restaurant, the phone number and a link to the reviews. This type of search result makes it easy for me to pick the restaurant I want and to call for reservations. There is no long list of results. I don’t even care what the order of the results is. The map gives me the information to make my own decisions and to take action quickly.

Another example of an action based search can be seen at http://www.marketwatch.com. Go to the website and try to search for VIGN. As you are typing a dropdown appears with two separate lists. The top list is a list of ticker symbols. The bottom list is a list of related topics. For the purpose of this exercise, select the ticker symbol.

A screen appears with all of the information you would need to make an investment decision on Vignette Corporation. You have key indicators, a stock chart, recent news and the current stock price. Once again, there is no long boring list of search results. There is no need to worry about relevancy. MarketWatch users have the information they need to take action on an investment decision.

These are great examples of searches where the designers thought about actions their users were going to take rather than the list or results people need to comb through. In my next blog, I will talk about how to implement an action based search.

e-Learning Part 1: I’m going ‘All Aboard’ the Online Training train! But where is the train going and how do I find the station?

Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

There’s no training like e-Learning, there’s no training like e-Learning, there’s no training like e-Learning. Can I get there by clicking my heels 3 times? If only it was as easy as Dorothy made it look to bring it all home! But the reality is that most organizations are struggling with the process of transitioning to this promising training format; the movement towards e-Learning is a tricky one if not carefully planned and executed. Generally, organizations do understand the basic benefits of transitioning legacy content into educationally sound online material – such benefits as reduced travel, less burden on instructors, elimination of facilities costs, and greater outreach. But the questions that keep e-Learning initiatives from getting off the ground are: Where do I even begin? Where do I find the budget to develop online training? How do I ensure that my training is educationally-sound and appropriate for my adult learner population?

Do I want the Local Train or the Bullet Train?

As is the case with any other discipline, there is a growing contingent of “experts” in the marketplace offering promises to solve all learning problems. However, before an expert can help you solve your problems, you need to understand what it means to solve your problem. You need to decide whether you simply need to get the train running to maintain status-quo (the Local Train) or develop a dependable service that not only brings the train into the station every time but does so at a much faster pace (the Bullet Train). The most important part about learning is simple: Have learners retained the knowledge they’ve acquired? Research indicates that higher retention occurs when content appeals to various learning styles. Therefore, ensuring a positive answer to the retention question can be challenging. Where e-Learning is concerned, it’s more difficult for the learner to simply raise their hand and say, “I don’t understand.” Therefore, it’s critical that your e-Learning program provides this support to learners. So, how do you determine whether you need the local rail or the bullet train? This question can only be answered by answering a few others first:

  • What are the goals of the organization?
  • How crucial is this training to the organization’s ability to meet such goals?
  • Are the training objectives and business objectives properly aligned?
  • What kind of standard do we want to set?

Once you answer these questions, you can begin to zero in on the investments necessary to ensure not just a successful e-Learning initiative but the right e-Learning initiative.

Has the train been properly inspected before it leaves the station?

A common error made by organizations as they begin their transition to e-Learning is to assume they can take their existing legacy material and convert it directly into online material. This is a sure-fire way for learners and stakeholders (“passengers”) to get stuck on the tracks, frustrated in the money and/or time they just invested on that ticket to nowhere. Because an instructor (conductor) is present, Instructor-led materials are developed with a very different objective than online training. Online training is like an automated train, in that all of the materials to run the train are self-contained – no conductor required. In learning, we call this a “Learner-Centric Environment,” all of the tools and resources that the learner needs to succeed are built in the content. The first step in building learner-centric materials is analyzing existing legacy materials to determine the following:

  • Is the current training broken and therefore worth the investment in repurposing to e-Learning format?
  • Is the material up-to-date and does it reflect the current needs of the learner?
  • Are the objectives written at a level of cognition that is sufficient for e-Learning (Bloom’s Taxonomy) to ensure learning transfer?
  • What level of repurposing is required to transition into e-Learning?

If your train needs a tune-up to run properly, you need the right amount of investment to make that happen.

Do you only have budget available for a quick-fix that will, at best, usually get the train to the station or have you received organizational support to buy a new engine that guarantees consistent on-time arrival? The answer to this question is important when developing your e-Learning budget. Obtaining stakeholder sign-off remains one of the more significant challenges for our clients who are developing internal training for their employees. The vast majority of organizations perceive training as a cost, rather than an investment. However, according to Josh Bersin (2006), if your training is well-aligned to organizational goals, you will rarely be asked to rationalize expenditures: For example, you want to improve sales of a particular type of cell phone. You conduct research that finds that your sales force lacks updated sales skills. You decide to develop a course that will equip your employees with more innovative sales skills – many of them have not taken a sales course in several years. You measure the effectiveness of the new training once it has been implemented. If you consistently develop effective training that improves employee performance, you show your stakeholders the added value of training to the organization’s bottom-line.

It is also important to always invest in high-impact training – training that is going to provide the organization with the greatest tangible and intangible results. Indirect benefits of investing in education include evidence that employees generally stay with companies that are willing to invest in their employees’ future success. Consider the following research, “Training makes individuals feel more confident which, in turn, increases their engagement and commitment to the company which, in turn increases their loyalty and productivity.” (Bersin, 2006). Employee turnover is very costly to an organization – you should be doing everything you can to avoid it!

What next?

You’ve determined what kind of training your organization needs. You’ve determined if your training needs to be repaired. You’ve determined the budget required to make the necessary repairs. You’ve even gotten your stakeholders excited enough to fund your budget. Now what? Your next step is identifying what delivery methods you will need to effectively deliver the material. We will discuss this in Part 2: I’m going ‘All Aboard’ the Online Training train! But where is the train going and how do I find the station?