View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Enterprise Information ArchitectureBecause Users Don’t Care About Your Org Chart
Fall 2007
Louis Rosenfeldwww.louisrosenfeld.com
2©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
About Me
Independent IA consultant and blogger (www.louisrosenfeld.com)
Founder, Rosenfeld Media, UX publishing house (www.rosenfeldmedia.com)
Work primarily with Fortune 500s and other large enterprises
Co-author, Information Architecture for the World Wide Web (1998, 2002, 2006)
Founder and past director, the Information Architecture Institute (www.iainstitute.org) and User Experience Network (www.uxnet.org)
Background in librarianship/information science
3©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Seminar Agenda
Welcome/Introduction
Top-Down Navigation
Bottom-Up Navigation
Search
EIA and the Organization• Research methods• Governance and more
Discussion
4©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Introduction
5©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Introduction:IA in one slideDefinition: the art and science of
structuring, organizing and labeling information to help people find and manage information• Balances characteristics
and needs of users, content and context• Top down (questions)
& bottom up (answers)
6©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Introduction:Only one IA rulePareto’s Principle (“the 80/20 rule”)• 20% of content satisfies 80% of users’
needs• 20% of possible IA options address 80% of
content• 20% of IA options address 80% of users’
needs
IA’s goal: figure out which 20%No other rules, just guidelines
7©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Introduction:IA is about priorities
8©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
What an Enterprise Is
Large, distributed, decentralized organization made up of multiple business units
Distributed• Functionally in many different “businesses” (e.g., HR
vs. communications, or hardware vs. software)• Geographically
Decentralized • Large degree of authority and responsibility resides
in hands of business units in practice (if not officially)• Business units often own significant infrastructure
(technical, staff, expertise)
9©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
IA and EIA: The differences The “enterprise challenge”: providing
centralized access to information in a large, decentralized, distributed environment
Information often organized by business function (e.g., “org chart”), not in ways users think
Not “textbook” IA; highly dependent on business context
10©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
The Challenge of EIA: Competing trendsTrend toward autonomy• Cheap, easy-to-use democratizing technology• Human tendency toward autonomy
Trend toward centralization• Users’ desire for single-point of access• Management’s desire to control costs and
communications
These tend to cancel each other out, getting us nowhere
Result: content “silos” and user confusion
11©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Indicators of Problematic EIA: Intranet glitches“How come I didn’t know your department
was developing a product similar to ours?”
“Why couldn’t we find any relevant case studies to show that important prospect?”
“Why do our sales and support staff keep giving our customers inconsistent information?”
12©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Indicators of Problematic EIA: External-facing site glitches
“Our customers think we’re still in the widget business; after all these M&As, why don’t they realize that we’ve diversified?”
“We have so many great products that go together; why don’t we cross-sell more?”
“Customers keep asking for product support through our sales channel; why don’t they use the site’s FAQs and tech support content?”
13©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
The Holy Grail:Cutting against the political grain
14©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Example: Expense Reporting
15©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
So How Do We Get There?
Let it go• There is no single solution• Redemption lies within phased, modular, evolving
approaches that respect 80/20 rule
Your friends• Straw men • Your colleagues and professional networks
This seminar provides straw men for• EIA design• EIA methods• EIA team design and governance
16©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Navigation
17©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Navigation Roadmap
Main page
Site hierarchy
Site map
Site index
Selective navigation
18©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Challenges
Top-down IA• Anticipates questions that users arrive with• Provides overview of content, entry points
to major navigational approaches
Issues• What do we do about main pages?• Portals: the answer?• Other ways to navigate from the top down• The dangers of taxonomies
19©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Evolution:Univ. Michigan example 1/2
Cosmetic changes
20©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Evolution:Univ. Michigan example 2/2
21©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Portal Solutions:Why they fail 1/2Organizational challenges• Fixation on cosmetic, political• Inability to enforce style guide changes, portal
adoption• Lack of ownership of centralizing initiatives, or
ownership in wrong hands (usually IT)
Information architecture challenges• Taxonomy design required for successful portal
tool implementation• Always harder than people imagine• Taxonomies break down as they get closer to local
content (domains become specialized)
22©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Portal Solutions:Why they fail 2/2Challenges for users• Portals are shallow (only one or two levels deep)• Poor interface design• Users don’t typically personalize
More in James Robertson’s “Taking a business-centric approach to portals” (http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_businessportals/index.html)
23©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Navigation:Design approachesMain pagesSupplementary navigation• Tables of contents• Site indices• Guide pages
Taxonomies for browsing• Varieties: product, business function,
topical• Topic pages
24©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Navigation:Main pagesOften 80% of discussion of EIA dedicated to
main page• Important real estate• But there are other important areas
• Navigational pages• Search interface• Search results• Page design (templates, contextual navigation)
Divert attention from main pages by creating alternatives, new real estate: supplementary navigation
25©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Navigation:Supplementary navigationExamples• Site maps/TOC• Site indices
Benefits:• Create new real estate• Can evolve and drive evolution from org-chart
centered design to user-centered design• Relatively low cost to initially implement
Drawbacks:• Often unwieldy for largest enterprises (not at IBM,
Microsoft, failure at Vanguard)
26©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Navigation:Site mapsCondensed versions of site hierarchy• Hierarchical list of terms and links• Primarily used for site orientation• Indirectly cut across subsites by presenting multi-
departmental content in one place• But still usually reflects org chart
Alternative plan• Use site map as test bed for migration to user-centric
design• Apply card sorting exercises on second and third
level nodes• Result may cut across organizational boundaries
27©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Site Map:Visually
28©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Site Map: State of Nebraska
Majority of links reflect org chart
29©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Site Map: State of Kentucky
Evolving toward more user-centered, topical approach
30©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Navigation:Site indicesFlat (or nearly flat) alpha list of terms and links Benefits• Support orientation and known-item searching• Alternative “flattened” view of content• Can unify content across subsites
Drawbacks • Require significant expertise, maintenance• May not be worth the effort if table of contents and
search are already available
Specialized indices may be preferable (shorter, narrower domain, focused audience)
31©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Site Index:Visually
32©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Site Index:Am. Society of Indexers example
Full site index• @1000
entries for smallish site
• Too large to easily browse
• Replace with search?
33©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Specialized Site Index:CDC example
Not a full site index
Focuses on health topics• Narrow domain• Specialized
terminology• Possibly still too
large to browse
34©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Specialized Site Index: PeopleSoft example
Product focus• A large
undertaking at PeopleSoft
• High value to users
35©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
“Mature” Site Index:Informed by search analytics
36©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Navigation:GuidesSingle page containing selective set of important links
embedded in narrative textAddress important, common user needs
• Highlight content for a specific audience• Highlight content on a specific topic • Explain how to complete a process
• Can work as FAQs (and FAQs can serve as interface to guides)
Benefits• Technically easy to create (single HTML page)• Cut across departmental subsites• Gap fillers; complement comprehensive methods of navigation
and search• Can be timely (e.g., news-oriented guides, seasonal guides)• Minimize political headaches by creating new real estate
37©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Guides:Visually
38©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Guides:Vanguard example 1/2
39©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Guides:Vanguard example 2/2
40©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Guides:IBM example
41©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Navigation:Topic Pages“Selective taxonomy improvement”• Portions of a taxonomy that expand
beyond navigational value• Help knit together enterprise content
deeper down in taxonomy
New “real estate” can be used by • Individual business units (to reduce
pressure on main page) or…• Cross-departmental initiatives
42©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Topic Pages:CDC example
Subtopics now comprise only a small portion of page
43©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Navigation:Taxonomies & portalsCan a single taxonomy unify an enterprise site?• First: can one be built at all?• Software tools don’t solve problems (see metadata
discussion)
Approaches• Multiple taxonomies that each cover a broad swath
of enterprise content: audience, subject, task/process, etc.
• “Two-step” approach: 1. Build shallow, broad taxonomy that will answer “where will
I find the information I need?”2. Rely on subsite taxonomies to answer “where in this area
will I find the information I need?”
44©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Navigation: Impacts on the enterprise
Potential of “small steps” around which to build more centralized enterprise efforts• Site map and site index creation and maintenance• Guide and topic page creation and maintenance• Large editorial role, minimal technical
requirements for both
May be preferable to tackle more ambitious areas much later• Developing and maintaining top-level taxonomy• Connecting high-level and low-level taxonomies
45©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Navigation Roadmap
Main page
Site hierarchy
Site map
Site index
Selective navigation
46©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Top-Down Navigation Takeaways
Main pages and portals: Bypass for now, add guides over time
Site hierarchy/taxonomy: Start shallow, "simple" (e.g., products); add progressively harder taxonomies (work toward faceted approach)
Site map/ToC: Use as a staging ground for a more topical approach
Site index: Move from generalized to specialized around a single topic, or augment with frequent search queries/best bets work
Guides: Start with a handful, then expand and rotate based on seasonality or other criteria of relevance
47©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Bottom-Up Navigation
48©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Bottom-Up Navigation Roadmap
Content modeling
Metadata development
Metadata tagging
49©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Bottom-Up Navigation: The basics
Focuses on extracting answers from content• How do I find my way through this content?• Where can I go from here?
Goals• Answers “rise to the surface”• Leverage CMS for reuse and syndication
of content across sites and platforms• Improve contextual navigation• Increase the effectiveness of search
50©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:The heart of bottom-up navigationContent models • Used to convey meaning within select,
high-value content areas• Accommodate inter-connectedness
Same as data or object modeling? Absolutely not! • Many distinctions between data and semi-
structured text• Text makes up majority of enterprise sites
51©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:The basicsBased on patterns revealed during
content inventory and analysisWhat makes up a content model?
1. Content objects2. Metadata (attributes and values)3. Contextual links
Applies to multiple levels of granularity• Content objects• Individual documents
52©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:We’re already doing it at page level
album page = title/artist/release + tracks + cover image
53©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:Content analysis reveals patterns
artist descriptions album reviews
album pages artist bios
54©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:Answer some questions
artist descriptions album reviews
album pages artist bios
What contextual navigation should exist between these content objects? (see Instone’s “Navigation Stress Test”--http://user-experience.org/uefiles/navstress/ )
Are there missing content objects?
Can we connect objects automatically?
55©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:Fleshing out the model
artist descriptions
album reviews
album pages
artist biosdiscography
concert calendar
TV listings
56©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:Connecting with metadata, rules
Content Objects…
…link to other Content Objects… …by leveraging common Metadata Attributes
album page album review, discography, artist Album Name, Artist Name, Label, Release Date…
album review album page Album Name, Artist Name, Review Author, Source, Pub Date…
discography album review, artist description Artist Name, Album Name, Release Date…
artist description
artist bio, discography, concert calendar, TV listing
Artist Name, Desc Author, Desc Date…
artist bio artist description Artist Name, Individual Artist Name…
concert calendar
artist description Artist Name, Tour, Venue, Date, Time…
TV listing artist description Artist Name, Channel, Date, Time…
57©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:Problematic borders
artist descriptions
album reviews
album pages
artist biosdiscography
concert calendar
TV listings
58©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:When to use
Use only for high value contentHigh value content attributes based on users,
content, context, including• High volume• Highly dynamic• Consistent structure• Available metadata• Available content management infrastructure• Willing content owners
Much content can and will remain outside formal content models
59©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:Steps for developing a model
1. Determine key audiences (who’s using it?)
2. Perform content inventory and analysis (what do we have?)
3. Determine document and object types (what are the objects?)
4. Determine metadata classes (what are the objects about?)
5. Determine contextual linking rules (where do the objects lead us to next?)
60©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:Content object types 1/2
List known object types
For each audience:• Are there types that don’t fit?
• Examples: company executive bios, Q&A columns
• Venue reviews may be part of a separate content model
61©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:Content object types 2/2For each audience (continued):• Gap analysis: are there types missing that
users might expect?• Examples: Gig reviews, Buy the CD, Links to
music in the same genre
• Which types are most important to each audience?
• Fans of the band: Interviews with the band members
• Casual listener: Samples of the CD tracks
62©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:Metadata 1/2
Determine which objects would benefit from metadata
Develop three types of metadata• Descriptive• Intrinsic• Administrative
63©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:Metadata 2/2
Aim to balance utility and cost• Answer most important questions: who,
what, where, why, when, how?• Cost-benefit analysis• Development and maintenance costs of
controlled vocabularies/thesauri• Ability of in-house staff to apply properly
64©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:Contextual linking rulesAre there specific objects for which these
questions arise again and again?• Where would I go from here?• What would I want to do next?• How would I learn more?
You have a rule if• The questions apply consistently• The answers work consistently• Metadata can be leveraged to connect questions
and answers
Unidirectional links or bidirectional?
65©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling: Impacts on the enterpriseContent models are a means for tying together
content across business unit boundariesContent modeling is modular; over time, content
models can be connected across the enterprise
Major benefits to users who get beyond main page
Can help justify CMS investmentsNot all content areas and owners are
appropriate to work with
66©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Modeling:Putting it all together
67©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
CMS Selection:EIA needs
Support metadata management (Interwoven)
Support shared metadata workflow• Author creation/submission/tagging
(distributed)• Editorial tagging (centralized)• Editorial review (centralized)
Ability to support contextual linking logic
68©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:What is metadata?
Data about data
Information which describes a document, a file or a CD
Common metadata• CD information: title, composer, artist, date• MS Word document properties: time last
saved, company, author
69©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:Three types
1. Intrinsic: metadata that an object holds about itself (e.g., file name or size)
2. Descriptive: metadata that describes the object (e.g., subject, title, or audience)
3. Administrative: metadata used to manage the object (e.g., time last saved, review date, owner)
70©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:Common sources
Vocabularies from other parts of your organization (e.g., research library)
Competitors
Commercial sources (see www.taxonomywarehouse.com)
Your site’s users• Search analytics• Folksonomies• User studies (e.g., free listing, card sorting)
71©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:Value for the Enterprise 1/2Search: cluster or filter the search by
metadata, like title or keywordBrowse: create topical indexes by
aggregating pages with the same metadata
Personalization and customization: show content to an employee based on their role or position in the company, e.g. engineer or manager
72©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:Value for the Enterprise 2/2Contextual linking: create relationships
between individual or classes of content objects (e.g., cross-marketing on llbean.com)
The purpose is to connect• Content to content• Users to content
To provide value, metadata requires consistency (structural and semantic)
73©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:Enterprisebig picture
74©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: Scaling problems
Barriers to enterprise metadata development:
• Volume of metadata vocabs./silos • Complexity of semantic relationships (beyond synonyms)
75©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata attributes:Easy to difficult 1/2Level of Difficulty
Metadata Attribute
Comments
Easy Business unit names
These are typically already available and standardized
Easy to Moderate
Chronology Variations in formats (e.g., 12/31/07 versus 31/12/07) usually can be addressed by software
Moderate to Difficult
Place names Although many standards exist (e.g., state abbreviations and postal codes), many enterprises (and their business units) use custom terms for regions (such as sales territories)
76©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata attributes:Easy to difficult 2/2Level of Difficulty
Metadata Attribute
Comments
Moderate to Difficult
Product names
Product granularity can vary greatly; marketing may think in terms of product families; sales in terms of items with SKU numbers, and support in terms of product parts that can be sold individually
Difficult Audiences Audiences, such as customers or types of employees, vary widely from unit to unit
Difficult Topics The most ambiguous type of metadata; difficult for individuals, much less business units, to come to agreement on topical metadata
77©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: Structural consistencyStandard formats and approaches enable
interoperability, which enables sharing of metadata.
Examples• RDF (Resource Description Format)• Topic Maps• Dublin Core• OAI (Open Archives Initiative)
Sources• Academia/scholarly publishing world• Little from data management world
78©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: RDF (Resource Description Format)
A syntax for expressing semantic relationships
Basic components1. Resource
2. Property type
From Andy Powell: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/presentations/ukolug98/paper/intro.html
3. Value
4. Property
1 32
4
79©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: Topic MapsPotential syntax for content modeling, semantic webs
Most simply, made up of topics (e.g., “Lucca”, “Italy”), occurrences (e.g., “map”, “book”), and associations (e.g., “…is in…”, “…written by…”)
Source: Tao of Topic Maps, Steve Pepper (http://www.ontopia.net/top
icmaps/materials/tao.html)
topics
occurrences
associations
80©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: The Dublin Core
A schema for expressing semantic relationships
Can use HTML or RDF syntax
Useful tool (or model) for creating document surrogates (e.g., Best Bet records)
A standard, but not a religious one• Selecting fewer attributes may be a necessity in
enterprise environment• Attribute review can be useful as an enterprise-
wide exercise
81©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: Dublin Core elements 1/2
Title: A name given to the resource
Creator: An entity primarily responsible for making the content of the resource
Subject: A topic of the content of the resource
Description: An account of the content of the resource
Publisher: An entity responsible for making the resource available
Contributor: An entity responsible for making contributions to the content of the resource
Date: A date of an event in the lifecycle of the resource
82©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: Dublin Core elements 2/2
Type: The nature or genre of the content of the resource
Format: The physical or digital manifestation of the resource
Identifier: An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
Source: A Reference to a resource from which the present resource is derived
Language: A language of the intellectual content of the resource
Relation: A reference to a related resource
Coverage: The extent or scope of the content of the resource
Rights: Information about rights held in and over the resource
83©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: Dublin Core in HTML
Dublin Core elements identified with “DC” prefix
From Andy Powell: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/presentations/ukolug98/paper/intro.html
84©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:Dublin Core and RDF
Syntax and schema combination is useful
But where are the metadata values?
From Andy Powell: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/presentations/ukolug98/paper/intro.html
85©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:OAI and metadata harvesting
OAI: Open Archives Initiative• Comes from academic publishing world• Provides means for central registration of
“confederate repositories” • Repositories use Dublin Core; requests between
service and data providers via HTTP; replies (results) encoded in XML
Metadata harvesting• Enables improved searching across compliant
distributed repositories• Does not address semantic merging of metadata
(i.e., vocabulary control)
86©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:Semantic consistency 1/2
Provided through controlled vocabularies.
What is a controlled vocabulary? • A list of preferred and variant terms• A subset of natural language
Why control vocabulary?• Language is Ambiguous• Synonyms, homonyms, antonyms,
contronyms, etc. (e.g., truck, lorry, semi, pickup, UTE)
87©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:Semantic consistency 2/2
Users
Documents and Applications
Communication Chasm
ExamplePersonal Digital Assistant
SynonymsHandheld Computer
"Alternate" SpellingsPersenal Digitel Asistent
Abbreviations / AcronymsPDA
Broader TermsWireless, Computers
Narrower TermsPalmPilot, PocketPC
Related TermsWindowsCE, Cell Phones
Control vocabulary…so your users don’t have to!
88©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:Semantic relationships
Three types1. Equivalence: Variant terms with same
meaning (e.g., abbreviations and synonyms)
2. Hierarchical: Broader term, narrower term relationships
3. Associative: Related terms that are related to each other
89©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:Levels of control
Simple Complex
SynonymRings
AuthorityFiles
ThesauriClassificationSchemes
Equivalence Hierarchical Associative
(Vocabularies)
(Relationships)
90©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata semantic relationships: Hard to hardest
Level of Difficulty
Type of Relationship
Examples
Hard Synonymous Synonym rings and authority lists
Harder Hierarchical Classification schemes
Hardest Associative Thesauri
91©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:Synonym ringsUsed in many search engines to expand
the number of resultsWords that are similar to each other are
linked togetherExample for a multinational company• Annual leave (Australia), the holidays (US),
public holidays (Australia, US), vacation (US), bank holidays (UK), holiday (Australia and UK), personal leave (all)
92©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:Authority files
Pick list of the authorized words to use in a field
Can have some equivalence relationships
Example using authors• Poe, Edgar Allan--USE FOR Poe, E.A.• Poe, E.A.--USE Poe, Edgar Allan
93©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: Classification schemesClassification• Systematic arrangement of knowledge, usually
hierarchical• Placement of objects into a scheme which makes
sense to the user and relates them to other objects
Two types of classification schemes• Enumerative classification: hierarchical
organization into which objects are placed • Faceted classification: organization by facets or
attributes that describe the object
94©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: Enumerative classificationReally good to classify small numbers of objects
or objects that can live in only one placeProvides good browsing structure Can be polyhierarchical, where objects live in
many placesBest known: the taxonomy of life, Dewey
Decimal Classification, Library of Congress Classification
Most familiar on the Web: Yahoo!, Open Directory
95©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: Enumerative classification example
96©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: Faceted classification 1/2
Describes the object with numerous facets or attributes
Each facet could have a separate controlled vocabulary of its own
Can mix and match the facets to create a browsing structure
Easier to manage the controlled vocabularies
97©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: Faceted classification 2/2
Facets for a roast chicken recipe• Preparation: Roast / bake• Main ingredient: Chicken• Course: Main dish
Drawbacks of faceted classification• Too many facets attached to an object can
make indexing hard to do• Browsing facets may not be as clear as
browsing a hierarchy; many paths to the same object
98©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: Faceted classification example
99©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata: Faceted classification example
100©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:What is a thesaurus?
Traditional use• Dictionary of synonyms (Roget’s)• From one word to many words
Information retrieval context• A controlled vocabulary in which
equivalence, hierarchical, and associative relationships are identified for purposes of improved retrieval
• From many words to one word
101©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata:Thesaurus entry example
102©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Enterprise Metadata:Challenges
Two barriers to enterprise metadata1. Interoperability (structural)
2. Merging enables controlled vocabularies to work as a whole (semantic)
Interoperability must come before merging (merging requires knowledge of which vocabularies to merge)
Few standards in use
103©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Enterprise Metadata:Structural approaches
If directly marking up documents, this approach is probably impractical in the enterprise
Better uses:• Limited high value documents (e.g.,
content models)• Document surrogates (e.g., Best Bet
records)
104©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Enterprise Metadata: Merging vocabulariesExtremely difficult, and currently rareMostly found in libraries, academia,
scholarly publishing, and other resource-poor environments
Examples, hard to hardest• Cross-walking vocabularies• Switching vocabularies• Meta-thesaurus• Single thesaurus
105©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Merging Vocabularies:Vocabulary cross-walking
Map terms peer-to-peer between individual vocabularies• Primarily handles synonyms, not
relationships• Can be handled manually or through
automated means (pattern-matching)
Doesn’t scale well beyond two or three vocabularies
106©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Merging Vocabularies: Switching vocabulary
A single vocabulary that maps to existing vocabularies (primarily synonyms)
Similar to cross-walking, but better at handling translation when there are more than two or three vocabularies to connect
107©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Merging Vocabularies: Meta-thesaurus
A switching vocabulary which also includes thesaural relationships (essentially a thesaurus of thesauri)
Example: National Library of Medicine’s UMLS (Unified Medical Language System)• Merges over 100 vocabularies• Describes fairly homogeneous domain
(medical literature) for fairly homogeneous audience (health science professionals)
108©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Merging Vocabularies: Single unified thesaurus
Highly impractical in enterprise context
109©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Enterprise Metadata: Impacts on the enterprise 1/2
Requires coordinated strategy to ensure:• Structural interoperability from the start• Semantic mergability over time• Vocabulary control and maintenance
through both manual and automated means
• A workflow model and policies to support: • Decentralized tagging and vocabulary updating
(through suggestions of new terms)• Centralized review and maintenance
110©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Enterprise Metadata: Impacts on the enterprise 2/2
“Serious metadata” is beyond the means of most enterprises• Encourage local (e.g., departmental) vocabulary
development• Provides organizational learning and local
benefit• Enterprise-wide, start with “easier” vocabularies;
work your way to harder ones over time; suggested sequence:
1. Business functions
2. Products
3. Topics
111©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Bottom-Up Navigation Roadmap
Content modeling
Metadata development
Metadata tagging
112©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Bottom-Up Navigation Takeaways 1/3
Content models• Use to support contextual navigation• Apply only to homogenous, high-value
content• Won't transfer easily across silos and will
require significant metadata development
113©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Bottom-Up Navigation Takeaways 2/3Metadata development• Distinguish attributes (and structural
interoperability) from values (and semantic merging)
• Costs and value both increase as these increase:• Complexity of relationships between terms
(equivalence=>hierarchical=>associative)• Level of control (synonym rings=>authority
files=>classification schemes=>thesauri)
• Think small: facets instead of a single taxonomy
114©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Bottom-Up Navigation Takeaways 3/3Metadata tagging• Make choices based on actual needs
(e.g., content models) rather than exhaustive indexing
• Consider costs of application and upkeep• Need for professional expertise• Metadata is a moving target that matches
other moving targets (users and content)
115©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA and Search
116©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA and Search
Search systems are a natural enterprise IA tool• Automated • Crawls what you tell it to• Doesn’t care about politics
Problems with shrink-wrapped search tools • Default settings, IT ownership minimize
customization to fit the enterprise’s needs• Results often not relevant, poorly presented
Customization is the answer• Within the realm of your team’s abilities• … and if IT will allow it!
117©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA and Search:Visually
118©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Enterprise Search Design: Potential improvements
Basic search system components
Our focus:
1. Clear interface
2. Enhanced queries
3. Improved results (relevance & presentation)
119©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Enterprise Search Roadmap
Search queries
Search interface
Search results
120©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Search Interface Design:The “Box”
The “Box” unifies IBM.com
Consistent: • Placement• Design• Labeling• Functionality
121©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Search Interface Design: Combine interfaces when possible
Two boxes bad, one box good, usually…
Will users understand?
122©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Search Interface Design: The role of “advanced search” 1/2
Continued…
Not a likely starting point for users who are searching
123©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Search Interface Design: The role of “advanced search” 2/2
Suggestions• Use for
specialized interfaces
• Reposition as “Revise Search”
• Don’t bother
124©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Contextualizing Search Help: Ebay example
125©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Search Interface and Queries: Functionality and visibility
Hide functionality? Consider the “Google Effect,” human nature and the LCD
Don’t hide it?• Not if users expect it
• Legacy experience (e.g., Lexis-Nexis users)• Specialization (e.g., patent searchers)
• Not if content allows/requires it• Specialized content and applications (e.g., staff
directory)
126©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
The Query: Query language considerations
Natural language• Usually don’t show up in search logs• Low priority, but nice to support
Operators (Booleans, proximity, wild cards)• Booleans: use default “AND” for multi-term queries
• Less forgiving than treating as phrase, more selective than “OR”
• Most retrieval algorithms will find results for just one term• Rely on other approaches (e.g., filtering, clustering, Best
Bets) to reduce search results overload
• Low priority: Proximity operators (e.g., “enterprise (W3) architecture”), wild cards (e.g., “wom*n”)
127©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
The Query: Query building considerations
Large potential benefits to improving “intelligence” behind search queries• Adding semantic richness to queries allows for
stronger searches without “touching” content• Overrides “enterprise bias” embedded in content• A centralized (enterprise-wide) process
Query building approaches• Spell checking: can be automated• Stemming: can be automated• Concept searching: requires manual effort• Synonyms (via thesaurus): requires manual effort,
but no need to be comprehensive
128©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Spell Checker:Sur La Table example
A la Google…
129©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Stemming:IBM example
IBM uses Fast Search
130©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Concept Searching:Social Security Admin. example
SSA uses Convera
131©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Thesaural Search: ERIC example
132©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Enterprise Search Interface:Guidelines
Hide functionality on initial enterprise-wide search
Cast the net widely: rely on query builders to generate larger, higher quality result sets
Use filtering/clustering to narrow
Use Best Bets to ensure strong initial results
133©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Individual Search Results: GoalsEnable users to quickly understand something
about each document representedThat “something”: confirm that a known-item
has been found, or distinguish from other results
Align to searching behaviors (determined through user testing, persona/scenario analysis, local site search analytics)• Known-item• Open-ended/exploratory• Comprehensive research
134©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Individual Search Results: Approaches
Basic approaches• Document titling• Displaying appropriate elements for each
result
These approaches have value in any context, but especially useful in enterprise setting
135©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Document Titling: DaimlerChrysler example
What do these document titles tell you?And what do they tell you about DaimlerChrysler?
136©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Document Titling: Ford exampleDescriptive document titles provide clear value
…but rely upon highly centralized authoring procedures and style guide
137©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Displaying Appropriate Elements: 1) Determine common elementsDevelop table of available elements (including
metadata) for disparate documents and records• Comes after content inventory and analysis
Develop table of common elements• Collapse similar elements (e.g., creator derived from author,
artist, source…)• Consider Dublin Core as model• Include bare minimum elements (e.g., title and description)
138©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Displaying Appropriate Elements: 2) Select appropriate elementsChoose common elements which match most common
searching behaviors• Known-item• Open-ended• Comprehensive research• Etc.
Considerations• Which components are decision or action based?• Which components are of informational value only?
Display these elements for each search result
139©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Step #1: common content elementsStep #2: select elements to display
Step #1 Title Desc. Creator Topic Date
Tech. Report Y Y Y Y Y
Policy Y N Y Y Y
Product Sheet
Y Y N Y N
FAQ Y N N Y N
Step #2 Title Desc. Creator Topic Date
Known-Item Y N Y N Y
Open-Ended Y Y N Y Y
140©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Individual Search Results:Columbia University example
Long display for open-ended searchers…
…shorter display for known-item searchers
141©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Individual Search Results: What happens next?
Augment with “next step” actions per result• Open in separate
window • Get more like this• Print• Save• Email
Determine next stepsthrough contextual inquiry
142©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Presenting Search Result Groups: Ranked resultsDifficulties with relevance ranking• Depends on consistent elements across
documents• Term frequency-dependent approaches create an
“apples and oranges effect” on ranking• Google effect: benefits of popularity make less
sense in enterprise context than in open web
Consider alternatives• Clustering and filtering• Manually-derived results (aka “Best Bets”)
143©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Presenting Search Result Groups: Clustering & filtering
clustered results
list results
Consider using clustered results rather than list results
“Our user studies show that all Category interfaces were more effective than List interfaces even when lists were augmented with category names for each result” —Dumais, Cutrell & Chen
144©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Presenting Search Result Groups: Methods of clustering and filteringUse existing metadata and other distinctions
(easier)• Document type (via file format or CMS)• Source (author, publisher, and business unit)• Date (creation date? publication date? last
update?)• Security setting (via login, cookies)
Use explicit metadata (harder)• Language• Product• Audience• Subject/topic
145©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Clustering by Topic:LL Bean example
Category matches displayed rather than individual results
146©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Filtering by Source:BBC example
Selecting a tab filters results
147©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Clustering by Content Type: c|net example
Mention content modeling
Results clustered in multiple content types
148©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Clustering by Language Example:PeopleSoft Netherlands
Result clusters for Dutch and English
149©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
The Zipf Curve:Consistent and telling
From http://netfact.com/rww/write/searcher/rww-searcher-msukeywords-searchdist-apr-jul2002.gif
Zipf distribution from Michigan State University search logs (derived from local site search analytics)
150©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Common Queries: What they tell us
151©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
“Best Bets”: By popular demand
Recommended links• Ensure useful results for top X (50? 100?)
most popular search queries• Useful resources for each popular query
are manually determined (guided by documented logic)
• Useful resources manually linked to popular queries; automatically displayed in result page
152©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
“Best Bets” Example: BBC
Logic for BBC Best Bets• Is query a
country name? (yes)
• Then do we have a country profile? (yes)
• Then do we have a language service? (yes)
153©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
“Best Bets”: In the enterprise contextWho does the work?
• Difficult to “assign” queries to different business units (e.g., “computing” means different things to different business units)
• Can serve as impetus for centralized effort
Operational requirements• Logic based on users’ needs (e.g., queries) and business
rules• Policy that assigns responsibilities, negotiates conflicts (e.g.,
who owns “computing”)
Opportunity to align Best Bets to user-centric divisions (e.g., by audience: a “computing” best bet for researchers, another for IT staff)
154©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Enterprise Search:Impacts on the enterpriseDesigns
• Simple query builders (spell checker, stemming)• Search-enhancing thesaurus
Policies• Best Bets design and selection• Style guide (result titling, search interface implementation)
Staffing needs• Content inventory and analysis • Interface design• Work with IT on spidering, configuration issues• Ongoing local site search analytics• Editorial (e.g., Best Bets creation)
155©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Search Tool Selection:EIA needs 1/2
To basic evaluation criteria (from SearchTools.com)…• Price• Platform• Capacity• Ease of installation• Maintenance
156©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Search Tool Selection:EIA needs 2/2…add:• Ability to crawl deep/invisible web• Ability to crawl multiple file formats• Ability to crawl secure content• API for customizing search results• Work with CMS• Duplicate result detection/removal• Ability to tweak algorithms for results retrieval and
presentation• Federated search (merge results from multiple
search engines/data sources)
157©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Enterprise Search Roadmap
Search queries
Search interface
Search results
158©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Enterprise Search Takeaways
Search interface and queries • Consistent location and behavior• Keep as simple as possible• Use "refine search" interface instead of "advanced
search"• Soup up users’ queries (e.g., spell checking)
Search results• Feature appropriate elements for individual results• Consider clustered results, especially if explicit,
topical metadata are available• Best bets results for top X common queries
159©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Research Methods
160©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Research Methods:Learn about these three areas
Content, users and context drive:
• IA research
• IA design
• IA staffing
• IA education
• …and everything else
161©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Research Methods: Sampling challenges
How do you achieve representative samples in the face of these difficulties?• Awareness: Who and what are out there?• Volume: How much is there? Can we
cover it all?• Costs: Can we afford to investigate at this
order of magnitude?• Politics: Who will work with us? And who
will try to get in the way?
162©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Research Methods: Reliance on alternative techniquesStandard techniques may not work in enterprise
settingsAlternatives often incorporate traditional
methods and new technologies• Web-based surveys (e.g., SurveyMonkey)• Remote contextual inquiry and task analysis (via
WebEx)• Web-based “card” sorting (e.g., EZsort)• Auto-categorization, auto-classification tools (e.g.,
Semio)• Log analysis tools (e.g., WebTrends)
163©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Research Methods: A closer lookContent-oriented methods• Content inventories• Content value tiers
Context-oriented methods• Sampling stakeholders• Departmental scorecard
User-oriented methods• 2-D scorecard• Automated metadata development• Freelisting • Local site search analytics
164©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Inventory:Enterprise context
Issues • Even greater sampling challenges• Content research is even more critical:
serves as a cross-departmental exercise
Approaches• Balancing breadth and depth• Talking to the right people• Value-driven
165©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Multidimensional Inventory:Incomplete yet richEIA requires balanced, iterative sampling (where CMS
implementation may require exhaustive inventory)
Balance scope (breadth) with granularity (depth)
Extend inventory to all discernible areas of content, functionality:• Portals and subsites• Application (including search systems)• Supplemental navigation (site maps, indices, guides)• Major taxonomies• Structured databases• Existing content models• Stakeholders
166©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Content Migration Strategy:Value Tier ApproachDetermine value tiers of content quality that
make sense given your users/content/context• Answer “what content is important to the
enterprise?”• Help determine what to add, maintain, delete
How to do it?1.Prioritize and weight quality criteria2.Rate content areas3.Cluster into tiers4.Score content areas while performing content
analysis
167©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Value Tier Approach:Potential quality criteria
Select appropriate criteria for your business context, users, and content• Authority• Strategic value • Currency• Usability• Popularity/usage• Feasibility (i.e., “enlightened” content
owners)• Presence of quality existing metadata
168©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Value Tier Approach:Weighting and scoring
169©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Value Tier Approach:Prioritization
170©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Assessing Stakeholders:What to learn from themStrategic• Understanding of business mission and goals, and
fit with larger enterprise mission and goals• Theory• Practice
• Culture: tilt toward centralization or autonomy• Political entanglements
Practical• Staff: IT, IA, design, authoring, editorial, usability,
other UX (user experience)• Resources: budget, content, captive audiences• Technologies: search, portal, CMS
171©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Stakeholder Interviews:Triangulate your sampleOrg chart: business unit representatives• Will provide strategic overview of content and
whom it serves• May have some knowledge of content• More importantly, they know people who do in
their units• Additionally, political value in talking with unit reps
Functional/audience-centered• Subject Matter Experts (SMEs): represent power
users; valuable for pointing out content that addresses major information needs
• Audience advocates (e.g., switchboard operators): can describe content with high volume usage
172©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Stakeholder Interviews:Finding the low-hanging fruitAssessment should reveal degree of
“enlightenment”• Early adopters• Successful track records visible within the
enterprise• Understand/have experience with enterprise-wide
initiatives• Willingness to benefit the enterprise as a whole• They just plain “get it”
You’ve got to play to win: lack of interest and availability mean loss of influence
173©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Stakeholder Interviews:Indicators of enlightenment
Technology assessment: who has/uses the “classic 3”?• Portal• Search engine• CMS
Staff review: who has relevant skills/expertise on their staff?
IA review: what areas of enterprise site have strong architectures?
These areas may indicate redundant costs, targets for centralization
174©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Involving Stakeholders: Departmental Report Card
Information Architecture Heuristic
Dept. 1
Dept. 2
Dept. 3
Supports orientation B- B B
Supports known-item searching A C+ C
Supports associative learning B C C
Supports comprehensive research A B+ B
Passes “navigation stress test” C F C+
… … … …
175©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
“Safe” User Sampling:The 2D ScorecardCombines alternative, apolitical methods
for determining segments to sample, e.g.:• Role-based segmentation• Demographic segmentation
Distracts stakeholders from “org chart-itis,” to purify sampling
Enables evaluation methods (e.g., task analysis, card sorting)
176©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
The 2D Scorecard: Role-based segmentation
Roles cut across political boundaries• Profile core enterprise-wide business
functions• Why does the enterprise exist?• Examples: Sell products, B2B or B2C
activities, manufacture products, inform opinion, etc.
• Determine major “actors” in each process
177©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
The 2D Scorecard: Demographic segmentationStandard, familiar measure; also cuts
across political boundaries• Gender• Geography• Age• Income level• Education level
Your marketing department probably has this data already
178©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
The 2D Scorecard:Combining roles & demographics
TEST
SAMPLE
SIZE
Demo. Profile
A
Demo. Profile
B
Demo. Profile
C
Demo. Profile
DTOTAL
Role 1 1 3 3 2 9
Role 2 2 2 1 1 6
Role 3 3 4 2 1 10
Role 4 0 3 4 0 7
TOTAL 6 12 10 4 32
179©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
The 2D Scorecard:Incorporating contextual bias
Role/demographic “scorecard” is pure• Serves as a structure that doesn’t have to
change substantially• But how to incorporate stakeholder bias?
Stakeholder bias can be accommodated• Poll/interview stakeholders to determine
how cell values should change• Axes and totals stay mostly the same• Distraction is our friend
180©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
The 2D Scorecard:After stakeholder input
TEST
SAMPLE
SIZE
Demo. Profile
A
Demo. Profile
B
Demo. Profile
C
Demo. Profile
DTOTAL
Role 1 1 2 5 1 9
Role 2 1 1 3 1 6
Role 3 3 4 2 1 10
Role 4 0 3 3 1 7
TOTAL 5 10 13 4 32
181©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Maintaining a User Pool:Build your own for fun and power
Through automated surveys, lower level information architect built an enterprise-wide pool of 1,500 users• Prescreened by demographics and skills• Provided him with substantial leverage with
others who wanted access to users• He just got there first and did the obvious
More information: http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/000408.html
182©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata Development: Conventional techniquesTechniques
• Open card-sorting to gather terms• Closed card-sorting to validate terms• Can be difficult to carry out in enterprise environment
(scope of vocabulary, subject sampling)
Modifications for enterprise setting• Use remote tools (e.g. IBM’s EZsort)• Apply in “stepped” mode: test subsections of taxonomy
separately• Drawback: lack of physical cards may diminish value of
data
183©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Metadata Development: Classification scheme analysis
Review existing schemes, looking for:• Duplication of domain• Overlapping domains• Consistency or lack thereof
Can some vocabularies be reused? Improved? Eliminated?
184©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Automated Metadata Development: Two classes of toolsAuto-categorization tools• Can leverage pattern-matching and cluster-
analysis algorithms to automatically generate categories (e.g., Autonomy, Interwoven)
• Can also use rules (i.e., concepts) to generate categories (e.g., Inktomi, Verity, Entrieva/Semio)
Auto-classification tools• Apply indexing to existing categories• Require controlled vocabularies (generally
manually-created) to index content
185©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Automated Metadata Development: Pros and consBenefits• Apolitical applications that disregard org
chart• May be a necessary evil in a large
enterprise environment
Drawbacks• Limited value in heterogeneous, multi-
domain environment• Perform better with rich text, not so good
with database records and other brief documents
186©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Automated Metadata Development: Semio example
At best, an 80% solution; none truly “automated” • Significant manual proofing of the 80% of content indexed• Significant manual indexing of the 20% not indexed
“E-commerce”: A human would collapse many of these categories
187©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Finding Metadata:Free listing
Simple technique: • “List all of the terms you associate with ______”• Perform pair analysis (co-occurrence) on results
Benefits• Harvests terms associated with a concept or domain• Can be done in survey form with many subjects,
multiple audiences• Supports card sorting• Less useful for structuring relationships between
terms• Possible alternative to local site search analytics
188©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Local Site Search Analytics:What does this data tell us?
Keywords: focis; 0; 11/26/01 12:57 PM; XXX.XXX.XXX.2 Keywords: focus; 167; 11/26/01 12:59 PM; XXX.XXX.XXX.2
Keywords: focus pricing; 12; 11/26/01 1:02 PM; XXX.XXX.XXX.2
Keywords: discounts for college students; 0; 11/26/01 3:35 PM; XXX.XXX.XXX.59
Keywords: student discounts; 3; 11/26/01 3:35 PM; XXX.XXX.XXX.59
Keywords: ford or mercury; 500; 11/26/01 3:35 PM; XXX.XXX.XXX.126
Keywords: (ford or mercury) and dealers; 73; 11/26/01 3:36 PM; XXX.XXX.XXX.126
Keywords: lorry; 0; 11/26/01 3:36 PM; XXX.XXX.XXX.36
Keywords: “safety ratings”; 3; 11/26/01 3:36 PM; XXX.XXX.XXX.55
Keywords: safety; 389; 11/26/01 3:36 PM; XXX.XXX.XXX.55
Keywords: seatbelts; 2; 11/26/01 3:37 PM; XXX.XXX.XXX.55
Keywords: seat belts; 33; 11/26/01 3:37 PM; XXX.XXX.XXX.55
189©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Local Site Search Analytics: Instructions
Sort and count queriesIdentify and group similar queries (e.g., “cell
phones” and “mobile phones”)Understand users’ query syntax (e.g., use of
single or multiple terms, Boolean operators) and semantics (e.g., use of lay or professional terms)
Determine most common queries• Identify content gaps through 0 result queries• Build “Best Bets” for common queries• Map common queries to audiences through IP or
login analysis
190©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Local Site Search Analytics: Benefits for interface developmentIdentifies “dead end” points (e.g., 0 hits, 2000
hits) where assistance could be added (e.g., revise search, browsing alternative)
Syntax of queries informs selection of search features to expose (e.g., use of Boolean operators, fielded searching)
…OR…
191©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Local Site Search Analytics: Benefits for metadata developmentProvides a source of terms for the creation of
vocabulariesProvides a sense of how needs are expressed • Jargon (e.g., “lorry” vs. “truck”)• Syntax (e.g., Boolean, natural language, keyword)
Informs decisions on which vocabularies to develop/implement (e.g., thesaurus, spell-checker)
192©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Local Site Search Analytics: Benefits for content analysisIdentifies content
that can’t be found
Identifies content gaps
Creation of “Best Bets” to address common queries
193©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Local Site Search Analytics: Pros and cons
Benefits• Data is real, comprehensive, available (usually)• High volume• Can track sessions• Non-intrusive
Drawbacks• Lack of good commercial analysis tools• Lack of standards makes it difficult to merge
multiple search logs (not to mention server logs)• More difficult to merge with other logs (e.g. server)• Doesn’t tell you why users did what they did
194©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Local Site Search Analytics: Enterprise context
Makes case for EIA; usually demonstrates that users are requesting things that aren’t tied to departmental divisions (e.g., policies, products)
Informs “Best Bets”
Informs synonym creation
Limited value if not analyzing merged logs
195©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Research Methods Takeaways
Challenges• Many traditional methods can be adapted to the
enterprise environment• But sampling, geography, volume and politics force
a less scientific, more pragmatic approach• Also force greater reliance on automated tools
We need new methods• Focus on minimizing politics and geographic
distribution• Most are untested• Information architects need to be willing to
experiment, innovate, and live with mistakes
196©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Framework
197©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA and the Enterprise:Phased, modular model
Phasing is not just about roll-out and timingShould be overarching philosophy for EIA
initiatives• We can phase in whom we work with• We can phase in whom we hire to do EIA
work• We can modularize what types of EIA we do• We can phase in what degree of
centralization we can support
198©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Why a Phased Model?Because mandates don’t work
“Just do it!”…• …all (e.g., all subsites)• …now (e.g., in 3-6 months)• …with few resources and people (e.g., one sad
webmaster)• …in a way that minimizes organizational learning
(e.g., hire an outside consultant or agency)
Results of the mandated “solution”: completely cosmetic, top-down information architecture
199©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
The EIA FrameworkSeven issues1. EIA governance: how the work and staff are
structured 2. EIA services: how work gets done in an enterprise
environment3. EIA staffing: who handles strategic and tactical
efforts4. EIA funding model: how it gets paid for5. EIA marketing and communications: how it gets
adopted by the enterprise6. EIA workflow: how it gets maintained7. EIA design and timing: what gets created and
when
200©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
The EIA FrameworkCritical goals
Re-balance the enterprise’s in-house IA expertise to support an appropriate degree of centralization
Enable slow, scaleable, sustainable growth of internal EIA expertise
Create ownership/maintenance mechanism for enterprise-wide aspects of IA (currently orphaned)
Ensure institutional knowledge is retained
201©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Governance: Questions
What sort of individuals or group should be responsible for the EIA?
Where should they be located within the organization? How should they address strategic issues? Tactical issues?
Can they get their work done with carrots, sticks, or both as they try to work with somewhat autonomous business units?
202©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Logical outgrowth of• Web or portal team• Design or branding group• E-services, e-business or e-commerce unit
Goals• Ensure that IA is primary goal of the unit• Retain organizational learning• Avoid political baggage• Maintain independence
EIA Governance:A separate business unit 1/2
203©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Ambitious, fool-hardy, unrealistic? Necessary!• Models of successful new organizational
efforts often start as separate entities• Alternatives (none especially attractive)• Be a part of IT or information services• Be a part of marketing and
communications• Be a part of each business unit
EIA Governance:A separate business unit 2/2
204©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Governance:Balancing strategic and tacticalStrategic: Model on Board of Directors• Represent key constituencies• Track record with successes, mistakes with
organization’s prior centralization efforts• Mix of visionaries, people who understand
money
Tactical: Start with staff who “do stuff”• Extend as necessary by outsourcing• Enables logical planning of hiring and use
of consultants and contractors
205©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Governance: Board of directors 1/2
Goals• Understand the strategic role of information
architecture within the enterprise • Promote information architecture services as a
permanent part of the enterprise’s infrastructure • Align the group and its services with those goals• Ensure the group’s financial and political viability• Help develop the group’s policies• Support the group’s management
Makeup1.Draw first from effective leaders2.Then from major units that would be strategic
partners
206©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Governance: Board of directors 2/2
Qualities• Experience and duration in the enterprise • Wide visibility and extensive network• Can draw on institutional memories and experiences• Track record of involvement with successful initiatives• Entrepreneurial (can read and write a business plan)• Experienced with centralization efforts• Does not shy away from political situations• Can “sell” a new concept and find internal funding• Is like the people you need to “sell” to• Has experience with consulting operations• Has experience negotiating with vendors
207©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Governance:Caterpillar’s boardsStrategic board (quarterly; @10 members)• “Owners” of enterprise site• Decide on major policies• Settle conflicts
Stakeholder board (monthly; 15-20)• Ensure broad participation• Ensure two-way communication• Make recommendations re: policy to strategic board
User advocacy board (meets as needed; 5-10)• Represent major user groups• Maintain pool of sample users
208©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Services:QuestionsWhat should a team responsible for EIA
actually do? How do their “services” fit with work that
happens within business units? Or with outside contractors and consultants?
What kind of people should manage these efforts?
How do IA generalists and specialists fit together?
209©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Services:Modular service plan
Avoid “monolithic” approach: “Hi, we’re the EIA team and we’re here to help… and we’re going to centralize all of your information…”
Break IA and CM into digestible, non-threatening tasks and sell those• Allows you to divide and conquer clients…• …and helps you understand IA challenges better
(e.g., applying metadata in a centralized environment)
210©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Services:Potential service offerings 1/3
Client workflow-oriented (map to content publication process)• Content authoring and acquisition• Metadata development• Content titling• Content tagging• Content review (voice, accuracy, etc.)• Content formatting• Formatting review• Optimization for search engine optimization• Publication
211©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Services:Potential service offerings 2/3
User-oriented• Persona and scenario development• User testing and task analysis• Search and server log analysis
Content-oriented• Content inventory and analysis• Content evaluation and assessment• Content model design• Content development policy (creation, maintenance)• Content weeding, ROT removal, and archiving• Content management tool (acquisition, maintenance)
• Metadata development• Metadata maintenance• Manual tagging• Automated categorization and classification
212©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Services:Potential service offerings 3/3
Context-oriented• Business metrics development and analysis• Internal marketing strategy and implementation• Stakeholder and decision-maker interviews• Business rules development (for best bets, content models, etc.)
Production/Maintenance• Template design and application• Training• Policy/procedure/standards development and acceptance• Publicity of new/changed content• Tool analysis/acquisition (CMS, search, portal)• Quality control and editing• Link checking• HTML validation• Liaison with visual design staff, IT staff, vendors
213©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Services:Assessing departmental IA needs
214©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Services:Basic & premium levels
Free services can lead to fee services
215©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Services:Phased demand for IA services
216©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Staffing:Questions
Who should be involved: in-house, consultant, contractor? What type of specialization should the staff have?
Should they be centralized or located within business units or both?
217©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Staffing: Tactical team basics 1/2
Goals• Delivers IA services to the enterprise in
content, users, and context areas• Implements the strategic team’s policies • Works directly with clients to understand their
needs and develop new services to meet those needs
218©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Staffing: Tactical team basics 2/2
Make-up driven by “market demand,” existing resources
“Vertical” IA generalists: split between EIA project enterprise business units
“Horizontal” IA specialists: “consultants” for both groups of generalists• Tools (e.g., search, portal, CMS)• Metrics• Evaluation• Metadata development• XML and other markup languages
219©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Staffing: Tactical team qualities
Entrepreneurial mindsetAbility to consult (i.e., do work and justify IA
and navigate difficult political environments)
Willingness to acknowledge ignorance and seek help
Ability to communicate with people from other fields
Sensitivity to users’ needs…and know about IA and related fields
220©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Staffing:Tactical team backgrounds/skills
•Human Computer interaction•Cognitive Psychology•Librarianship (reference)•Marketing•Branding•Merchandising
•Organizational Psychology•Business Management•Operations Engineering•Social Network Analysis•Ethnography•Economics
•Librarianship (tech. services)•Information Science•Journalism•Technical Communication•Computer Science•Graphic design
221©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Staffing:Shoot for this org chart
222©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Staffing & Governance
223©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Funding Model:QuestionsHow should this group be funded? How should other expenses (e.g., software
licenses) be covered? Charge-back fees for individual services? Flat “tax” paid by business units? Covered by general administration's tab? Some hybrid thereof?
Should certain services be performed gratis, while others require payment?
224©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Funding Model:Looking for inspiration
Study the successes/failures of the enterprise’s other centrally funded services
Possible plan• Initially: “tax” on business units and/or “seed
capital” from senior management• Ultimately: self-funding (models: IT, HR, special
projects)
Key: funding should be from central group (e.g., senior management) or self-funded; else too much dependency on business units
225©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Potential models already in existence in the enterprise• Charge-back• Tax on business units• Money from general fund• Hybrids
Charge-back model is attractive• Increasing perceived value of IA by charging fees• Compares well with duplicated expenses incurred
by business units
EIA Funding Model:Ensuring independence
226©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Funding Model:Diversify revenue streams
227©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Marketing & Communications:QuestionsHow to position this work and the group that
supports it: IA? User Experience? Web Design? How do these terms affect the scope of the work/charter of the group?
How does a plan like this get “sold,” and to whom?
Whose support is needed, and what tactics are useful in convincing them to support EIA work?
How to prioritize which business units around the enterprise to work with?
228©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Marketing & Communications: Positioning the EIA initiativeApproaching “clients”• No carrot or stick• Offer services and consulting that save
money, reduce tedium
Branding: choose the term that is• Hottest • Has least baggage• Steps on fewest toes
229©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Marketing & Communications: Selling IAConcrete• We can make work easier and save money
for individual business units• We can improve the user experience and
build brand loyalty among customers, organizational loyalty among employees
• We can minimize the enterprise’s habit of purchasing redundant licenses and services
230©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Marketing & Communications:One unit at a time
Start with low-hanging fruit• Killer content• Plentiful or influential users• Strategic value (business context)
Determine current status of the “client”• What are they doing now?• What expertise is in-house?• What relevant tools do they own (extend
licenses)?• Are they enlightened?
231©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Marketing & Communications:
Illustrating the conceptSelect an initial model for centralized
approach that’s familiar, accessible
Staff directory often the best• Serves all enterprise users• Useful, highly structured content which
may have significant metadata, searching and browsing capabilities
• Has high value in context of the enterprise’s daily operations
232©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Design/Timing: Questions
An EIA design is an overwhelmingly large undertaking; how might it be broken into more digestible pieces?
How should they be sequence: what makes sense to take on now, later, or perhaps not at all?
233©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Design/Timing: Modular, phased
234©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Design/Timing:3-6 years, not months
Use early successes as models
Anticipate greater centralization among and within business units over time
Support different levels of centralization concurrently (Neanderthals coexist with Space Agers)
235©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Workflow:Questions
How does the content authoring and publishing process work now?
Who and how many are involved?
How can the group support that work, and determine the best mix of centralized and autonomous responsibilities within that workflow?
236©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Workflow:Supporting variation, evolutionBuild around business units’ demand
Use as driver for CMS selection
237©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
EIA Framework Takeaways
Be entrepreneurial• Market and sell services to internal clients• Become self-sustaining by diversifying revenue
streams
Offer modular services• Specific services, not full package• Logical migration path accommodates all stages of
evolution along centralization/autonomy axis for customers
Do what can be done in baby steps• Start with projects that are low hanging fruit• Selective roll-out
238©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Discussion
239©2007 Louis Rosenfeld LLC (www.louisrosenfeld.com). All rights reserved.
Contact Information
Louis Rosenfeld, LLC705 Carroll Street, #2LBrooklyn, NY 11215 USA
+1.718.306.9396 voice+1.734.661.1655 fax