1 of 34

1
Information Management The Institutional
WebsitePromoting Supporting Organisational
ChangeJon WallisUniversity of Wolverhampton
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

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 dont necessarily represent the official
  policy or views of the University

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)

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

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

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

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 arent 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?

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)

10
Problems with Websites (3)

• But we dont 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?)

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?

12
Problems with Websites (5)

• Currency of information
• If it isnt 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 thats
  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?

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 isnt even called that
• its an Essential Guide, but people dont
  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

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 peoples jobs spent authoring?
• Should they be doing it anyway?
• Whats 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?

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 - whats being done?
• Stakeholder
• people - whos doing it?
• Technical
• systems and software - hows it being done?

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

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

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

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

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?

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 shouldnt)
• 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?)

22
Example Information Categories

• Authenticated Central
• e.g. prospectus
• Authenticated Local (Departmental)
• e.g., HS 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

30
Who runs your website?

• Which department?
• Computer Centre/IT Services department?
• Because its technical
• Marketing, Publicity or Media department?
• Because its public-facing
• Registry (or equivalent)
• Because its 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

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

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

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

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