IWMW 1998: Promoting and Supporting Organisational Change

Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998 1 of 34

Information Management & The Institutional Website

Promoting & Supporting Organisational Change

Jon Wallis

University of Wolverhampton


Who am I?Wearing two hats:

University WebmasterResponsible for

“Corporate Pages”Co-ordination & day-to-day managementPromotion/policing of design guidelines

Senior Lecturer in ComputingTeaching

Networks, Communications & Distributed Information Systems

ResearchInformation Management aspects of WWWSearch Engine Technology


Where is this talk coming from? Based on

Three years’ experience of running a large institutional website

Past research into managing non-WWW information in a distributed systems environment”

On-going research into Information Management aspects of Websites

aim to survey HE and commercial organisations Currently work-in-progress

Disclaimer! All views and opinions are mine wearing my ‘academic

hat’ They don’t necessarily represent the official policy

or views of the University


“Experimental” webserver in School of Computing, April 1994

Main “corporate” webserver in Computer Centre since September 1994

both of these were effectively “uncontrolled” Controlled by Marketing dept from mid-1995 until end of

1997 Marketing “sub-contracted” the job to me Technical support from Computer Centre

Marketing dept withdrew because the Website no longer ‘just’ marketing

Current status of website management “in limbo”, pending re-organisation of University IT Services

Now appears in job description of Asst. Director of IT Services (Standards & Developments)

A brief history of the UoW Website


Current Status of UoW Website Over 67,500 pages Multiple Servers

limited at present, but very likely to increase Highly diverse School & Department pages

in terms of Content Style Design Quality Usefulness (despite corporate rules and guidelines)

Shipping over 700 Mb of data a day this may be a better indicator than mere “hits”


The “Web Effect” A “paradigmatic” shift in the nature of information

provision A massive rise in expectations - realistic and otherwise Towards the “single institutional image”

Before the Web Multiple information sources producing multiple versions

of the same information, aimed at different target “communities”

prospective students, businesses, etc Information often only available on request

e.g. staff phone numbers Many inadequacies in “strategic” information

management were “hidden” because separate individuals deal with separate

departments


The “Web Effect” (2) Since the Web

An information “explosion” Information initially provided without much planning for

purpose or audience Information often direct conversion of existing

“physical” version Prospectus Course literature Telephone/e-mail listings

The Institutional Website is a ‘single institutional image’ Potential for Web as primary information source Information transparency Everything is available to everyone, everywhere


Problems with Websites

Reflection of internal structure e.g., server hierarchy (and content) structured by

School & Department “Internal-only” information may be visible Users aren’t interested in our internal structure

What if the internal structure changes? changing URLs is possible but problematic

dead-links both inside and outside technical system complexity

e.g., symbolic links, server redirections but not changing them perpetuates model of old

structure Function over structure?


Problems with Websites (2)

Poor mapping between internal structure and user groups

e.g. entry to UoW site is currently aimed at specific user communities:

For Prospective StudentsFor Current StudentsFor StaffFor Alumniplus other necessary abstractions (“About

the University”, “Contact Us”, etc)


Problems with Websites (3) But we don’t have a “For Prospective Students

Department” We do have

A Media & Publicity Service (Prospectus) An Admissions Unit An International Relations Office A Students’ Union 10 Academic Schools etc…..

The overall provision of information needs to be managed - but how?

Hope for the best? (more chaos?) Create a new department to do it ? (more bureaucracy?) Co-ordinate autonomous departments? (more bureaucracy and

chaos?)


Problems with Websites (4) Web information is different ...

Conventional information provision is essentially linear and structured by the provider

Written/Printed Spoken

Web information is non-linear and (despite careful design) is effectively ‘re-structured’ by every user

Multiple entry points Multiple pathways

It therefore demands a different approach But how many web authors have studied hypertext

“theory” ... and can apply it?


Problems with Websites (5) Currency of information

If it isn’t managed, how do you know? Move from “Last Modified” to “Valid Until” dates

Treats information like food (“Best Before”) Helps promote a more active culture of maintenance Checking can then be automated more easily

especially if metadata is used (but that’s another talk in itself) Maintainer must be identifiable and contactable

Preferably an actual person, not just a job title Someone must be actually “responsible”

The “author” may not be the “maintainer” No good shooting the messenger

How often is this sort of information ever checked and enforced?


Problems with Websites (6)

Search Engines and external linksDead links often exist for long periods

First 100 or so Alta Vista “relevant” links were to our 1996 and 1997 prospectuses

Our 1998 Prospectus isn’t even called thatit’s an “Essential Guide”, but people don’t search for

thatSome search tools now contain historic

“snapshots” of the webOut-of-date (and therefore invalid) information may

be preserved for long-term access


Problems with Websites (7) Websites actually cost money

This can be a revelation to management How do you cost a website?

How much does it cost to author a page/site? How do you perform a Cost Benefit Analysis for a website? What proportion of people’s jobs spent authoring? Should they be doing it anyway? What’s the most cost effective way of doing it?

Do you know (a) how much your website cost to create?(b) how much it costs to run it?(c) if it is “economically viable”?

But what is the cost of not doing it?


Website Maturity ModelsBased on “maturity models” of IT systemsMay help to analyse, predict and plan

developmentor at least identify where it all went wrong

Different models from different perspectivesActivity

functional - what’s being done?Stakeholder

people - who’s doing it?Technical

systems and software - how’s it being done?


‘Activity’ ModelDoing something - anything

a means to an end - getting web experiencealmost anything is valid content

Doing something usefule.g., conversion of existing literature, alternative channel

for basic information (e.g., phonebook) Doing something professional

e.g., contributing to marketing function, supporting traditional course delivery

Doing something new and creativee.g., a self-contained channel for learning

based on Tom Keen, MIT


‘Stakeholder’ Model Technical

Most institutional webservers began in technical departments

e.g., computer centres, schools of computingPublicity/Marketing

Control ‘taken over’ by marketing or publicity departments

Institutional prospectus and advertisingInformation Provision

As many stakeholders as ‘channels of information’Complexity of website structure tends to

approaches complexity of organisational structure


‘Technical’ ModelSingle webserver

usually in central Computing Services or IT departmentMultiple servers

usually single platform (usually Unix)Wolves only has 4 servers - some Universities have

dozensMultiple platforms

Unix, NT, Mac - maybe othersExtra technologies

Plug-ins, SSI, PHP, JavaScript, Java, ActiveX Note: Technical “maturity” does not necessarily equal desirability or

manageability


The Need to Adopt a Consolidated Approach to Information Management

Websites represent a massive growth in information provision

in terms of both volume and usersWeb technology enables anyone to publish

anything, leading tounmanageable complexityconsistency and integrity problemsaccessibility problemsnon-interoperable systems

A Website is a major information resource and must be managed


1. Recognise the Importanceof Information

Recognise that all users - both internal and external - can (potentially) access the information they require directly

a process of disintermediationproblem of one source but multiple needs

Information previously thought merely internally "useful" is now externally visible

e.g. internal phone directory updated annually, now on-line and “real-time”

Information Auditwhat information and who controls it - and at what

cost?


2. Distinguish between authenticatedand unauthenticated data

Information can be published at many levels and by many people

Some will remain under direct internal control (and should)

Much won't (and shouldn’t)the balance depends on other decisions

e.g., the degree of decentralisationWho authenticates?

The author? (may not have the authority)The provider? (may not have the expertise)Third party? (webmaster? someone else?)


Example Information Categories Authenticated Central

e.g. prospectus Authenticated Local (Departmental)

e.g., H&S instructions, Course Regulations Authenticated Local (Individual, Staff)

e.g., Module Resource pages Unauthenticated Local (Departmental)

variant copies of “central” information Unauthenticated Local (Individual, Staff)

e.g., staff home pages (which may be related to official role or may not)

Unauthenticated Local (Individual, Student) e.g. student home pages (which may be connected with

study or may not) All types of information on an "Associated

Organisation" sub-site e.g,. HUBS, BCS branch


3. Establish Degree of Centralisation Locus: “Centralised” or “Decentralised” Control: “Autonomous” or “Restricted”

Gives 4 main models:1. Centralised Restricted 2. Centralised Autonomous 3. Decentralised Restricted4. Decentralised Autonomous

Ref: Samuel Hinton, “From Home Page to Home Site”, a paper presented at WWW7 - see: http://www.anu.edu.au/~e951611/www7/37.html

Information should be managed as close to its source as possible?

Requires strong definition and co-ordination of information strategy

Requires local web expertise


Decentralisation Some sort of decentralised model is most likely

fully centralised would be utterly impractical Raises issues of

control how to enforce corporate policies

academic institutions are notorious for autonomy integrity

how to ensure consistent informatione.g.,local copies of corporate data

security who is authorised to edit documents

technology system integration and accessibility


Is it Internal or External?

The temptation was (is?) to put everything on the web simply because you can (not a good reason)

Not everything is fit for public consumption Some information is merely irrelevant

use of fire extinguishers Some information may be confidential

minutes of meetings Some information may be downright embarrassing

internal reports about departmental inefficiency Need for split into “Internet” and “intranet” websites

This requires you to know what information you have, who provides it and who wants it - need for an “audit”


Development of Multiple Websites External-facing

For Visitors General information

For Prospective Students Prospectuses, local information

Internal-facing For Existing Students

Course materials, regulations, results For Staff

Administrative information, procedures Technically possible to “filter” some users at point of

access IP “masks” for known groups

staff, students, etc


4. Assign Information Management Responsibilities

Is there an existing system? e.g., ISO 9000 (BS5750) procedures

Central co-ordination and control Planning overall information resources

e.g., organisational data model formulating policies (security, access, etc) How much does it actually do (versus just co-ordinate) More autonomy at local level = more control at the centre

Local management and enactment Defining, providing & maintaining information Ensuring compliance with central policies (e.g. security, style) Identifying changes in requirements and practices


5. Technical Infrastructure (TI) Issues The Web adds a layer on top of existing TI

Unifying shell or wrapper over heterogeneous TI. Can help remove problems - but can add them too All requires additional resources and management

Need to maintain underlying systems remains But use of Web may show need to consolidate them

Danger of uncontrolled local technical developments The “weeds taking over the garden” (James Martin)

e.g., browser-specific resources, plug-ins, etc Is the required client technology widespread?

Core TP systems will remain (e.g.,finance, records), but the Web can simplify access to them

Subsidiary system elements may still required to meet specific local needs


6. System Integration Issues

Institutions will already have multiple systems Proprietary/commercial and bespoke in-house “Enterprise-wide” and local

What are the available interfaces? ODBC, DCOM, ActiveX, Java-based ...

How mature and stable are the ‘standards’? Where does the integration occur?

Before the server? some sort of middleware

At the server? built-in/add-on interfaces or CGI

At the client? Java or ActiveX ... or something else

Enforcement of standards?


Who runs your website? Which department?

Computer Centre/IT Services department? Because it’s technical

Marketing, Publicity or Media department? Because it’s “public-facing”

Registry (or equivalent) Because it’s a major data resource

Staffing “Webmaster” - historically technically-based A dedicated multi-skilled team?

High-level involvement Both corporately and departmentally Often little understanding of the issues

Design and Technical Usually inadequate resource allocation and timescales


Case Study 1Media and Publicity Services

A “traditional” marketing department Responsible for

Prospectus and corporate advertising Press relationships

Took over control of website at early stage Commissioned first web-based prospectus

Relinquished control of website Because no extra funding available for the extra work But actively involved in developing content Aim of databased information sources - currently heavily reliant

on manual intervention No specific web related posts

but Web awareness now a short-listing criterion


Case Study 1Media and Publicity Services

Web seen as a “central tool” but other channels remain key (e.g. hard copy) ironically, production of printed media likely to increase as

result of web originated requests Web initially seen as marketing “dream”

24 hrs, global, always current, local production costs Cost of producing web material became a barrier Conventional media now points to web resources

increased expectations of what is available Email direct from web pages “opens up” institution Not keen on “policing” content of entire site

Many “rogue” pages not widely seen anyway


Case Study 2The Registry Intranet

Began as a small “proof-of-concept” project A demonstrator to provide (limited) central information

e.g. exam and teaching timetables An “administration server”

accessed by simply typing “admin” into browser Once people saw what was possible…..

Requests to provide information on others’ behalf Spawned other departmental intranet servers

The information is all there Making it available is technically easy

But it takes time, needs staff (and costs money) Very successful

But not yet “strategic” - still a “local” initiative


Case Study 3Student Information Project

University-wide initiative Not Website specific

But the Website highlights issues of provision Major questions

What information do we provide to students? What information should we provide? How should we provide it?

Student life-cycle perspective “Horizontal” rather than “vertical” division Integrates across internal boundaries (like the web?) Avoids imposition of internal structures on students

Students still want hard-copy information

Education

IWMW 1998: Promoting and Supporting Organisational Change