IPGRI Web Journal

Final Presentation To IPGRI

Today I delivered a final presentation to a large group representing IPGRI stakeholders in publishing, editorial, design, library, research, IT and marketing departments.

The presentation summarized all of the steps taken during this project and how IKONOS had arrived at the preparation of the three final reports (Action Plan, Project Brief and Technology Evaluation).

I introduced and explained the importance of the three final reports and provided some specific recommendations on how to porceed with the project.

]]> These included:

Keep the ball rolling
Take advantage of the high involvement of many staff members and key stakeholders to make this project move forward.

Enable an ongoing grassroots communication progress and sustain it
Enable an individual (or more in turns) to carry forward the project
Let one out of the several voluntary staff members that have shown high interest in the progress of this project, take over a weekly email reporting of the progress made and the key agenda items to be addressed.

Allow some initial upgrading, revisions and improvement to the present web site to start taking place. Leverage the good will of the many IPGRI staff involved and allow a small committee to take a sustained improvement process on the existing site. Carefully dose this parallel focus as not to drain key energies and resources from the main strategic plan.

Next steps:

A number of steps can be immediately taken to move the project forward. Some of these may be started in parallel, depending on the number of internal and external resources devoted to each. Initial steps that can eb immediately moved forward are:

a) Project Brief refinement

b) Comparative Analysis

c) Log Analysis (analysis of site traffic through server log files)

d) Editorial Team and Strategy definition

PowerPoint presentation.

Luigi Canali De Rossi

Final reports and documents, online delivery

All final (revised and corrected) documents and reports, produced during this consultation process are now available online:

]]>

IKONOS' Final Reports

Action Plan Report

Project Brief

Technology Evaluation Report

IKONOS' Surveys, Project Journal Reports and Presentations

Online Journal

Survey 1 Part (1/2) Report

Survey 1 Part (2/2) Report

Survey 2 Report

Survey 3 Report

Presentation: Issues

Presentation: Solutions

IPGRI's Background Documents

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.

Migrating to a Content Management System: suggestion

Massimo Buonaiuto sent me this e-mail:

QUOTE

Dear Massimo and Luigi et al.,
I am sending you a document I prepared more than one year ago about a
possible migration of the content from IPGRI Web site to a CMS.

It was just a draft, and probably the migration would cost less in terms of
resources, but I think it could arise good points to discuss.

Of course, comments are very welcome in the meanwhile...

Regards,
Massimo B.

UNQUOTE

Donwload Massimo Buonaiuto's CMS Report and send-in your comments.

Second survey: a success!

Dear all,
the second online survey closed successfully yesterday with an incredible amount of participation.

If you want to know more don't miss the third and last meeting IKONOS will hold tomorrow at IPGRI Roma.

Remember that anybody can contribute using the general comments forum here available and that another opportunity to give your final opinion will be given to all after the last meeting.

Thanks to everybody for your generous and precious contribution.

See you live/online tomorrow.

The Action Plan Map: follow the flow

To better allow you to understand the flow of the process outlined in the Action Plan Map, here is an updated map with the process tree.

If you have already replied to the Survey questionnaire: no problem! Use the General Comments Forum to share your comments, opinions and feedback with the group.

Take the Second Online Survey

The goal of the Second Online Survey is to validate the Action Plan Map collaboratively build during the Second Meeting.

Before replying to the survey be sure to have carefully reviewed:

The Issues Presentation (ZIP 2.5MB)

First Survey: Results (PDF)

Prioritizing the priorities (report of 2nd meeting)

When you are ready:

Click here to take the Second Online Survey

Prioritizing the priorities (report of 2nd meeting)

We need to rework the IPGRI Web home page NOW (and maybe the regional home pages too) � this was one of the strongest reactions coming out of the second consultation workshop. But more of that later. Read on....

]]> After a few false starts, we managed to get the video link with INIBAP headquarters up on the screen and get the show on the road � thanks to Dario, Warren and Carlo for their efforts (which Paul then promptly managed to mess up!). And thanks to Claudine, H�l�ne, Thomas and Elizabeth for joining us by video link.

Luigi opened with an outline of the process: a recap of the previous week�s meeting, the Web questionnaire and the Web forum to discuss the issues highlighted. �We had received 27 responses to the questionnaire by yesterday afternoon,� he noted, �with hundreds of comments and suggestions.� This feedback clearly separated the issues into ones that people feel are most important, and those that are less important. Details of the Web questionnaire responses are posted on the Web forum.

Luigi and Massimo (Curatella) started with the issues that respondents gave the lowest priority to: Comparative analysis, Other distribution channels (nice to be able to do, but not an immediate need) and Community building (important but not urgent) � no real surprises or argument there.

But then came �Managing a decentralized Web publishing system�, ranked only 15th. Several people in the meeting expressed surprise at this lowly ranking. Ruth said she felt that this is one of our most important problems, but that it is intimately linked with the publishing workflow (which ranked at number 5). Massimo C said that he felt that adopting a common set of tools, together with a clear workflow, would largely take care of this issue. Ruth stressed that this is an issue of coordination, not control. The Web �team� needs to market the services it can provide to encourage content providers to work with the team on the core Web site.

�Customer support�, ranked 14, also caused some surprises � many of the group felt it should have ranked higher. Massimo Buonaiuto pointed out that some sub-Web sites provide support to the users, but there is room for a lot of improvement. �User participation� came in at number 13, with a lot of comments on the Web survey. Ruth raised concerns about the stated goal of making the IPGRI Web site a portal to genetic resources information generally, questioning whether IPGRI really has the capacity or mandate to do this.

For some of us, the biggest surprise was that �Understanding, monitoring and evaluating end-user needs� was ranked 11th � �Fundamental,� said one Web survey respondent.

�Updating the audience� (9) raised many comments, especially on different audiences and their needs, but Luigi summed it up by saying, �Users expect to be able to �pull� information from the Web � our job is to help them pull what they want.�

There was general consensus that �Separating content from design� is a �must do�. Maria raised the need for an inventory and analysis of what we already have on the Web site, to help decide what should go into the new system. Much of the material there is out of date or needs to be revised before being put on a new Web site, she said.

But of all the issues discussed, the one that provoked the strongest, most urgent response was �Institutional identity� � Ruth stated that she had not realized how much of a problem our graphical home page was for users with poor Internet connections (Luigi�s figures show up to 90 second load times). �We need to change the home page TODAY,� she said, a suggestion that most people agreed with.

Putting the priorities in order

The last part of the meeting focused on putting the 11 �high priority� issues in a logical sequence to address them (and the addition of one priority issue that we had overlooked � the Project Brief, with mission statement etc to guide the process).

This sequence goes something like this: Project brief; User needs assessment (with Comparative analysis), Content organization and inventory, Separating content from design (considering Language and Compatibility issues), followed by a whole bunch of related areas � Luigi and Massimo took photographs of �plan� or �map� as they called it, which I hope they will put on the Web Forum � it made some sense there!

Luigi and colleagues will be translating this into another questionnaire, to verify the work we all did today � and I look forward to everyone�s participation in the next phase.

New Feature: Post your General Comments

Among the other dedicated discussion forums now you have a new facilitiy to add your general comments or any other contribution you think does not fit anywhere else.

Post your General Comments

NOTA BENE: the General Comments forum is always accessible from the side bar of any page of this Web site.

How many pages in IPGRI Web site?

According to Massimo Buonaiuto that the IPGRI Web site consists of over 8000 Web Pages (without considering P.A. web site), linked together by more than 12,000 internal hyperlinks. There are more than 550 PDF files, and more than 120 tables of databases published on line.

One interesting thing is the huge difference in the number of pages under the different categories and Regional Offices. The "champion" is the APO Office, with over 3000 pages.

What causes this difference? Is it the amount of information there is to share, or the nature of the information or the audiences? Is it the amount of time dedicated to Web work? I would like to hear more about this.

]]> Web pages hosted by IPGRI:

Main web site 1,224
Agrobiodiversity 142
CAS 14
Events 7
Geneflow 21
Institutes 140
PgrNewsletter 70
Publication 180
Reports 12
COGENT 275
ECPGR 62
Euforgen 271
GRST 74
INIBAP 167
SGRP 5
Americas 678
APO 3,342
CWANA 1,224
Europe 174
SSA 100

Total 8,182

Contribute to the Re-Design

1. View the Issues

Downlad the slides prepared by Luigi Canali and Massimo Curatella of IKONOS New Media and delivered by them during the first meeting held at IPGRI on 14 July 2004: IPGRI Web Presentation (ZIP 2.5MB)

2. Take the survey

Comment and rate each of the issues reaised during the first meeting held at IPGRI on 14 July 2004: IPGRI Web Survey

3. Discuss each critical issue

Provide your extra thoughts and considerations on all the issues collected so far before, during and after the discussion process. Each link is supposed to provide a discussion forum to create a thread where all stakeholders can participate: members present at the meetings, IPGRI staff, external staff.

In parenthesis: number of replies.

Usability and accessibility

Compatibility

Publishing workflow

Separate content from design

Content organization

Understanding user needs

Customer support

User participation

Building Loyalty

Visibility, exposure

Updating the audience

News publishing

Other distribution channels

Transparency, credibility

Institutional identity

Comparative analysis

Decentralized Web sites

Multiple languages

Report of 1st Consultation

Paul Neate opened the meeting with a brief overview of the background to and objectives of the consultation. �The IPGRI Web site is about 5 years old, and it is time to take a fresh look at it in light of developments in technologies and the institute�s new overall strategy.� IPGRI�s media and public awareness strategies and its draft communications strategy all emphasize the importance of the Web site as a medium for engaging a wide range of audiences globally. This study will help us evaluate the site�s strengths and weaknesses and plan its development over the coming years.

Luigi Canali and Massimo Curatella of IKONOS outlined the overall consultation process, and elaborated on 16 key issues that have been identified through initial consultations with IPGRI staff, an initial analysis of the site and background documents provided (see IPGRI Web Presentation below). �The outcome of the process will be a strategic action plan for the development of the IPGRI Web site, and an assessment of alternative technologies, tools and resources needed to make it happen.� The focus of this first step is on identifying the key issues. As Massimo Curatella said, �Let�s pretend that everything is possible and focus on what is desirable.�

The key points raised during the discussion are outlined below, organized by the issue number used in the Web questionnaire.

]]>

1. Publishing workflow/team issues

Writing for the web is different from writing for print
- Need to educate and guide Web authors

Content going stale � content lifecycle issue

Publishing workflow
- �Empowering� workflow
- Need to engage authors
- More editors
- Better quality control
- Need a Web editor

Need more internal communication between different groups (scientists, editors, librarians, IT, focal points) to develop and improve content
- Communities of practice

2. Separating content from design

Reusability of content

Visual messages
- Strategic approach required

3. Understanding, monitoring and evaluating end user needs

Small usability tests with IPGRI staff, visitors, at meetings

7. Content organization

How do we go about doing this better?
- Need to understand user needs better � better monitoring of visits, user surveys (e.g. Americas office survey underway), usability tests etc (see Issue 3)
- Clearer definition of audiences, and decision on which we will prioritize (but must recognize that some people will be �left out� � provide feedback mechanism to engage them)
- Iterative, participative approach, brainstorming sessions to visualize and test structures
- Look at what others are doing
- Neighbourhood pages to group content by audience
- Importance of metadata (But how will authors handle this?)

Personalized content is desirable

11. Building loyalty � linking the audience

Newsletter, RSS feeds etc to pull visitors back to the site (related to user needs assessment and content organization)

Need for more interaction with audiences � provide them with opportunities to contribute content, e.g. through �Discuss this article� threads

16. Other distribution channels

Need more distribution options � e.g. e-mail newsletters

New issues
17. Decentralization issues

Key needs for (external) (sub) sites
- Responsiveness
- Timeliness
- Speed
- Flexibility

Opposition to centrally imposed tools, framework, approach -- want to do it their way

But organization needs to maintain a coherent corporate image and knowledge base

Quality control issues

Focal point accountability

Need for web editor

18. Support for multiple languages

Support for multiple languages needed
- More resources
- Cooperative win-win partnerships

Technical issues

How to manage legacy content? ( More than 1000 pages in current site)

Importance of flexibility of new CMS