1

Rationalism vs. Incrementalism: two opposing or complementary strategies for effecting change in HEI web development

Mike McConnell Iain A. Middleton

Online Information, 4th December 2001, London

2

Overview

• Definitions• Background: HEI web sites• Change • Rational and incremental approaches compared:

– The Robert Gordon University (RGU)– University of Aberdeen (UoA)

• Conclusions

3

Definitions

Rationalism - the project approach• Define the desired future state • Identify the activities and allocate the resources

required to achieve it

Incrementalism- the process approach• Can’t necessarily define ideal future state • Recognise limited resources• Acknowledge need for compromise

4

Why do HEIs need web sites?

Sell Services

Courses, research, consultancy, etc.

Facilitate relationships and communication

Academic, student, research partners, peers, clients, communities local and national

and thus

Represent the whole institution

5

Characteristics of HEI web sites

• heterogeneous audience• not just one goal but many• multi-purpose site• many & diverse independent contributors, each with

own agenda

How do we build a coherent institutional web site from such diversity?

6

Required elements

7

Reality

Historical reasons for having a web site

• Because we can:– The technology is there

• I suppose we ought to:– Everybody else has one

• Amateurs/enthusiasts– I can do HTML!– I want to advertise my research– I have a hobby…

8

Resultant problem

9

Consequences

• no overall editorial goal• is it any more than the sum of its parts? • competing priorities that become conflicts• patchwork of technologies and tools• uncoordinated/inconsistent/patchy • outdated/irrelevant/duplicated/incorrect information

Result: poor reflection of the institution

10

Evolution and realisation

11

Conflict - green field vs continuity

Centralised control

• Desire at senior level for “a better web site”

• If we spend £x we could get one like theirs

• We want consistency• Branding!• Exists to sell the

institution• The university web site

Departmental freedom

• What about all the work we’ve already done?

• We’re used to doing it this way

• We’re unique• No thanks• Exists for our own many

individual purposes• Our web site

12

Revolution – or evolution?

• Change from collection of pages to institutional communications asset essential

• Continuity of existing information ecology is also vital• Need a path which satisfies both the need for change

and continuity

Examples of 2 different paths

13

Rationalist Case Study - RGU

Where we were:

• c 20,000 pages• 1 central & 5 independent servers• pockets of proactivity and enthusiasm:

• Patchwork by outsourcers, individuals, enthusiasts

• no supported authoring tool, minimal training• non-representation, non-participation of key areas

• ownership and responsibility grey areas

14

Rationalist Case Study - RGU

Decision to act

• consensus on need for change• common ground with “web enablement” vision • representations to SMT from Web Editor &

departments• insufficient resource, skills, tools and support under

existing setup

Result: significant resources were made available

15

Rationalist Case Study - RGU

Project approach - objectives:

• support and enhance student recruitment• site-wide consistency of appearance• implement non-technical publishing• web-enable specific business processes• be ‘recognised as leader’

16

Rationalist Case Study - RGU

Implementation:

• management driven• project board and team established• key players identified• discussion/development groups established• deliverables defined• timescales and deadlines set

17

Rationalist Case Study - RGU

Positive Outcomes

• delivered on time, within budget• attractive, accessible web site• all content areas represented• easy, browser based publication• technological infrastructure

18

Rationalist Case Study - RGU

Possible negative outcomes

• did tight timescale give long-term answer?• focus on product – but procedure?• other work frozen for duration of project• content quality control • legacy site confusion• will new publication tools suit future needs?

19

Incrementalist Case Study - UoA

Where we were:

• c 100,000 pages• 1 central and 8 major independent servers• large, active devolved body of authors• most parts represented - but variable quality

20

Incrementalist Case Study - UoA

Decision to act:

• process approach/guided evolution - a framework for future development

• non prescriptive• broad/flexible remit: “ensure an effective and

professional presence… through design, maintenance & consultation”

• focus on facilitating organic growth/participation

21

Incrementalist Case Study - UoA

Implementation:

• web strategy group• web team

• manager (information skills) • webmaster (technical skills)• developers

• web co-ordinators ‘community’• standard authoring tool + training• two way process

22

Positive Outcomes

• depts and SMT involved• policies and procedures established• tools, training and support• free editorial and advisory service• cost effective in-house resource for authoring• depts are willing to pay for professional service

environment created for ongoing definition and delivery of solutions:

Incrementalist Case Study - UoA

23

Incrementalist Case Study - UoA

Possible Negative outcomes

• development is open ended – potentially endless• development has low visibility• compromise may dilute site impact

Conclusions

24

Pros of rationalist approach at RGU

• mandated change - stasis not an option• allowed radical thinking• broadened participation• forced issues to be addressed co-operatively• broke down barriers, forged new partnerships• high impact, high visibility• feelgood factor

25

• The right objectives?• how many fingers in the pie?• is success defined appropriately?• does the imperative compromise the long-term?• does the ‘obvious’ compromise the underlying? (e.g.

graphics, technology)

• whatever can be produced in time available• committees – democracy vs progress• action does not follow agreement• perceived as imposition• quality of input & restricted timescale

Cons of rationalist approach at RGU

26

Pros of incrementalist approach at UoA

• inclusive - truly representative of institution• cognoscenti involved in objective setting • focuses on sustaining ecology, not on deliverable• process is transparent• enhances communication• conserves resource• acknowledges objectives are not necessarily

expressed in terms of “a set of web pages”

27

Cons of incrementalist approach at UoA

• change can be slow• charged resource favours wealthier departments• peaks and troughs in demand• popular opinion is not necessarily the best• dependent on key individuals• dependent on departmental ethos - participation not

mandatory• no launch party

28

Remember:

• departments already provide content:– which satisfies their immediate needs– within the limits of their resources, skills and ambition

• if you want more from them they will need :– tools, support, guidance & possibly additional resource– some point/objective/goal which benefits them

• projects are finite; websites (must) keep growing

29

Recommendations

• web strategy– informed by information/ communication strategy and institutional objectives

• information skills – for mapping objectives onto website structures, actions

• buy-in – explain the benefits to key players• provide support - editorial, training, technologies

and tools• set boundaries - structures, guidelines, policy • corporate information – keep a tight rein on it

30

Further Information

Iain Middleton iain@imiddleton.com

Mike McConnell m.mcconnell@abdn.ac.uk

The Robert Gordon University

http://www.rgu.ac.uk

University of Aberdeen

http://www.abdn.ac.uk