IPGRI Online Communication Strategy

User needs to the fore – Third consultation workshop

The FINAL Action Plan Map

Feedback from the second online survey and the third consultation workshop both heavily stressed the central role of identifying users and their needs in the continuing development of the IPGRI Web site. Read on. . .

The revised and approved ISSUES Map

The second survey invited IPGRI staff to comment on the “Action Plan Map” (revised and approved ISSUES Map) developed during the second consultation meeting. Overall, two thirds of the 46 respondents fully agreed with the ISSUES map developed by the participants in the second consultation meeting. Most of those who disagreed felt that the map did not give sufficient importance to “support for audiences” or understanding user needs. Others were not sure about the sequence of actions in the map; “I am not sure how the bulk of [issues] (centre of the graph) are organized. Will actions be carried out step by step from left to right, or simultaneously?” asked one respondent. Another respondent said, “’user’ participation should come in much earlier … I am not sure I agree with the word ‘user’. I think the whole process should be more participative … and ‘users’ are actually ‘contributors’…”.

When asked for possible solutions, several respondents focused on the need for more resources to be given to work on the Web site, and the development of a broad-based “Web team”. (Two of the respondents gave virtually identical responses – I suspect collusion!)

Luigi opened the third consultation workshop with a review of the steps taken to date, and of the process used in the consultation. He revisited the “ISSUES map” developed in the previous workshop and touched on the responses of the survey. The objective of this third meeting, he said, was to translate the “ISSUES map” into an actual sequence of steps, an Action Plan Map, that need to be taken (addressing some of the queries raised in the survey).

Luigi and Massimo Curatella then went over the key issues laid out in the map, verifying people’s understanding of them and their relative importance. Again, the issue of users and their needs raised a lot of discussion. Ruth made the point that we have no control over who visits our Web site – we could be attracting school kids looking for help wit h their home work or truck drivers with an interest in conservation. “Should we try to address the needs of all these different groups?” she asked. Luigi replied that people these days generally do not reach Web sites by random browsing, as they once did; they arrive there because they are looking for something specific (often through a Web search or a link from another Web site). “We can try to group information by the type of use that can be made of it, rather than by user-type as such,” he suggested, “and meet the needs of various user groups.” Massimo C stressed that this issue of which audiences to address is a key element of the “editorial policy” of the Web site.

“Identity design” raised several comments, with some participants wanting it to be addressed earlier in the process. Luigi again stressed that until we have rules for the content – what we want to present, to whom, how etc – we cannot address how the pages should look.

In looking at the group of user-related issues – user participation, community building, updating the audience and others – Jennie stressed the need for this to feed back into the identification of user needs and content organization.

Linking issues to actions

Massimo C then took to the floor, showing a “linkage map” among the issues laid out in the “Action Plan Map”. “This confirmed what we had come up with on the wall last week,” he said.

The next step was to superimpose actions or solutions to the issues, in a logical sequence. Apart from a couple of steps that, I suspect, Luigi and Massimo C had deliberately put out of sequence (to see if we were awake and listening!), the participants agreed with the “critical path” this presented.

“What is the timeframe for this plan,” Maria asked, to which Massimo C helpfully replied, “It depends.” Ultimately, it is up to us, IPGRI, to decide what we want to achieve by when – Luigi and Massimo C will provide the pointers and help guide our choices but this is our Web site and we will have to drive the process.

Next steps

The next step is another Web survey to gather reactions to the “critical path” arising from the third consultation workshop. Then it is down to Luigi and Massimo C to develop two critical documents: an action plan that outlines the steps we need to take and the resources needed to take them, and an analysis of a range of technical solutions to the issues facing the Web site. They should have these ready by early September. After that, we hope to have Luigi and Massimo C back with us to present the outcomes of this exercise to IPGRI management and staff.