Sue Steele, Manager, Web Resources and Development, Information Technology Services [HREF1] , Building 203, Monash University [HREF2], Victoria, 3800. Sue.Steele@its.monash.edu.au
This paper outlines the process used at Monash University to develop a university-wide web strategy. The strategy development process enabled broad stakeholder engagement. The process and the resulting strategy document were positively received.
Walter and Scott (2006) identified the top five web related strategic issues as
They also noted that "there is almost no agreement with respect to Internet/Web planning processes and that nothing approaching best practices has yet emerged for Internet strategy development".
This paper outlines the process used at Monash University to develop a university-wide web strategy that addresses the issues outlined above. The strategy was developed and endorsed within a 5 month period, a relatively short time for Monash. The author does not presume it is the best practice model, but rather a practical process that may prove useful for other organizations.
Monash University's Information Management Strategy [HREF3] called for development of "a comprehensive over-arching web strategy as a matter of urgency." The web at Monash was widely recognized as both a major opportunity and an issue at enterprise and local levels. The problem was often seen as an IT issue, or at least one IT ought to resolve. University IT sees web strategy as an enterprise wide issue, not an IT-based one, and wanted to ensure any strategy developed was seen from an enterprise-wide perspective and not driven by an IT agenda.
Web strategy development was to be spearheaded by an IT project team. Thus there was a real danger that any strategy produced would be seen as an IT one, or at least as following an IT agenda. It was decided to engage an independent consultant to oversee the process and develop the strategy to first draft stage. This step had the desired result. The process outlined below is best conducted by an independent facilitator, but would work well with any experienced facilitator.
A five stage process was used:
The facilitator examined the university web presence, university planning documents to gain familiarity with the university, its strategies and web site issues.
Four members of the university's web steering committee were interviewed to understand senior stakeholder issues and views and to set direction for the group workshops. Stakeholders represented two faculties, administration and university advancement. Interviews were conducted by the facilitator, with IT project team members observing. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. Questions were open ended. Areas covered:
Four half-day workshops were conducted. The first was a full dress rehearsal with six volunteer IT staff. This step was essential and ensured the success of the other sessions. The other three consisted of 7 or 8 invited participants (or their nominees) representing faculty and divisional IT managers, senior administrative staff, research staff, teaching staff, marketing staff. Invitees were selected because of their known interest in the area, because they were suggested/recommended by interview subjects, because of their membership of key university committees, to ensure adequate representation from a good range of faculties and key business areas.
Workshop activities included a range of individual, small and large group tasks to provide variety in an otherwise very intensive 3 to 4 hour session. The independent facilitator conducted the workshops with IT observers. Areas covered:
Workshop outcomes were progressively collated and made available to participants for comment/correction. The information gathered from each workshop was very similar.
All faculty and divisional managers were invited to an open forum, with an option to nominate/invite any people they thought relevant and/or interested. Approximately 50 people attended.
During the first half of the forum the information gathering process was explained and findings presented. It was stressed that these findings would form the basis of the web strategy. The second half was an open discussion, an opportunity to raise issues or omissions in the findings so far. There was overwhelming support for the process and confirmation of the information gathered. One additional point was raised.
The facilitator synthesized the information gathered into a draft strategy, with comment and input from the IT project team. The final draft received was 'localised' (mostly inserting university specific terminology) before submission to the university's Information Management Steering Committee. The Committee endorsed the web strategy without amendment, other than the addition of an introduction linking the web strategy to the information management strategy.
The web strategy development process was positively received. A broad range of stakeholders were involved, and were very supportive of the process and the strategic directions recommended. The process ensured wide consultation, and ownership of the resulting strategy. It also stressed that it was an enterprise-wide strategy, not an IT one.
Walter, Zhiping and Scott, George. 'Management issues of Internet/Web systems', Communications of the ACM, 2006, V49, N3, pp87-91.