Virtually everything virtually everywhere: pursuing a radical web strategy

1. Virtually everything virtually everywhere: pursuing a radical web strategy Andrew Aird, Director of Web Services, King’s College London Andrew Aird - November 2001

2. Founded in 1829, 1721, 1553 and 606AD King’s College (1829) merged with United Medical and Dental Schools in 1998 (itself a merger of Guy’s [founded 1721], and St. Thomas’, [founded 606AD,1553 in ‘modern form’]) • 10 schools • 4 main, several subsidiary sites • c. 120 departments • 16,200 students Andrew Aird - November 2001

3. Web Staff • Director (since May 2001) • Establishment of 2 senior web officers, 1 junior (none yet appointed) • Currently 1 part-time (.4) officer • Increasing use of contractors for training and programming • Temp clerical help as required Andrew Aird - November 2001

4. Statistics • Over 400 ‘IP’s • 616,000 files • 15,000 visitors a day • Average time over 14 minutes • 70 % overseas • 49% of applicants cite web as first contact Andrew Aird - November 2001

5. The impossible job • Amateurs responsible for 90% of content • Balance between corporate/departmental interests • Politics • No realistic strategy • No resources • Other usual problems Andrew Aird - November 2001

6. The coming crisis • London HE recruitment difficult • Present situation worsening post 9/11 • More places available • Importance of clearing • Overseas competition • ‘Value for money’ • Post 9/11 worries Web is under exploited tool and weapon Andrew Aird - November 2001

7. The web is over • Content • Management • Strategies for: • Marketing (external communication) • Internal Communication • Learning and teaching • Personal web publishing Andrew Aird - November 2001

8. Key strategy planks • Everything on the web • Variety • Integration • Core datasets feeding many applications • Scalability • Universality • Publishing not filesharing Andrew Aird - November 2001

9. Good things • So much content! • Willing contributors • Resources not a problem for current infrastructure • Increasing belief/support from top • Good technology available Andrew Aird - November 2001

10. Bad things • So much content! • Low quality of content • Lack of corporate EVI • We’re coming from behind • Incompatible technologies • Inadequate structure • Centre/parts tension Andrew Aird - November 2001

11. The Strategic Vision • For the web to become the primary means of the distribution and exchange of information within the College • Where possible and appropriate the web will replace conventional documentation as the definitive source of that information • All members of the College community can become consumers and contributors to the KCL web regardless of their level of technical expertise • Access to the web is global, permanent and resilient • Appropriate mechanisms and systems are implemented to protect the security of users, contributors and subjects of the KCL web • The infrastructure, content and management structures must be sufficiently scalable to adapt to ever increasing demand Andrew Aird - November 2001

12. Strategic goals • Material primarily created by and for consumption by members of the College (e.g. departmental handbooks, staff phone numbers, financial information, etc.) • Information and resources in support of the Learning and Teaching in the College (e.g. lecture notes, student timetables, on-line study resources, etc.) • Content designed for users outside the College (e.g. Prospectuses, ‘What’s On’ information, Schools page, etc.) • Personal web publishing Andrew Aird - November 2001

13. How? • Pre-emptive structure • Electronic or paper (not both) • Controlled contributors • Different facilities • Resources • Accountability • The right team Andrew Aird - November 2001

14. Unpopular goals • No subdomains (e.g. kcl.ac.uk/pharmacy rather than pharmacy.kcl.ac.uk) • Search engine submission blocked • Strict content lifespans (content dies) • No Word or PDF files • Adherence to style, presentation and content • Ban Dreamweaver and all other web editing software • No FTP access or local servers • Web contributions produced by groups not individuals • Web Team has ultimate say-so. No buts. Andrew Aird - November 2001

15. Popular goals • No software to learn • Publishing process much quicker • Programme/group/person orientated navigation (rather than school/faculty/department) • Clear role of contributions • Less photocopying, money saved • Currency of information • Resilience Andrew Aird - November 2001

16. Pre-emptive structure • Hierarchical, inevitably based on structure of institution • Every programme, group, person has a place and default information (from core sources) • Simplification of urls – intuitive • Better navigation • Subject/person orientated access Andrew Aird - November 2001

17. Electronic or paper • Strategy covers all publishing • Specifies which type of documents • Electronic or paper • Electronic always definitive • Implies low technology • Everything through the browser • No web-based paper distribution (PDF, Word etc. banned) Andrew Aird - November 2001

18. Controlled contributors • System of responsibilities • Web co-ordinator job descriptions • Form based content • Devolved server licensing system • Support / SL agreed with web team • Audit • Cascade training Andrew Aird - November 2001

19. Different facilities • Everyone a publisher • Facilites for staff, student homepages; un-moderated, not guaranteed, independent • Development server • No public departmental servers • Best-in-class technology, servers with 300% capacity Andrew Aird - November 2001

20. Resources • Savings from paper printing costs – prospectus £50,000 each minimum • MIS functions in web team • Identify stakeholders • Income generation • Manage in-house • Use of contractors better value Andrew Aird - November 2001

21. Accountability • Promise accountability – how much does it all cost? • Performance indicators • Publish results • Do some sums on page turnover, shelf-life, ‘stock value’ • Prove the web has value / value added Andrew Aird - November 2001

22. Balance sheet • Pages are assets • They depreciate • They have a falling value • After a point they have a negative value • Cost of page / value of page not the same • Good =1, absent=0, bad=-1 • So what’s it worth? Andrew Aird - November 2001

23. The right team • Clout at the top • Clear strategic and operational roles • Formalised support • Blend of skills • Focus management of areas • Manage stakeholders too! Andrew Aird - November 2001

24. Electronic prospectuses- for the user • Up-to-date • Self-contained • Interactive • Attractive • Instant • Relevant and focussed Andrew Aird - November 2001

25. Electronic prospectuses- for the institution • Resources released • Demonstrates commitment to medium • More pervasive • Resolves contractual issues • Content better managed Andrew Aird - November 2001

26. Recruitment implications? • Students with higher IT skill base • Medium is strategic message • Special needs access • Better teaching and learning • Better retention rates Andrew Aird - November 2001

27. Let’s do it • MIS has 18 staff (Web team will have 4 - hopefully!) • Separate content, ‘form’ controlled centrally • De-technologise • Act like bureau • Recognise distinct web areas, get right expertise • Other models include PR, Finance, Estates etc. • Control of appropriate resources Andrew Aird - November 2001

28. Loss of freedom? • Staff / student publishing facilities • The place of paper • Information policies • Sticks and carrots Andrew Aird - November 2001

29. Added value • E-commerce • 24/7 webcast channel • Conferencing • L & T applications • Resilience • Standards • Accountability Andrew Aird - November 2001

30. Conclusion • Web has a value • No going back, only forward • After strategy everything else is tactics • Someone will jump higher, sooner • Where do we want to be in 3 or 5 years? • Are we the right people for our jobs? • MBA for web managers? Andrew Aird - November 2001