Copyright © Joe Gollner 2014

Content Solution Quick Start

Program @joegollner

Commentary: Introduction

This presentation was delivered as a webinar hosted by Stilo International on June 24, 2014.

Initially titled a “DITA Quick Start Program”this talk is in fact more general than that. The talk does touch on how the Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) encourages and supports quick start programs.

The goal of this talk was to introduce some tacticsthat have proven useful in getting content solution projects off the ground quickly…

An Acronym for All Seasons

“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week”

- George S. Patton

It should still be a good plan…

nalyze

An Acronym for All Seasons

urvey

rticulate

rototype

• Analyze current content & processes

• Identify & prioritize improvement opportunities

A Left-Right Combination: Left Jab

nalyze

urvey

• Solicit stakeholder inputs on opportunities & risks

• Gain insights into the “political dynamics” at work

rototype

• Document the change steps to be taken

• Explain the business drivers behind the changes

A Left-Right Combination: Right Hook

• Illustrate new capabilities and keys benefits

• Make the improvement plan tangible & compelling

rticulate

Commentary: The ASAP Acronym

Adopting an acronym will always make things appear somewhat artificial. Hopefully it also makes them more memorable.

In this case, ASAP reminds us that in each wave of activity should include an element of analysis(where we try to understand the needs & goals)and an element of engagement (where we tryget stakeholders involved in the process).

Hence Analysis is balanced by Survey (askingfor inputs) & Articulate is balanced by

Prototyping (showing what is possible)

Analyze: Adopt a Content Life Cycle Model

ContentAcquisition

ContentManagement

ContentDelivery

ContentEngagement

Commentary: The Content Lifecycle

Executive Management is typically familiar withquadrant models. This content lifecycle modelworks with this common structure for settingout the activities governing content lifecycles.

Quadrants on the left are “internal” and those on the right are “client facing”. The upper two are focused on the content itself while the lower two on data & actions applied to content.

See The Content Lifecyclehttp://www.gollner.ca/2013/09/the-content-lifecycle.html

• Content Engagement

• Stands out as themost novel elementin this ContentLife Cycle Model

• It focuses on how content is used& and how the usercommunity can becomeactively engaged in aprocess of continuous& constructive change

Radical Element: Content Engagement

Analyze: Apply an Evaluation Framework

Co

nten

tD

eliveryCo

nte

nt

Acq

uis

itio

nC

on

ten

tM

anag

eme

nt

Co

nten

tEn

gagemen

t

1

10

1

1 1

10

1010

Commentary: Evaluation Criteria

Each quadrant is amenable to measurementand therefore improvement.

It is possible to overlay an evaluation framework where each quadrant can beevaluated and assigned a score between 0 (non-existent capability) and 10 (excellent).

The trick is to identify evaluation criteria that can be improved over time (increasing their objective nature) and that can be used to describe target capability in a meaningful way.

Analyze: Rate Capabilities & Targets

Co

nten

tD

eliveryCo

nte

nt

Acq

uis

itio

nC

on

ten

tM

anag

eme

nt

Co

nten

tEn

gagemen

t

2.4

4.2

As Is

2.8

4.0

8.3

8.77.8To Be

1

10

1

1 1

10

1010

8.8

As Is Score: 45 To Be Score: 281

• Normally started in an “information vacuum”

• Identifying what can be, or should be, measured is a start

• On one project:

Analyze: Evaluation Considerations

Score Assigned0 – No Score2 – Poor4 – Weak6 – Fair 8 – Good10 – Excellent

Capability LevelNone

MinimalInadequate

AdequateCompetitive

Industry Leading

Optional Weighting Scheme

Applied to Evaluation Criteria0.5 – Less important1.5 – More important

Every criterion weighted as more important must be balanced by one that is rated as less important

Calculating a Total Score

Scores are assigned to each criteria for each quadrant.Scores for criteria are averaged& plotted on an axis from 0 to 10for each quadrant.

The area of the polygon that results is the total score.

Marking Scheme

Evaluation CriteriaCompetitiveness

ConsistencyResponsivenessMaintainability

MeasurabilityUsability

What is being EvaluatedBenchmark comparisons against comparable organizationsThe consistency of content details across the collection (measure of reuse)The extent to which new demands can be met quickly & affordablyMaintainability & supportability of the overall solutionCompleteness & quality of the measurement data providedEfficiency & intuitiveness of all user interactions (supporting user success)

Commentary

Different organizations will have wildly differentmanagement cultures & wildly different viewson what constitutes meaningful measurement.

The approach introduced here is open toadopting whatever measurement strategiesthat an organization will accept.

Note that different measurement criteria canbe used for different quadrants. Also multiplecriteria can be aggregated (e.g., averaged) intothe measurement for a given quadrant.

• Apply a structure to organize information• About the current state (as is) – limitations & problems

• About the future state (to be) – improvement opportunities

• Establishes the basis for future refinements• In what is measured

• In how it is measured

• In how measurements can be converted into financial terms

• Analysis results usually need corroboration• Engaging stakeholders with influence and / or insight

• Leads to the need to survey…

Analyze: The Key Points

• Formal & structured approach to gathering inputs

• Designed to collect information and insights in as authoritative a way as possible

• Analysis results can be provided with the survey

• A way for people to “say what they really think”

• Surveys designed to support both

• Quantitative research

• Qualitative research

People provide initial response from choices then elaborate

Survey: Putting the Analysis into Context

Research Questionnaire

# Question

1 Based on your understanding, why is your organization interested in adopting a CCMS?

2 From your perspective, are there advantages in adopting a CCMS?

3 From your perspective, are there risks and challenges in adopting a CCMS?

4 How would you describe the culture of your organization?

5 How would you describe the culture of your particular work group?

6a Do you think the CCMS will change the culture in your work group?

6b1 If Yes to 6a: How do you think the CCMS will change the culture of your work group?

6b2 If No to 6a: Please elaborate on why you think the CCMS will not change the culture in your work group.

6c Do you think other members of your work group will be receptive to the change?

7 How would you describe the division of roles and responsibilities in your work group?

8 How would you describe your role and responsibilities within your work group?

9 Do you think the transition to the CCMS will affect your role and responsibilities within your work group?

10 During the CCMS transition, what role and responsibilities would you like to take on?

11 After the CCMS transition, what role and responsibilities would you like to take on?

12 How would you describe the status of your work group in your organization?

13 Do you think the CCMS will change the status of your work group in your organization?

14 How do you think other work groups in your organization view the CCMS initiative?

15 Likert-like scale (five levels from negative to positive with the middle value being neutral)

applied to five perceived attitudes (respected, trusted, understood, valued, appreciated)

16 Are you comfortable with the prospect of learning and using new CCMS technology?

17 What are your expectations for a CCMS solution?

18 Do you have concerns about the transition to a CCMS?

Survey: Ask Questions

Online Survey Tools(e.g., Fluid Surveys)

Anonymous responses

Independent coding

Kept brief

Can be tailored to different stakeholder groups & research questions

Sound methodology

Project example

• Adds a dimension to the analysis results

• Can highlight issuesthat call for specificplanning measures

• In this case, usershighlighted transitionchallenges due to resource overloading

• Measures were taken

Survey: Leverage Responses

Work Group Worth Transition Challenges Expected Outcomes

Re

acti

on

s to

Org

an

izat

ion

al C

han

geR

eac

tio

ns

toT

ech

no

logy

an

d P

roce

sse

sA

nti

cip

ate

dO

rga

niz

atio

nal

Ch

ange

+5 +10

4 2

-2

-2 -2

+10 +3

6 5

-5

5

+4 +4

16

-11 -12

+16 +12

6 1

-9 -3

+1

10 8

-3

+10 +1

7 11

-4

TechnoCorp EduOrgPositive, Neutral, Negative codes applied to:

Commentary: Survey Analysis

More information about this particular survey, and its analysis, is being provided in an articlein an upcoming issue of the IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

The analysis of the survey responses involvedthe “coding” of responses using a coding scheme established using a Grounded TheoryMethodology – meaning the coding criteriaare drawn from an analysis of the responses.This means that the general categories on thepreceding slides emerged from the responses.

Commentary: Survey Analysis – 2

In this particular example, the survey responseswere analyzed & coded in a way that helpedstakeholders to see what was most germanein the inputs that the survey had collected.

The center of the diagram just happened to exhibit a higher than usual number of responsesthat conveyed a “negative” disposition. This negativity turned out to be very specific.People were concerned about the transitionchallenges associated with changing toolsand processes. The survey highlighted this.

• Surveys provide valuable insights into stakeholder domains

• When used with internal team members:• Taps into in-house tribal knowledge

• Can let people see that others share the same concerns

• Can show management what concerns need addressing

• When used with external stakeholders such as customers:

• Highlights what changes are most important

• Highlights where improvements might have far-reaching impacts

• Gets some managers very excited…

Survey: The Key Points

• Built on the findings from the Analyze & Survey tasks

• Documents a Plan of Action

• Justifies the investments needed

• Takes a number of forms

• Written document

• Presentation deck

• Short scenarios highlighting benefits• Elevator stories

• Choice customer inputs

Articulate: Setting out the Plan

I get teased a lot because I write “long form” documents.

This teasing comessometimes from colleagues& sometimes from customers.

Then I find, months later, that these customers have very well-worn printed copies of these plans, all covered with bookmarks and annotations.

All forms are necessary.

Articulate: Framing a real Content Strategy

Co

nten

tD

eliveryCo

nte

nt

Acq

uis

itio

nC

on

ten

tM

anag

eme

nt

Co

nten

tEn

gagemen

t

1

10

1

1 1

10

1010

ContentStrategy

Commentary: Content Strategy

In less than a perfectly charitable way, I have been heard to say that most of what passesas Content Strategy these days has almostnothing to do with Content and even lessto do with Strategy. This inflammatory statement can be defended once certaindefinitions of Content and Strategy are adopted.

A Content Strategy must be a plan of action thatfocuses on improving how content is acquired, delivered, used, and managed as well as clarifying what content is needed and why.

• The Plan of Action needs to be made tangible

• It needs to be something people can get excited about

• This is important on several levels

• Executives need to see something to understand it

• Team members want to see how their efforts will pay off

• Customers want to see how things will be better

• Prototyping can play different roles

• The first one • The business prototype or an “information prototype”

• Demonstrating how things will be different for key stakeholders

Prototype: A Plan by itself is not enough

Prototype: A Recent Experience

Drug

Product

Database

Clinical

Trials

Register

Adverse

Reaction

Dataset

Part III Drug

Monographs

Reference Data Sources

Drug Product DataSelect data items around each drug product that will be useful to citizens

within identified scenariosDrug Product Part III Details

Adverse Event Reports

Clinical Trials

Aggregate data and organize to support

key user tasks

Export XML representation of the

data for use as input to prototype interface

Develop Mock-up of User Experience (UX) Interface using Canadian

Government Web Experience Toolkit enhanced for responsive design

Confirm UX controls with first iteration of prototype. Automate

build from XML data & templates to generate next prototype iterations.

Canadian Health Product Register (HPR)Prototype Development & Evolution Process

Commentary: Information Prototyping

Information Prototyping is the technique of helping business stakeholders to see howtheir information resources might be leveraged more effectively. An informationprototype helps these stakeholders to seehow they might operate differently in the future and how they will be able to effectively engage their stakeholders.

Information prototypes can be explosivelyeffective. They can push a key “hot button”for executives – the prospect of a quick hit.

• Lay the groundwork: Left Jab

• Analyze – current state & improvement opportunities

• Survey – engage stakeholders to gather inputs

• Make the case: Right Hook

• Articulate – frame your Content Strategy as a Plan of Action

• Prototype – Make your plan something tangible & compelling

• Some Benefits of this Approach

• Encourages a combination of speed & substance • A “good plan”

• Encourages the involvement of all stakeholders• Management, team members, customers, others…

Review of the ASAP Approach

• This approach has thrived on the Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA)

• Among the key attractions of DITA is that it encourages this type of implementation approach

• Available models for common information types

• An evolving Open Toolkit that supports rapid prototyping

• An extensibility framework for tailoring what is available to address what is needed

• The nuts & bolts of DITA work pretty well so the challenges that remain are not technical

• The quick start program must tackle these challenges head-on

The ASAP Quick Start Program & DITA

The Cycle Repeats: Content Evolution

ContentAcquisition

ContentManagement

ContentDelivery

ContentEngagement

ContentStrategy

• What stands out about the ASAP approachis that it precedes tool selection

• One goal of the ASAP approach is to equip organizations with what they need to effectively engage the technology marketplace

• Another goal of the ASAP approachis to align & bolster the support of all stakeholdersso that implementation efforts are tackled effectively

• SaaS / On-demand technology offerings can be effectively leveraged as part of this overall approach

Key Observations

Commentary: Content Technologies

Among the main drivers behind content standards in the first placewas the desire to separate the long termoptimization of content assets from thelimitations historically imposed oncetechnologies have been adopted.

The ASAP approach tries to follow in thisoriginal spirit by quickly equipping business stakeholders with a tangible understandingof their content needs in a way that fullyleverages open content standards – so that they

can be fully independent of any one technology.

Questions, Contributions & Conclusions

This ASAP approach is the

latest formulation of tactics

(some might say dirty tricks)

that have evolved over the

last 25 years.

The trend has been towards

increasing both the formality of

the analysis conducted and the

tangibility of future state prototyping.

Elements of this are touched upon in

The Reason & Passion of XML

http://www.gollner.ca/2011/06/

reason-and-passion-of-xml.html

It can be difficult to maintain the

balance between speed & substance.