“Our IT department gave us VSS and we can’t figure out how to get components out of that. How do you do that?”

“We’re tearing our hair out with Sharepoint and versioning; what is the workaround?”

“Our website uses Documentum and it won’t do what we want. What do we do?”

“We have Interwoven and the interface is awful, so our staff won’t use it. What should we replace it with?”

Each set of circumstances was unique, yet eerily alike.  Each instance involved the acquisition of a software product which was then implemented for an operational unit, without regard to whether the software was suited to the task. The mismatch, in some cases, was painfully obvious; in other cases, the mismatch was more subtle. In many cases, certainly all the instances above, the software is popular, thriving software that has been implemented without a proper strategy. The results: generally some sort of fail.

Bad strategy or no strategy?

During the past decade, acceptance of content management has drastically increased. The idea that managing any significant volume of content requires some technology assistance has been demonstrated a multitude of times, and the adoption of a CMS (content management systems)  is no longer a novelty. Yet the instances of the tail wagging the dog – buying the software before determining the operational needs – continue to be far too familiar to ignore.

When I would encounter an audience member at a later event, I’d ask if they’d ever gotten the problem sorted out. Overwhelmingly, they would sheepishly admit that they had not. They continued to produce and publish content in ways that they acknowledged were highly inefficient and prone to operational risks <link> because they couldn’t convince their organizations of the need to make the changes that, to them, were obviously needed. So what went wrong?

Go cheap or go home. This “strategy” is when the technology group either already has some software – collaboration software, source code control software, or a Web CMS – that they insist be put to use because “we already own the software” or “the software is free.” Not only does this dooms a project to failure, but anecdotal reports show that the operational team is then blamed for the failure. The technology group refuses to take responsibility for having foisted upon them an inappropriate tool. In this case, a stalemate ensues, and everyone goes back to their previous kludgy way of work, with no movement forward, and the technologists smug in their political win.

Don’t get it, don’t care; just do it. This “strategy” is in play when a group has heavily invested in a software application, and is reluctant to investment more time or money to make it work for a different operational purpose. There is equal resistance to bringing in additional software that complements the original uber-application, and no impetus to understand why it is needed. There may have been a strategy developed for the initial implementation, but there is no acknowledgement that different operational needs will require further customization of the software. The idea is that the software should be one-size-fits-all, and if the customization has worked from one department, it should work for all departments. The department whose operational needs aren’t being met is sure to find inventive work-arounds, sometimes taking pains not to let on what is going on for fear of sanctions from the powers that be. Generally, the situation comes to light when a serious breach of protocol comes to light that can be traced back to a work-around that failed.

Connecting strategy to technology

The idea that technology can be implemented without strategy is naïve, at best. The idea that technology or strategy can be implemented without a deep understanding of the content lifecycle is a wanton mismanagement of corporate assets.

Understand your content. The entire CMS implementation is to support, with technology, the production, processing, and publishing of content. It is imperative to understand what the content needs are throughout the entire content lifecycle. Without this understanding, a technology implementation is sure to go wrong at some point because there will be a mismatch between the content requirements and the software assigned to support it.

Know your standards. For any technology to be effective, there needs to be an understanding of how the content can be leveraged. This generally involves connecting systems, whether that is as simple as providing an RSS feed or using microformats, to more robust standards such as implementing DITA <link> to make content system-agnostic or integrating content from one system into another through the magic of XSL transformations.

Understand pertinent technologies. The decision-makers who, with much eye-rolling, confess with some pride that they don’t even know how to use styles in their word processing are who allow bad software implementations to thrive. Get with the program or get someone who can, because the lack of understanding about how to leverage content through technology, more often than not, shortchanges the project or leads to disastrous results. The complexity of systems has grown exponentially over the past decade; it is imperative to understand, at least at a high level, what the various technologies can do and how that can benefit – or harm – your content and, ultimately, your brand.

The concepts I’ve articulated here are not entirely new, nor are they particularly rocket science. Consultants, software vendors, and their savvy clients have produced many case studies demonstrating successful implementations and the derived organizational value. Invariably, their successes all share a common denominator: a strong strategy.

So when it came time to changing the answering machine greeting message, I followed the instructions only to discover that there is no option to select. I tried all the little tricks to see if the option got hidden elsewhere in the menu tree, but it was definitely missing. Well, that’s fine; I will tough out the pain of contacting customer support, through the phone number in the back of the book. The phone number works in Canada – always an iffy question – so that’s encouraging, and after listening to all the preambles, I press 1 for English, enter my product number, and go through the various menus but there is no option for “menu items are missing”. It seems that all the options end up the same way, leading to an end point of “visit our website at …”.

Now, gigantic corporations all have us trained to despise having to call in; in other words: Don’t you think I’d have checked the website first if I thought I could find the answer on your website? It would have been so much easier: go to the site, choose the model number, and  But of course, the user experience was quite painful. Here is an encapsulation of the frustration points:

1. After doing a Google search for AT&T 84209 (the model number) phone, I kept getting routed to the att.com site, which was obviously US-based, and geared to telephone service subscribers.
2. I redialed the number from the instruction book and was given www.telephones.att.com as the URL. Typing in 84209 got me to a shopping area. Do I want to buy a replacement cordless battery? I must say that if I happened to know the model number of a phone I wanted to buy, I’d be in luck because the second shopping option is to buy the very phone that I’m getting annoyed over.
3. There are links to the manual and Quick Start guide, which I consulted and had the same incorrect information.
4. Filling in the Contact Us form field promises to net a response within – depending on which of the messages you believe – 72 hours (on website), 2 days (on-screen auto-reply message), or 3 days (auto-reply email) but I doubt that I’ll get a meaningful answer. It may be too late anyhow, as I’ve run about the house, disconnecting telephone bits and bobs and tossing them into a bag to return to the store.

Now, I admit that my question is not one of the top ten questions, and it might be embarrassing to put it on the automated reply options (Press 8 if the interface  doesn’t work as per instructions.) but surely someone has asked this question before, and somewhere, a content developer has tackled this discrepancy. The point is that there needs to be a strategy around content that goes beyond the basics. Now that I’ve calmed down and revisited the situation with an industry insider’s eye, the support site is lovely – beautiful colours and the navigation to the FAQs is quite simple. But when a customer is searching content, and can’t find it, then all the other niceties fall away. The laser beam focus on finding the content, which is needed to complete their task, overrides all other aspects of the user experience. Task-based analysis at its best.

So to AT&T, I would ask: if one of your questions is “Who is Charlie Johnson and why is his name displayed on my phone?” surely the question of missing menu items could be addressed, as well? This site is a classic example of focusing resources on the usability side of the support site, but not having a content strategy befitting such a site.  In this case, I did receive an email a few days later, referring me to a “real person” in another department, but by that time, my answer was, “Thanks, but too little too late. I’ve exchanged the phone for another brand.”

Seeing as how returns of electronic consumer products is a multi-billion dollar problem in North America, companies could definitely benefit from having strong content strategies, not just on their website, but across the product line, from instructions to training to their support site.

• Do you re-use a lot of the same content in difference manuals, or in different types of material?
• If so, do you cut and paste the content to get the content from one place to another?
• Do you translate the content into at least a couple of languages?
• Do you have diverse groups of end users that could benefit from personalized content?
• Are you in a regulated industry where audit trails matter?
• Are you susceptible to lawsuits if your content doesn’t remain accurate across all content channels?

If you’ve answered yes to two or more of these questions, you should be wondering if a component content management is right for you.

5 Top Business Benefits of Content Re-Use

1. Process Efficiency.Content developers are knowledge workers, and an efficiency goal is to create more time that can be spent on the important tasks associated with content creation. Using a CCMS to produce content supports efficient processes by reducing, and sometimes eliminating, rote tasks such as searching, cutting and pasting, checking for identical changes in multiple places, and repetitive set-ups for generating content output.
2. Scope Extension. When staff isn’t spending time on the rote tasks, they can concentrate on the activities that add value to the organization. The gain in process efficiency allows staff to re-allocate their efforts, perhaps creating material that had previously been beyond their reach, or responding to requests for materials that didn’t fit within the product schedule. Or, it could mean the difference between having the resources to enter a new market. or taking a pass.
3. Risk Management . Inaccurate content, or content that inconsistent across publishing media – documents, websites, and product packaging – can lead to lawsuits. One content developer estimated that her company successfully avoided one lawsuit per year, at approximately $1 million per lawsuit, by demonstrating content accuracy. The only way they could maintain accuracy across all their product lines, given the amount of content and time-pressured publishing schedule, was through a CCMS.
4. Customer Trust. In markets where the difference between you and competitors is a better user experience, getting good information out to your customers quickly can be a distinct advantage. With a CCMS , you can publish content sooner, be confident of its accuracy, and, when it makes business sense, easily create more variations of your material for specific audiences. When customers have better instructions, more personalized content, or targeted translations, it all adds up to increased consumer confidence in your products and your organization.
5. Increased Revenue . Whether the support takes the form of better material for sales reps, better training material, more translated material to allow your product into a new market, or real-time sharing of content with other groups such as customer support, the ability to manipulate content quickly, easily, and accurately translates into more sales.

What a great concept. I’m going to make 2009 my own year of creating unexpected value. What better way to create a great user experience for those who deal with me in a professional capacity?

Then it occurred to me that it could be a browser incompatibility problem. No, surely not from an organization with the words “New Media” in their name. No, it doesn’t seem to be that problem, though IE does seem to pile the sub-menu words on top of each other as I mouse over the primary menu items, requiring me to refresh the screen several times before I can read all menu items.

This is a classic situation of the “cute but not too bright” site. The site was developed to be very attractive and nominally useful, but I can tell that there was no user-centered design involved. If there had been, the persona of “Member” with a relatively core scenario of “logging in to update profile” would have yielded an appropriate usecase, and the resulting deliverables – wireframes and transaction screenflows – would have addressed this rather shocking gap.

Now, I will admit to being the 5% for whom things don’t work the way they do for the rest of the world. For example, when the local telecommunications company came to my multi-tenanted office building to install a cell tower, they knocked out a couple of phone lines by accident. Mine was one of them. So perhaps the site works fine for most others, and it’s just me that’s not seeing some bright, well-placed link to “Member Profile”, and if that is so, I apologize for using this organization as an example.

But let’s assume, for a moment, that what I see is what everyone else sees. In that case, the resources expended doing the mail-out, asking members to update their profiles, has now been in vain if the email recipients cannot fulfill the request. Additional resources will be expended to handle the requests that arrive from members wondering how to complete the task. If, indeed, a fix needs to be made, yet more resources are needed to fix the site, then send out another email to members. The results of the second email may be less effective than the first, as members may assume this is simply a resend of the first email and delete without reading it.

The principle remains true: it’s critical for a website to be useful first, pretty second, and the only way to ensure that is to follow a UCD process before tackling the graphic side of the design. In the previous example, the ROI of employing UCD before creating the site, the first time, in a way that all the core use cases could be handled would have far outweighed the financial and relationship consequences of only one botched email campaign. Back in the 190s, one agency estimated that “…cost-benefit ratio for usability is $1:$10-$100. Once a system is in development, correcting a problem costs 10 times as much as fixing the same problem in design. If the system has been released, it costs 100 times as much relative to fixing in design.” (Gilb, 1988) I would love to see some numbers from this decade, as agile development methods may have turned the metrics a bit. However, whether the ratio is $1:$10-$100 or has dropped to $1:$5-$50, those are still large numbers, if you think of it in terms of shareholder profit that could be recovered while improving service to customers.