Government web teams need to hang with the communicators rather than the propellerheads

Something which has increasingly concerned me over the years has been the decision by certain government departments to position their web teams and webmasters within the IT section, rather than the communications section.

Before going any further, let me clarify what I mean by ‘web team’.  I’m essentially talking about those working at (or close to) the coalface, usually responsible for:

• managing and governing the department’s site(s)
• ensuring compliance with relevant web standards and guidelines
• carrying out web development work
• maintaining site content, and
• plotting future developments for the department’s site(s)

In addition, for the purposes of this post, I’m including the following people under the banner of ‘communications section’:

• marketing and media staff
• creative staff (i.e. graphic designers, branding specialists)
• corporate affairs and executive staff (probably to a lesser degree)

From my experience, the positioning of web teams in IT environments is a mistake.  The vast majority of government websites share a common set of objectives which usually include – at a simplistic level – the need to:

• project a professional and responsible image of the department/agency
• communicate timely and accurate information to target markets
• provide user contact and feedback mechanisms, and
• where feasible, provide interactive communication mechanisms (e.g. chat rooms, discussion forums, etc)

How are web teams supposed to achieve these objectives when they’re not working in strict harmony with the department’s communicators, marketers, executives and media people?

I’ve seen first-hand how geographic, cultural and bureaucratic barriers between different ‘enabling areas’ can cause both short and long-term problems in the workplace.  While IT and communications sections are both generally regarded as enabling services within government departments, this is about the only similarity they seem to have.  In fact, few would doubt the fundamental differences in thinking, skills and general mindset that exist between the two.

Therefore, I believe it becomes very important to understand which of the two environments is better-suited to hosting a web team, particularly when considering the objectives and purpose of the department’s Internet presence. 

I believe it has to be the communications section. 

Why?

Firstly, this section has the corporate and strategic vision to drive the department’s site(s) forward, ensuring overall consistency and alignment with peripheral communications products and initiatives (e.g. media and advertising campaigns).  In addition, this section – as a commonly centralised and key business unit of the department – will receive clear direction and backing from the senior executive (including the department head), encouraging greater financial and strategic investment in the department’s Internet presence.

Secondly, the communications section has a healthy level of creative potency among its staff, which is beneficial in challenging boundaries and conventions, and conceiving new ideas in relation to the site(s).  It’s this kind of approach which can have a significant impact on site interactivity, usability, and overall appeal.

Thirdly, it is the communications section which hosts dedicated editorial, creative and publishing expertise which has much to offer the department’s site(s).  While the editorial and publishing expertise is obviously useful for content development, the section’s graphic designers could also offer their expertise on some visual enhancements to the front-end (interface).

Finally – and following on from my first point – the communications section is responsible for carrying out a broad, holistic array of marketing and communications initiatives; many of which rely on the use of the Internet due to its superiority in terms of market reach, cost and speed.  Therefore, this section must have a high level of influence over the web team, to ensure these initiatives can be successful. 

Now, having said all of that, it’s important to acknowledge that government IT and communications sections can work together.  Of course they can, and I’m not trying to challenge this.  My point is that too much ‘communications value’ is at risk of being lost when the web team – who are meant to be driving the department’s Internet presence – are nestled-in amongst IT geeks instead of living alongside the department’s central communicators and corporate visionaries.   

Just because web teams comprise technical staff, doesn’t mean they should automatically live in the IT section.

Rob

Information overload

Recently, I was reminiscing on my high school days and, in particular, what student life was like without the internet during the late 80’s and early 90’s. During my reflection, I started to consider how the internet may actually be guilty of providing us with too much information. Big statement, I know, but worth pondering for a few moments.

You only have to run a Google search on virtually any topic to experience this bombardment of information. Nowadays, if I need to find some information, I won’t hesitate to use the internet. Nor will most of the people I know; even my computer-illiterate mother (God bless) who can’t drive a word processor but can somehow use email and Google. 

Sadly, I’ve not stepped into my local library for many years. I still read books and magazines, but far less than I used to, and I certainly prefer to do all my research and information gathering via the internet…and why wouldn’t I? It’s quick and cheap, and can essentially be done from anywhere, at anytime. In addition, I don’t need to concern myself with borrowing policies, opening hours or the possible unavailability of certain publications. The information is available – all the time, in abundance, and with minimal retrieval effort needed.

So what could possibly be the problem?!

Right now, this minute, my concern is with both the high quantity and varying quality of information that we now have access to over the internet. There’s no disputing the benefits it brings, but I find myself regularly asking these questions:

1. How can I verify the integrity/quality of the information I’m looking at?
2. What’s the best way to find the information (i.e. Google, blog sites, forums)?
3. How do I know what to look at first (i.e. search engine listings)?

Depending on what I’m looking for, the answers are obviously different each time. However, a key ingredient in today’s ‘end-user surfing toolkit’ is undoubtedly the ability to apply judgement, common sense and caution when using the web to interact and find information.

In his blog, Nick Patience from 451 Group provides a short definition of Information Management under the curious title of “Welcome to Too Much Information”. I wouldn’t have necessarily expected this kind of title (containing just a brush of cheek and cynicism) from an IT service provider…but then again, I think it’s very ignorant to think the issue only affects end-users. 

Without a doubt, the information overload also impacts upon developers and various internet professionals who are involved in the systems and architecture of today’s websites. For those of you out there, just think of how complex and collaborative your web projects have now become compared to three, five or seven years ago? Of course, the complexity of today’s web projects is due to several factors, not just the increasing amount (and types) of information. It’s still a factor though, and I’ve seen an increasing amount of information architects turn grey over it. 

In concluding, let’s go back to the end-users for a final minute.

Christopher Davis from Guardian’s Comment is Free blog wrote an excellent piece on the subject of information abundance on the internet. It is well worth the read, with Chris detailing his experiences and thoughts in relation to using the internet and searching for information. He touches on something that I’m sure many of us may not have considered – that our seemingly endless obsession with the internet is leading to, and symptomatic of, addiction. 

“In retrospect, the problem wasn’t the time I spent doing this, but rather the lack of satisfaction that it brought me. Browsing is compelling yet ultimately unsatisfying – precisely the emotional combination that makes addiction what it is.”

One of Christopher’s respondents then cites the term ‘infolust’ which is as poignant as it is catchy.

“Isn’t the term ‘infolust’? That is, the misguided belief that the more looking about (on the net) that you do, the better a decision you’ll be able to make. Trouble is, there is an endless torrent of info out there, so the decision making is constantly deferred.”

Rob