7. Website Information Architecture (IA)

Transcription

1 7. Website Information Architecture (IA) 7.1 Section Overview This section of the plan defines Website Information Architecture (IA) at EOEEA, as well as the key rationale and benefits of consolidating Website IAs across the Secretariat. Descriptions of the baseline current state and future state are included in this section, along with a gap analysis of the two states, and the consolidation plan for closing the identified gaps which includes details around key activities, duration, resource needs, key assumptions, and critical path dependencies. 7.2 Defining Website Information Architecture Website Information Architecture at the Commonwealth is defined as follows: The organization, labeling, and navigation schemes within the Mass.Gov information system including standards around a common look and feel and a common user experience for static, web based content. It is important to note that this definition focuses on static web content and does not include any web based applications that may have a front end website. 7.3 Summary of Key Changes for Website IA The key changes IT consolidation will have on EOEEA Website Information Architecture are summarized below: Number of non portalized and rogue websites reduced from 11 to 0 (does not include interactive sites not able to be hosted on Mass.gov) Consistent branding, navigation and overall user experience throughout the entire EOEEA web presence. More accurate, relative and measurable analytics for the entire EOEEA web presence; leading to better focused content and more satisfied visitors. 7.4 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Metrics were identified to help EOEEA monitor its progress in achieving the specific benefits. These metrics are organized by the three main benefit categories efficiency,

2 effectiveness, and information security. The corresponding business value is also described. Efficiency KPIs Business Value KPI Current Measure Target Measure Cost of maintaining existing content and managing new content development is reduced Cost per service request TBD TBD Effectiveness KPIs Business Value KPI Current Measure Target Measure Improved service levels for web content management, maintenance, and information architecture development Response time for content updates turnaround time TBD TBD Information Security KPIs Business Value KPI Current Measure Target Measure Improved span and degree of control over information quality, accuracy, and crossagency integration TBD working with Security team to identify appropriate metric TBD TBD 7.5 Consolidation Levels EOEEA defines the degrees to which website information architecture and the governance thereof is consolidated in three key levels of consolidation: Level 1 Level 2 Less than 50% of agency static web content is integrated into the Mass.Gov portal information architecture and governed by a set of centrally managed standards 50% 99% of agency static web content is integrated into the Mass.Gov portal information architecture and governed by a set of centrally managed standards Level 3 (Target State) All agency static web content is integrated into the Mass.Gov portal information architecture and governed by a set of centrally managed standards Level 3 represents the required target state per Executive Order No. 510.

3 7.6 Current State Baseline EOEEA Website Information Architecture Services is currently at Level 1 of consolidation. Static content migration for the majority of the Executive Office is complete, and 2 of the 6 agencies have completed portalization, but the remaining 4 agencies have not begun the process. There also remains a handful of ad hoc websites identified as potentially still requiring portalization. Given the low degree of website consolidation throughout EOEEA, this plan primarily addresses the specific key activities needed to: portalize the remaining agency and rogue websites, create a centralized web team, and develop governance policies. Agency Core Portalization Complete? Rogue Non Portalized Interactive Websites Identified? EOEEA YES 6 DAR NO 2 DCR NO 2 DEP NO 10 DFG NO 1 DOER YES 1 DPU YES 0 Validated? 7.7 Future State Target The future target state will streamline the user experience and management process for constituents accessing static information on the EOEEA web site and create a central web services team to oversee the management and maintenance of the EOEEA web site. Analysis: Identify record and analyze current content in the existing agency and rogue websites to determine the best way to organize information, and begin streamlining content into logical portal structure. Development: Once the portal structure is finalized agency Web Services Team members develop content to meet newly identified needs. Governance: A formal quality assurance enforcement mechanism and service level agreement WILL BE CREATED to ensure the integrity of the web site architecture remains intact, and to prohibit agencies from outsourcing website development or violating standards.

4 7.8 Gap Analysis Key gaps between the current state of Website Information Architecture and the future target state are summarized in the table below and organized along the key dimensions of governance, technology, people, and service levels. When made available by the Secretariat, supporting data illustrating these gaps are listed below. IT Service Sub Area Analysis Development Governance Current State Consolidation Levels Level Level 2 Level 3 1 Target State Supporting Data Agency and rogue web site to be identified and analyzed to determine where they fit within the EOEEA web presence. Information will be organized into logical portal structure; where necessary new containers will be created to ensure the integrity of the information architecture. Content deemed unnecessary, outdated or redundant will be eliminated. Agency team members develop and organize content to meet newly defined needs. Agreed upon additions and enhancements the EOEEA information architecture to be created and implemented. Existing and newly created content is migrated to the portal followed by extensive testing and QA. Web Services Team to be created from EOEEA and Agency staff to maintain layout, structure, content standards, and formatting for ALL EOEEA content (all of which is hosted on the Mass.gov portal. Manual (to be created) defining standards around content display, navigation, look and feel, and user experience. Web Services team will meet regularly to address major alterations, enhancements, and updates to the overall EOEEA information architecture; as well as to analyze and discuss web analytics, link positioning, content rotations and other user experience related matters. Content approval required prior to the development and posting of content. Public relations approval needed to ensure content is in line with EOEEA/Agency goals and objectives.

5 7.9.1 Consolidation Plan Part I of II: Decommission Rogue Websites Part I of II: Key Activities, Objectives, and Expected Outputs Each key activity listed in the table above is tied to those key objectives and expected outputs generated as a result of executing this activity and listed below: Key Activity Objective (Purpose) Expected Outputs To achieve regular, automated quality assurance processes and checkpoints that will maintain the quality of the overall information architecture Ph 1: Identify Conduct QA identification process for rogue websites and domain names key sources include, but are not limited to, budget expenses (beyond IT e.g., marketing), Mass.Gov Resource Database, results from automated text scans of inline links, Legal departmental reviews, and any customer / user feedback received to date Ph 2: Document and Synthesize Incorporate findings from QA check into Master List (maintained by Mass.Gov Portal Services) Ph 3: Validate and / or Negotiate Discuss, validate, and update findings per working sessions / meetings with Secretariats and / or agencies Ph 4: Plan Determine timeline to decommission identified rogue website Ph 5: Establish and Implement New Governance Model Determine and socialize future state governance for content authorship, content management, and information architecture design To allow for enterprise wide analysis that will help identify opportunities for parallel decommissioning and content migration efforts To increase collaboration between Secretariatlevel service and agencies, and to institute discipline around business value driven exceptions only Cost savings analysis and comparisons List of potential ad hoc rogue websites generated by Mass.Gov Resource Database search Plenary list of inline text links, including other domain names Coordinated, proactive legal reviews Follow up on customer / user feedback Timely, accurate, and plenary log of potential QA conflicts Agency collaboration Documented, business value focused cases for exceptions To set expectations and maintain momentum Work plan with key milestones and activities To set expectations and a shared Roles and responsibilities understanding of the future target state

6 Key Activity Objective (Purpose) Expected Outputs To avoid unnecessary costs and surprises that accompany ad hoc, outsourced services; to maintain common look and feel, standards, and governance; to mitigate legal risks when the Commonwealth is associated with rogue websites Ph 6: Decommission and Migrate Decommission old website and migrate content (per the standard portalization process also outlined in the second part of this plan section) Updated information architecture Appropriately integrated program content Cost reduction Risk mitigation Adherence to standards and guidelines Plan Timeline, Owners, and Support The standard timeline for decommissioning rogue websites and migrating static content to Mass.Gov is primarily driven by the amount of content volume being migrated, and the complexity of integrating that content into the existing information architecture. The number of resources at the Secretariat level and of the agencies is assumed to be sufficient to meet the below typical timeline.

7 Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 Ph 1: Identify Ph 2: Document & Synthesize Ph 3: Validate and / or Negotiate Ph 4: Plan Ph 5: Implement Ph 6: Decommission & Migrate Content volume may be initially estimated by page count in the existing website system, and may be further refined after the content analysis and IA development phases are underway (e.g., some agencies ultimately do not migrate half of their content because it is not relevant to the public or is duplicated elsewhere in the Mass.Gov IA). Content complexity refers to the degree of linkages and dependencies an agency s content may have with other agencies or external entities, in some cases. In those instances, additional working sessions are needed to negotiate the future state IA.

8 Key Activity Start Date End Date Proposed Owner(s) Support Ph 1: Identify Conduct QA identification process for rogue websites and domain names key sources include, but are not limited to, budget expenses (beyond IT e.g., marketing), Mass.Gov Resource Database, results from automated text scans of inline links, Legal departmental reviews, and any customer / user feedback received to date Ph 2: Document and Synthesize Incorporate findings from QA check into Master List (maintained by Mass.Gov Portal Services) Ph 3: Validate and / or Negotiate Discuss, validate, and update findings per working sessions / meetings with Secretariats and / or agencies Ph 4: Plan Determine timeline to decommission identified rogue website Ph 5: Establish and Implement New Governance Model Determine and socialize future state governance for content authorship, content management, and information architecture design Decommission and Migrate: decommission old website and migrate content (per the standard portalization process outlined in the second part of this plan section)

9 7.9.2 Consolidation Plan Part II of II: Core Portalization Plan Once a rogue website is decommissioned, the core portalization process is followed. A typical portalization project lasts anywhere from weeks and typically includes six key phases: 1. Preparation and planning 2. Content analysis and information architecture development 3. Training / content / site building 4. Launch planning, usability testing, user acceptance testing and approval 5. Launch, execute communication plan 6. Post launch support Part II of II: Key Activities, Objectives, and Expected Outputs Each key activity listed in the table above is tied to those key objectives and expected outputs generated as a result of executing this activity and listed below: Key Activity Objective (Purpose) Expected Outputs To establish order and governance to the portalization process Ph 1 Commission centralized team as well as agency liaisons Ph 2 Validate current state across all agencies namely, content volume and current information architecture Ph 3 Review Mass.Gov information architecture and determine migration approach (i.e., migration phases and sequence of agency migrations) To plan the sequence of migrations in an informed manner and to document and understand the baseline To preliminarily understand and plan for major complexities, including potential additions or major restructuring or change management required in the Mass.Gov portal information architecture Ownership of information architecture at both the Secretariat and agency levels; accountability; Secretariat agency collaboration Accurate understanding of content volume, complexity, and baseline; sequencing of upcoming migrations Due diligence of information architecture analysis; thoughtful, flexible, and scalable information architecture that reflects the business needs

10 Key Activity Objective (Purpose) Expected Outputs Same as above (this activity is conducted in tandem with the activity listed immediately above) Ph 3 Design integrated Secretariat wide information architecture Ph 3 & 4 Migrate agency content per schedule and conduct quality assurance Ph 5 Complete agency migration and begin implementation of performance management system (usage, complaints, growth, etc.) Ph 6 Refresh content and information architecture as needed To establish and execute a standardized, repeatable process reflecting leading practices To capture value of changes and enhancements for the business To deliver strategic value to agencies above and beyond content migration and management Same as above (this activity is conducted in tandem with the activity listed immediately above) On time and on budget migrations; consistent, continuous quality assurance Portal traffic counts / hits ; increased C2G customer / constituent interaction with government Cross agency and cross functional innovation and integration Plan Timeline, Owners, and Support EOHHS core portalization spanned approximately 4 years. For other Secretariats, each agency within a Secretariat can portalize per the estimated typical timeline depicted below. Depending on the resources dedicated to a Secretariat wide portalization effort, the durations of the key activities within each phase will vary greatly (e.g., in some cases, 2 3 agencies may migrate content over in parallel or closely staggered timelines). These estimates will be refined for other Secretariat plans as needed.

11 Week 0 Week 4 Week 8 Week 12 Week 16 Week 18 Week 20 Ph 1: Prepare and Plan Ph 2: Analyze Content & Develop IA Ph 3: Build / Migrate Content & Train Ph 4: Test Usability Ph 5: Launch Ph 6: Support Post-launch Key portalization activities are outlined below following the six key phases described above. The durations of each activity will differ depending on the volume of content for each agency and the content complexity. Content volume may be initially estimated by page count in the existing website system, and may be further refined after the content analysis and IA development phases are underway (e.g., some agencies ultimately

12 do not migrate half of their content because it is not relevant to the public or is duplicated elsewhere in the Mass.Gov IA). Content complexity refers to the degree of linkages and dependencies an agency s content may have with other agencies or external entities, in some cases. In those instances, additional working sessions are needed to negotiate the future state IA. Key Activity Start Date End Date Proposed Owner(s) Support Ph 1 Preparation and Planning: Commission centralized team as well as agency liaisons Ph 2 Content Analysis: Validate current state across all agencies namely, content volume and current information architecture Ph 2 Content Analysis: Review Mass.Gov information architecture and determine migration approach (i.e., migration phases and sequence of agency migrations) Ph 2 IA Development: Design integrated Secretariat wide information architecture Ph 3 & 4 Training / Content / Site Building: Migrate agency content per schedule and conduct quality assurance Ph 5 Launch and Communicate: Complete agency migration and begin implementation of performance management system (usage, complaints, growth, etc.) Ph 6 Post launch Support: Refresh content and information architecture as needed

13 7.10 Implementation Considerations Key Assumptions Adequate resources will be dedicated to the centralized Portal Services Team at the Secretariat level and to the agency based teams serving as liaisons between the agency s core business and the Secretariat level Web Services Team Existing content is inventoried even if at a high level, and at a minimum, is identifiable (e.g., no hidden websites or content on unknown websites exist) Centralized Portal Services Team does not author any content; only advises agency content authors on leading practices for information architecture and placement throughout the Mass.Gov portal Critical Path Dependencies Immediate establishment of a dedicated, centralized team and a repeatable scalable content migration process Strong information architecture design capabilities combined with some working knowledge, at a minimum, of the agencies core businesses Information architecture decisions at the agency level are reviewed and approved in a timely manner Broader ITD Portal Services Initiative around a potential tool refresh, including requirements definition targeted for completion by 6/30/2009