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
1
Overview
•
•
•
•
Definitions
Background: HEI web sites
Change
Rational and incremental approaches compared:
– The Robert Gordon University (RGU)
– University of Aberdeen (UoA)
• Conclusions
2
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
3
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
4
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?
5
Required elements
6
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…
7
Resultant problem
8
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outdated/irrelevant/duplicated/incorrect information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
9
Evolution and realisation
10
Conflict - green field vs continuity
Centralised control
Departmental freedom
• 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
• 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
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
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’
15
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
16
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
17
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?
18
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
19
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
20
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
21
Incrementalist Case Study - UoA
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:
22
Incrementalist Case Study - UoA
Possible Negative outcomes
• development is open ended – potentially endless
• development has low visibility
• compromise may dilute site impact
Conclusions 
23
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
24
Cons of rationalist approach at RGU
• 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
25
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”
26
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
27
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
28
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
29
Further Information
Iain Middleton [email protected]
Mike McConnell [email protected]
The Robert Gordon University
http://www.rgu.ac.uk
University of Aberdeen
http://www.abdn.ac.uk
30