Who am I?

1. Information Management & The Institutional WebsitePromoting & Supporting Organisational ChangeJon WallisUniversity of Wolverhampton Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

2. Who am I? • Wearing two hats: • University Webmaster • Responsible for • “Corporate Pages” • Co-ordination & day-to-day management • Promotion/policing of design guidelines • Senior Lecturer in Computing • Teaching • Networks, Communications & Distributed Information Systems • Research • Information Management aspects of WWW • Search Engine Technology Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

3. 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 Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

4. A brief history of the UoW Website • “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) Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

5. 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” Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

6. 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 Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

7. 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 Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

8. 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? Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

9. 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 Students • For Current Students • For Staff • For Alumni • plus other necessary abstractions (“About the University”, “Contact Us”, etc) Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

10. 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?) Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

11. 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? Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

12. 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? Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

13. Problems with Websites (6) • Search Engines and external links • Dead 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 that • it’s an “Essential Guide”, but people don’t search for that • Some search tools now contain historic “snapshots” of the web • Out-of-date (and therefore invalid) information may be preserved for long-term access Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

14. 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? Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

15. Website Maturity Models • Based on “maturity models” of IT systems • May help to analyse, predict and plan development • or at least identify where it all went wrong • Different models from different perspectives • Activity • functional - what’s being done? • Stakeholder • people - who’s doing it? • Technical • systems and software - how’s it being done? Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

16. ‘Activity’ Model • Doing something - anything • a means to an end - getting web experience • almost anything is valid content • Doing something useful • e.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 creative • e.g., a self-contained channel for learning based on Tom Keen, MIT Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

17. ‘Stakeholder’ Model • Technical • Most institutional webservers began in technical departments • e.g., computer centres, schools of computing • Publicity/Marketing • Control ‘taken over’ by marketing or publicity departments • Institutional prospectus and advertising • Information Provision • As many stakeholders as ‘channels of information’ • Complexity of website structure tends to approaches complexity of organisational structure Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

18. ‘Technical’ Model • Single webserver • usually in central Computing Services or IT department • Multiple servers • usually single platform (usually Unix) • Wolves only has 4 servers - some Universities have dozens • Multiple platforms • Unix, NT, Mac - maybe others • Extra technologies • Plug-ins, SSI, PHP, JavaScript, Java, ActiveX • Note: Technical “maturity” does not necessarily equal desirability or manageability Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

19. The Need to Adopt a Consolidated Approach to Information Management • Websites represent a massive growth in information provision • in terms of both volume and users • Web technology enables anyone to publish anything, leading to • unmanageable complexity • consistency and integrity problems • accessibility problems • non-interoperable systems • A Website is a major information resource and must be managed Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

20. 1. Recognise the Importanceof Information • Recognise that all users - both internal and external - can (potentially) access the information they require directly • a process of disintermediation • problem 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 Audit • what information and who controls it - and at what cost? Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

21. 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 decentralisation • Who authenticates? • The author? (may not have the authority) • The provider? (may not have the expertise) • Third party? (webmaster? someone else?) Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

22. 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 Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

23. 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 Restricted 4. 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 Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

24. 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 information • e.g.,local copies of corporate data • security • who is authorised to edit documents • technology • system integration and accessibility Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

25. 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” Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

26. 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 Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

27. 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 Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

28. 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 Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

29. 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? Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

30. 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 Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

31. 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 Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

32. 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 Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

33. 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 Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998

34. 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 Jon Wallis, University of Wolverhampton, 1998