[australia] FW: Engaging contributors

[David Warwick]

Thanks Marius for stimulating a flurry of emails on this list ­ nice to see
some activity (and great comment).

I cannot add much to the debate other than to agree with many of the
comments made so far ­ even those that may appear somewhat at odds with each
other, as I don¹t think every project, system or scenario suffers from the
same problem or even need. Some implementations need broad content from a
disaggregated contributor group, some need lesser volumes of targeted
content from a controlled(controlling) group, some have the inherent drivers
that make people contribute and others struggle. All I can say is that some
problems seem germane to CM and others are more or less scenario based ­ as
a result some solutions may have broad appeal and others may work in one
situation but aggravate the problems in another.

As Malcolm Fraser said, ŒContent Management was never meant to be easy¹ ;-)
I¹m sure he said Œlife¹ or something equally boring but I¹m using some geek
license here.

I would echo Luke¹s suggestion that those able catch up at Open Publish in
Sydney in a few weeks time to hear related discussion ­ Luke, Melanie,
James, Peter, Matthew, Martin, Myself and others on this list will be there
and will be opening up this can of worms from different angles. Personally
I¹m looking forward to Melanie¹s presentation on ŒCMS is not an IT Project¹
- very relevant to this thread.

My take on things is the inspiration for my presentation on ŒThe Black Art
of Web Publishing¹, - the basic premise is that one of the problems (and
joys) of content management is the complexity and level of involvement of
other disciplines ­ this complex nexus is part of the reason that I believe
content is still generally not well managed. Just think of some of the
skills/disciplines ‹ information architecture, writing, marketing, design,
technology, organizational strategy, business process, legal, archival,
etc., etc. Combinations of these skills need to reside in individuals or
alternatively a group of skilled people need to be well coordinated (and as
this thread has indicated, well motivated).

Hope some of you can make it to Open Publish and our Sydney CM Pros Meeting,
otherwise, please keep using this list.

Cheers and regards,

David Warwick
Co-Chair 
CM Pros Australia Community

On 13/7/06 4:55 PM, "Matthew Moore" <matthew.moore at oracle.com> wrote:

> Alfie Kohn has some interesting criticism of reward-based systems in general:
> http://www.alfiekohn.org/index.html
>  
> Catherine's comment about rewards leading to quantity as opposed to quality
> reflect what I have observed in organisations. Just before appraisal time, the
> Knowledge Bank (or whatever its called) gets filled a gazillions of
> submissions of varying quality. A better way is to ensure i. writers get
> regular feedback from readers & that ii. management sees the creation of
> content as meaningful & vital work - and therefore budgets time & resources
> for it.
>  
> I absolutely agree with a 'whole of organisation' approach. Where this
> overlaps with Marius' comments about Wikipedia is that it's collaborative
> between content writers, publishers & readers. Whether you use wiki technology
> or not, the creation & consumption of content (which from an intranet
> prespective boils down to media that helps people do their jobs) has to
> involve & engage people - and bind them together. Content has a lifecycle & a
> flow beyond the straight-foward editing & publishing functionalities that most
> CMSes currently offer. And engaging with people is often a lot harder than
> just putting something up on an intranet. So hence happens less often.
>  
> Most organisations do not exist to produce content & hence it can get
> forgotten but if the late Peter Drucker is right & we are increasingly an
> economy of knowledge workers then it becomes something they have to get
> proficient at managing resources that support these activities.
>  
>>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:  australia-bounces at lists.cmprofessionals.org
>> [mailto:australia-bounces at lists.cmprofessionals.org]On Behalf Of  Catherine
>> Doran
>> Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2006 3:29  PM
>> To: australia at lists.cmprofessionals.org
>> Subject: Re:  [australia] FW: Engaging contributors
>> 
>>  
>> Hi,
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> We currently operate on a very centralised system,  requesting content from
>> staff where appropriate. In most cases the content is  forwarded and then we
>> add it into the CMS.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> The problem I could foresee with the incentive system  as suggested below is
>> that quality may suffer - if it turns into a competitive  environment there
>> would need to be some kind of system for assessing quality  as well as
>> quantity - many pages of badly written content aren't as valuable  as one
>> succinct, easy to understand page!
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> My preferred method would be for this to be a 'whole  of organisation'
>> process - if a staff member or team has responsibility for  something which
>> has a presence on the intranet or website, part of their role  would be to
>> provide (and where appropriate maintain) this content. This means  it needs
>> to be a process which is driven from the management level, requiring  full
>> commitment from all levels of staff - not always easy! This is where we  need
>> to prove the business value of an intranet/website and ensure that this  is
>> endorsed (preferably signed off) by management.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Just my thoughts!
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Catherine
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Catherine Doran | Project Manager - Knowledge, Sustainability Victoria
>>  
>> 
>> T: 03 9639 3322 | F: 03 9639 3077 | 2/478  Albert Street, East Melbourne 3002
>> | www.sustainability.vic.gov.au
>> <file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/catherined/Application%20Data/Microsof
>> t/Signatures/www.sustainability.vic.gov.au>
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
>  
>  
> 
>  From: Ritchie, Michele
> Sent:  Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:15 AM
> To: 'Marius  Coomans'
> Subject: RE: [australia] Engaging contributors  [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> 
>  
>  
> Marius
>  
>  
>  
> I recall at a seminar I went to some years ago, there were some  suggestions
> as to how to get people to contribute and that was to  give rewards or
> incentives; some ways include:
>  
>  
>  
> *  
> * publish (in a newsletter?) how many times this month each person has
> contributed - sometimes people get competitive and want others to see they
> have contributed the most  for the month
> *  
> *  
> * have  a monthly reward for the person who has contributed the most - bottle
> of  wine, movie voucher etc.
> *  
> *  
> * make  contributing to the intranet one  of the goals in their Peformance
> Appraisal contract; they agree to  contribute content at least once a month or
> whatever, so then you have some  accountability.
>  
> I have not used these ideas in practice, but I could see them working  in some
> organisations.
>  
>  
>  
> kind regards
>  
>  
>  
> Michele Ritchie
> Information  Manager
> National Measurement Institute
> PO Box 385,  Pymble   NSW  2073
>  
>  
>  
>  
> AUSTRALIA 
> +61 2 9449 0129 (t)    +61 2 9449  1653 (f)
> michele.ritchie at measurement.gov.au
> http://www.measurement.gov.au <http://www.measurement.gov.au/>
>  
>  
>  
> Save  time, save stress ... ask a  Librarian.
>  
>  
> 
>  
>  
> 
>  From:  australia-bounces at lists.cmprofessionals.org
> [mailto:australia-bounces at lists.cmprofessionals.org] On Behalf Of  Marius
> Coomans
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:18  AM
> To: australia at lists.cmprofessionals.org
> Subject:  [australia] Engaging contributors
> 
>  
>  
> I received some  encouraging emails in response to my last message, so I'm
> sufficiently  emboldened to help breath a bit of life into this list. With its
> eclectic  array of subscribers, there is bound to be a great store of wisdom
> and  experience here.
>  
>  
>  
> So:
>  
>  
>  
> Over the past 10  years, our industry has (largely) mastered the technology
> and processes  to successfully implement Content Management Systems. However,
> in many cases,  those systems still fail to engage those who have most content
> to  contribute. 
>  
>  
>  
> Why is that? How can our success rate be  improved? How do we balance
> "process" with "creativity"? Can we leverage the  success of Weblogs and that
> of Wikipedia? 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Marius  Coomans
>  
> Active Web  Communications
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cmsml.org/pipermail/australia/attachments/20060713/6cef42b9/attachment-0001.html