Website Review and
Transformation Project
Senior Management Meeting
23 May 2017
Current site
Summer 2016 review conclusions
No content
governance
framework
700Contensis
users
14,000 pages
Sub optimal
user
experience
Visual design
created 2010
Platform
setup 2010
Risks as a result
CMA noncompliance
risk
Missed
opportunities
Brand and
reputation
damage
Copyright and
permission
risk
Options available
1.
Update
2.
Rebuild
3.
Transform
Option recommended
2.
Rebuild
Project Board established autumn
2016
Agreed the aims of a new site
1. Meets or exceeds audience expectations
2. Optimised for mobile devices
3. Uses sustainable governance model
4. Contains accurate, high-quality content
5. Compliant
6. Stable
7. Secure
Confirmed project scope
In scope
Out of scope
The external website:
Content, structure, visual design and
technical setup
The intranets* and content of other
internal sites e.g. Campus Connect
External website’s relationship with
other university web services and
platforms e.g. Pure, Moodle,
Intranets*, Campus Connect
Design, functionality, purpose of
other university platforms e.g. Pure,
Moodle, Campus Connect
Website content strategy and
governance, and interaction with
Royal Holloway social media
platforms and content
Development of social media sites.
While these are not directly in scope,
the content strategy and governance
will influence use of these platforms
* Some content outflow from websites to intranet may require development of intranets
Confirmed audiences for the new website
Prospective students
Supporters /
collaborators
3rd parties
Internal
stakeholders
Established project principles
• Phased and managed roll out
− No grand opening
− Ongoing, iterative development from January 2018
• Stakeholder involvement
− Regular updates via internal communication channels
− F2F management presentations
− Ongoing workshops to gather insight and feedback
• Dynamic membership of Project Board to reflect
project needs
Identified implications for stakeholders
• Content creation / management / maintenance will
need to continue to be shared across the organisation
• Content creation will need to be supported by a new
content governance framework;
- Clearer roles / responsibilities
- Streamlined / consistent workflow processes
• To achieve the content requirements;
- Training, best practice and support must be improved
- CMS must be reviewed
Proposed model for content governance
Overall structure, user experience framework, templates and
content guidelines
Department
content creators
Department
content approvers
Marketing and
Communications
oversight and
support
CMS review must be requirement driven
Establish requirements for website
Apply to current CMS
Apply to shortlist of alternative CMSs
Website that meets users’ needs and
supports audience requirements
Overview timeline established
2017
Spring
term
Requirement
gathering and
specification
Summer
term
Design and
build ITT
Proposition
development
2018
Summer
Autumn
term
Define, validate, design and
build
Content
development
Migration,
test and train
Spring
term
Summer
term
Phased and managed roll out of
minimum viable product (MVP)
Release 1:
target
end Jan
Release 2, 3,
4…reflecting
web traffic dips
Identifying requirements
Stage overview
• Build on Website Review project and work of
Project Board to
− Consult priority audiences and staff stakeholders
− Define detailed requirements for a new website
− Define detailed requirements for the CMS
− Produce key deliverables to inform the implementation
stage
Audiences and stakeholders
Audiences
UG prospects
PGT prospects
PGR prospects
International
prospects
Biological Sciences
Computer Science
Drama, Theatre
and Dance
History
Information
Security Group
Management
MLLC
Music
Physics
Psychology
SR&P
Admissions
Research and
Enterprise
Campus Services
Conferencing and
Events
Careers and
Employability
Stakeholders
Deliverables
User journey
document
Information
architecture
Content
strategy
Functionality
and features
Content
governance
CMS
requirements
Minimum Viable Product strategy identified
• Jan 2018 deadline was identified in March 2016 and
reflected website down time, which links directly to
the recruitment cycle
• Today, this is looking like a very ambitious first phase
roll out
• Requirements gathering is supporting an MVP
strategy
• Minimum Viable Product: ‘a product with just enough
features to satisfy early customers, and to provide
feedback for future.’
Summary of new site requirements
1. Modern, impactful, user-focused design
2. Mobile responsive/optimised
3. Enables inspirational content
4. Strong search functionality
5. Search engine optimised
6. Defined and supported content governance
7. CMS that is easy to use
8. Stable, secure and compliant
Concept Development
Informing the concept
• Requirements gathering has recommended 3 themes
the website should achieve for all audience groups:
− Inspire the experience
− Share success stories
− Provide guidance and support
• Concept development identifies and tests approaches
that would support these themes
Two concepts tested with priority audiences
Personalisation
Guided journey
Results
Personalisation
Guided journey
• Both concepts deliver benefits
for the primary target
audience.
-
Enthusiasm for personalisation
Recognition that guided / more
direct access to some
information is / becomes more
important
• Next step is to refine feedback
into single optimum concept as
brief for ITT / MVP
Next steps
June – August 2017
• Enter procurement for ‘design and build’ and
CMS using insight gained from requirements
gathering and concept testing
• Conduct content audit
• Agree content migration plan
• Refine content governance framework
Communications plan
Website represents and therefore belongs to the university
Join the club
If you would like to be involved in the project as a
‘validator’ – providing input on key findings and outputs
of the project – please email:
[email protected]
Summary
Project currently broadly on schedule
 Detailed user
requirements
2017
 Spring
Content strategy
Summer
term
term
2018
Autumn
term
Summer
 Governance and
workflow direction
Requirement
CMS requirements
gathering and
specification
Proposition &
SPC Stage 3 and
Build ITT
Design and build
Spring
term
Summer
term
Phased and managed roll
out of minimum viable
product (MVP)
design brief
 Information
architecture Proposition
development
 User journeys
 MVP backlog
Governed Content
development
Migration,
test and
train
Release
1:
target
end Jan
Release 2, 3,
4…
Still faces big challenges
• January deadline for MVP is strategic, but ambitious
− remains the goal, but quality of the new website must not be
compromised to achieve it
• Content audit will identify content that needs to be addressed
− Moving / deleting / archiving in preparation for retained content to
move to the new site will be a shared endeavour, that everyone will need
to help resource
• Content development will also be a shared endeavour
− We will all need to work within a brief and a new governance model
• CMS options are being explored, Contensis not ruled out
− Requirements gathering is informing what a CMS must deliver
To sum up
• Pressing need for a new website
• Must match our needs for recruitment and reputation
• Content will continue to be a collective responsibility
but with clearer ownership
• The CMS needs to work harder to support that
• Commitment is needed from everyone.
• The goal is delivery of the MVP in January
• A strategic but ambitious target.
Questions
Workshop
Practicalities of a content governance model
• New website will involve new approach to content governance; one focused on clear
responsibilities and processes for creating, editing and approving content.
• Looking to identify ‘content creators’ and ‘content approvers’ at department
(academic and professional services) level
−
Content creators:
− Content approvers:
source, create and edit content
approve and publish the above content
• Discussion points for each group are:
− What could the responsibilities of each be?
− What skills, training and support would each need?
− How many of each are required for each department?
− How do we identify these individuals?
− Other considerations?
• Facilitators report back on one key takeaway from each group