At the heart of a unified content strategy is content. Before you can model your content—and, subsequently, unify it—you need to gain an intimate understanding of its nature and structure. During a content audit, you look at your organization’s content analytically and critically, so that you can identify opportunities for reuse and the type of reuse. (Types of reuse are discussed in Chapter 2, “Fundamental concepts of reuse ”.)
You look for similar and identical information, as well as for information that could be similar or identical, but is currently distinct. After you see how your information is being used and reused, you can make decisions about how you might unify it.
This chapter describes what a content audit is and how to perform one; it also provides examples of content audit findings.
A content audit, like the name implies, is an accounting of the information in your organization. However, unlike the usual associations with the word “audit”—associations that strike fear into the hearts of many taxpayers—a content audit has positive results that enable your organization to save money if your findings are implemented. The purpose of a content audit is to analyze how content is used, reused, and delivered to its various audiences. You need to understand how information—as well as the processes to create it—can be unified, eliminating the “cut and paste” method many authors employ in their attempt to unify content wherever possible.
In most traditional authoring environments, if authors want to reuse information they must:
Look at other content in the organization to determine which information they want to reuse.
Find the information in another document or section, or even on another server in another area of the company.
Cut and paste the information from one section of the document to another section, or from one document to another document.
Rewrite or reformat the reused information to fit the new context.
An attempt to unify content in this manner results in multiple (potentially inconsistent) instances of the same piece of information in the document or across documents. These instances are not linked or referenced to one another physically within the authoring or publishing tool. If the information needs to be updated, authors must first locate all instances of reuse, then update each instance separately. This can be an extremely time-consuming process, and introduces much opportunity for error and inconsistency. The content audit is intended to illustrate where there are opportunities to unify content throughout your organization; it provides the basis for your reuse strategy and modeling decisions.
To get started on a content audit within your organization, you need to first identify your scope, then select representative materials within that scope. The larger the scope, the more work is involved, but the greater the return on investment. For more information on calculating return on investment, refer to Chapter 3,“Assessing return on investment for a unified content strategy.”
You don’t have to start big; doing a content audit within one area of an organization can realize significant returns and show members of the organization in other areas how, by including their content, the organization can realize even greater returns. A technical publications group often starts an audit by looking at the content they produce to streamline their procedures and help themselves meet deadlines. During the audit, they realize that the product descriptions in the manuals are similar to the product descriptions the marketing department includes in both their printed brochures and on the external web site. As a result, the two groups get together to decide how to unify the product descriptions so both groups can use them consistently. Although the scope of your audit determines your unified content strategy, even if you start small, you can expand your decisions later on. Be aware, however, that starting small can lead you to make technology choices that may not meet your future needs. If you do start small, select tools that can expand to meet your future needs. Refer to Chapter 13, “Evaluating tools.”
Once you’ve determined the scope of the audit, you need to select representative materials. Select as much content as you can, representing all the different departments included in your scope, not just the content that you create. For example, you could look at samples in the following categories: collateral (including brochures, web site, product packaging, point-of-sale materials, newsletters), press releases, technical specifications, internal support staff materials (often published on the company intranet), user manuals, quick reference cards, as well as any learning materials associated with the product.
When you’re selecting materials, remember that the content audit is a comparative exercise, which means you need to compare like information. Select all the content (for example, the brochure, web site content, user guide, online help, training materials) produced for a single product or service, as well as the content produced for other similar products/services. So, you could select all the content produced for a television and compare it to see how content is used or reused. Is the product description consistent in the brochure, the user guide, and on the web site? Then, you would examine the content for other similar products, such as VCRs, DVD players, or different makes of televisions, looking for similarities and differences. Is the warranty information the same for all products? What about definitions? How similar are troubleshooting procedures for the different television sets?
Once you have gathered together a representative sample of materials, you’re ready to start “digging” into it. This is the fun part and usually involves spreading large amounts of information all over your office, walking around with a highlighter and a stack of sticky notes, highlighting your findings, and taking notes as you go. It’s fun because it doesn’t involve “doing” anything beyond really examining your content closely to see what it contains and how it’s put together. Analyzing materials in this way is a discovery process about your content, something most organizations don’t have the opportunity to do in their day-to-day work. You’re not making any decisions at this point; instead, you’re seeing what you have and making observations about it.
Analyzing content occurs at two levels: at the “top” level of your representative samples, followed by a more detailed examination of the content.
A top-level analysis involves scanning various information products to find common pieces of information (for example, product descriptions, introductory information, procedures, disclaimers, topics, headings within, documents). If you have large documents that include tables of contents, you can compare the tables of contents to find similarities in chapter or section names. Such similarities in labels and headings often indicate similar or identical content within and across a documentation set. Start by spreading your information products out in front of you (or opening them all up on your computer desktop) and highlighting areas that look like they might contain similar information. When you’re finished, compile your results into a table. It should look something like the example shown in Table 6.1 later in the chapter. Your table should list content category and the information product where it appears. Use an “X” to indicate that content appears in an information product. Leave the table cell empty if an information product does not appear to contain that particular content. (Note that the table usually does not represent the entire scope of the content, but only representative portions where reuse is clearly identified.)
During the in-depth analysis, you examine the repeated information you identified during the top-level analysis. Repeated information can be as simple as copyright notices and warranty information, and as complex as whole sections of detail, particularly for product suites. Once you’ve found instances of repeated information to scrutinize more closely, you can lay them out in a tabular format to see them all together, at a glance. (See the examples that follow.) As you look at instances of repeated information, identify whether the content is identical or similar. If it is similar (or almost identical), which parts differ? Do the parts that differ need to differ? Are there valid reasons for differences such as product or information uniqueness? If the parts differ and there is no valid reason for the difference, identify this content as something that should be standardized for reuse in the future.
The following examples show content audit findings for five fictional companies. Each example includes a top-level analysis showing potential content reuse, as well as a small in-depth analysis showing how the company could select a portion of the content for further analysis and interpret the findings.
Example 1 is for a medical devices company that produces blood glucose monitoring meters. Because there are several versions of the meters, the company suspects there may be similarities or inconsistencies in the information products produced for each version.
Example 2 is for a consumer electronics company that produces products such as televisions, VCRs, DVD players, and other television accessories. They produce a great deal of marketing information and are concerned about how their product branding carries over wherever the marketing information is used. They conduct an audit to see how their information is being used on various parts of their own site, as well as on the sites of their resellers.
Example 3 shows the procedures that various bank personnel must follow to certify a check. In this case, different groups often perform similar tasks, and the bank wants to figure out who does what and where the content overlaps. This way, role-based information can be provided to each group, reusing identical components. Accordingly, their audit focuses on role-based dynamic content.
Example 4 shows reuse in learning materials. A business college that teaches investment courses receives feedback from students, complaining that similar information in different courses (or even in the same course) is inconsistent. The college wants to build a database of “reusable learning objects” (RLOs), so that wherever information is repeated, it is the same. In their audit, the college looks for places where the same information is used (for example, places where the same topics are covered, but with a different depth or focus), so that it can ensure the information is consistent.
Example 5 is from the pharmaceutical industry. This industry produces a great deal of information on drug products for different audiences. Example 5 compares the physician’s product information sheet with the patient’s, showing how much of the information can be reused systematically.
Example 1 shows how a medical devices company compares content across information products for blood glucose monitoring meters.
Table 6.1 represents the top-level analysis of their materials.
Table 6.1. Comparing information products for blood glucose monitoring devices
|
Information product | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Content |
Owner’s guide |
Quick reference card |
Quick start guide |
Press release |
Web site |
Brochure |
Product package |
Label (package insert) |
|
Company logo |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Contact information |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Important (read the owner’s guide before…) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X | ||
|
Product description |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X | |||
|
Setting up the meter |
X |
X |
X | |||||
|
Testing the meter |
X |
X | ||||||
|
Sampling the blood |
X |
X |
X | |||||
|
Inserting the test strip |
X |
X |
X |
X | ||||
|
Interpreting the results |
X |
X |
X | |||||
|
Caring for your meter |
X | |||||||
|
Solving problems |
X |
X | ||||||
The top-level analysis shows areas that warrant closer examination. For example, the company logo and contact information are used in every information product and the product description is used in all but three. In addition, a number of topics related to the setup and use of the product are repeated throughout. This top-level analysis shows the findings for just one product: the blood glucose monitoring meter. Expanding the analysis to look at other products in the same family shows that up to 80% of the content could be reused. Looking even further to other related product lines, shows additional commonality in conceptual information about the company and its products.
The results of the top-level analysis are used to drive the in-depth analysis. In this case, the top-level analysis shows similar information in the setup and use of the product as shown in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2. Analyzing content further
|
Owner’s guide |
Quick reference card |
Quick start card |
|---|---|---|
|
Step 1 Insert the test strip. Make sure the contact bars go in end first and facing up. The meter will turn on automatically. - - - appears briefly on the display. Note: The bars must be all the way into the meter to avoid an inaccurate result. |
Step 1 Insert the test strip. After inserted, meter turns on automatically. |
Step 1 Insert a test strip to turn on the meter. |
|
Step 2 Apply the blood sample… |
Step 2 Apply the sample… |
Step 2 - - - appears on the screen. |
|
Step 3 Apply the blood sample… | ||
There are subtle differences in the first two samples (Owner’s guide and Quick reference card), but the third sample (Quick start card) has a different second step. Are the differences necessary or will they confuse users? Quick reference Cards provide concise information so the shorter steps are appropriate. The same holds true for the Quick start guide; however, the second step isn’t really a step. The differences in the steps should be reconsidered.
Although this example shows just a small portion of content, it illustrates the seemingly insignificant, yet critical, variations that can occur in content. In this case, the content would benefit from a unified strategy to ensure that each time the same information appears, it is consistent. The core steps that apply to all information products would remain the same; if some steps require supplementary information (for example, information based on user analysis), it can be “nested” within the core. (See Chapter 2 for types of reuse.) Regardless of how the core steps are supplemented, they remain consistent.
The following example is for a consumer electronics company that produces products such as televisions, VCRs, DVD players, and other television accessories. Their marketing information appears in many places: on the Web, in brochures, in product sheets, in manuals, and so on. Accordingly, the company is concerned about how their branding carries over wherever the marketing information is used. They conduct an audit to see how their information is being used on various parts of their own site (specifically, the e-catalog and e-commerce parts), as well as on their resellers’ sites.
Table 6.3 represents the top-level analysis of the materials for a single product: a television monitor.
The content in the overview of each information product appears similar, but closer examination, as documented in Table 6.4, reveals differences.
Table 6.4. Analyzing the Overviews
|
E-catalog |
E-commerce |
Third-party sites |
|---|---|---|
|
XXX Television 15-inch XXX picture tube |
XXX Television 15-inch XXX picture tube |
Most third-party sites matched the E-commerce site, and a few matched the product catalog. |
|
3-line digital comb filter |
3-line digital comb filter | |
|
Black and silver metallic cabinet |
3 colors available (Blue, Grey, White) | |
|
Sleep timer (15/30/45/60/90) |
2 video inputs (1 at side) | |
|
Front and rear audio/video inputs |
Remote control/sleep timer |
Table 6.5 shows additional inconsistencies in the features information.
Table 6.5. Analyzing the features
|
E-catalog |
E-commerce |
Third-party sites [1] |
|---|---|---|
|
Video features Digital Comb Filter: 3 Line Auto White Balance Tilt Correction Audio features Audio Power: 3w Auto Mute Convenience Auto Channel Programming Front Menu Control Channel Label Favorite Channel (5 Channels) V-Chip Parental Control Clock/Timer (2 event) Sleep (15/30/45/60/90) |
3 Line Digital Comb Filter Auto White Balance Enhanced Audio Power (3 Watts) Side Speaker Auto Mute Auto Channel Programming Favorite Channel (5 Channels) V-Chip Parental Control Sleep Timer (15/30/45/60/90) Clock Timer (2 events) |
3-Line Digital comb filter Headphone output Auto Channel Programming Multi-language display Favorite channel V-chip parental control Clock Timer (15/30/45/60/90) Front and rear audio/video inputs |
[1] One example site only | ||
The overviews say much the same thing, yet there are subtle differences in each sample. Because the differences in content potentially dilute the branding of the product, the company must determine how they want to position the product. What are the most important aspects of the product they should present? Once they know the answer to this question, they can position the product consistently, regardless of where the information appears.
There are further variations in the content about features—content produced by the company and not by a third party. Note the differences between the e-product catalog and the e-commerce content that are shown in Table 6.6.
Both examples say the same thing, so readers are getting the same information. However, the inconsistencies indicate that different people created this content, possibly two or even three people, if you count members of the product team who originally wrote the specification. This means that the work has been done at least three times at three times the cost of one person doing it. If any of these specifications change, the content must be found and changed in three places, which not only increases costs, but introduces the possibility of error. Additionally, if this content is translated to other languages it must be translated each time it appears, increasing the translation costs significantly.
Furthermore, although you cannot directly control what another company does with your information, it is beneficial to provide electronic content to everyone who needs it. That way, third parties can ensure they have consistent and up-to-date information in their materials; after all, even though consumers often buy the product from a third party, the quality of the information reflects on the supplier—in this case, the consumer electronics company. Providing electronic content also helps third parties to reduce their costs, so they may be happier to promote your product.
The preceding analysis is of a small piece of content, but it points out a number of inconsistencies. Further content analysis shows that the differences are common across all the information products. In addition to identifying branding issues, the results of this audit show that the increasing number of content variations can result in significant costs to the organization.
A banking institution has thousands of policies and procedures that branch staff use to conduct their business. Sometimes only one staff member performs a task; sometimes multiple staff members perform the same task or portions of the task. The bank wants to figure out who does what and where the content overlaps, so they can provide dynamic role-based content to each group, reusing identical components. Their top-level analysis shows opportunities for reuse in many procedures, so they chose one to examine more closely—the procedure to certify a check.
Three different groups can perform the task to certify a check (the side counter person, the teller, and the supervisor). Their procedures are shown in Table 6.7.
Table 6.7. Comparing procedures to certify a check
|
Side counter |
Teller |
Supervisor |
|---|---|---|
|
Purpose: To provide a certified check to customers in less than five minutes. |
Purpose: To provide a certified check to a customers in less than five minutes. |
Purpose: To provide certified check to customers in less than five minutes. |
|
Where possible, this process should be perceived as simple and fast for the customer. |
Where possible, this process should be perceived as simple and fast for the customer. | |
|
1. Ask for personal identification to ensure the identity of the customer. |
1. Check the customer’s personal identification to verify identity. | |
|
Use SystemXYZ to determine that there are sufficient funds in the account and that no future dated transactions are pending. |
Use SystemXYZ to determine that there are sufficient funds in the account and that no future dated transactions are pending. | |
|
2. Verify the customer has sufficient funds in the account. |
2. Check the balance of the customer’s account to verify he has sufficient funds. | |
|
3. Use certified check form CQ123 and complete the following:
|
3. Use certified check form CQ123 and complete the following:
| |
|
4. Use the check embosser to impress the amount onto the form. |
4. Emboss the amount of the check with the check embosser. | |
|
5. If the amount is over $1000, have your supervisor verify the transaction. |
5. If the amount is over $1000, have your supervisorverify the transaction. | |
|
When a certified check is brought to you for verification it is important to verify all the details to avoid fraud. | ||
|
1. Verify the identity of the customer, and the certified check details. | ||
|
6. Withdraw the funds from the account. |
6. Withdraw the funds from the account. | |
|
7. Provide the customer with the certified check and a copy of the transaction. |
7. Provide the customer with the certified check and a copy of the transaction. | |
The procedures for the side counter person and the teller are very similar; steps 1, 2, and 4 are worded slightly differently, and steps 3, 5, 6, and 7 are identical. Steps 1, 2, and 4 could easily be made identical, making the entire procedure the same for both the side counter and teller. The procedure for the supervisor is quite different, but the title and purpose are the same.
Because of their similarities, the procedures could be unified to a single procedure for the teller and the side counter person. The procedure for the supervisor could reuse content from this unified procedure. Analysis of other bank procedures reveals similar patterns. Based on their audit findings, the bank can be confident in creating dynamic content, specific to roles.
A business college teaches classes in investment strategies, targeted to both practitioners seeking further education or accreditation in financial planning, as well as people who just want more information about their own investment planning. After receiving a number of student feedback forms complaining about inconsistencies in the content, the college decided to conduct an audit of their materials, in an attempt to unify common information. The college wants to build a database of “reusable learning objects” so that wherever information is repeated, it is the same. Their audit focuses on looking for places where the same information is used so that they can ensure it is consistent.
A top-level analysis of four courses shows that much content is repeated in a number of different course textbooks:
Table 6.8. Comparing course content
|
Content |
Found in |
|---|---|
|
Income Tax Planning |
Course 1 ch. 7 Course 2 entire course Course 3 ch. 4 Course 4 ch. 5 |
|
Investment Strategies |
Course 1 ch. 10 Course 2 ch. 6 Course 3 ch. 8 Course 4 entire course |
|
Retirement Planning |
Course 1 entire course Course 2 ch. 3 Course 3 ch. 2 Course 4 ch. 7 |
|
Wills and Estates |
Course 1 ch. 13 Course 2 ch. 8 Course 3 entire course Course 4 ch. 8 |
The top-level analysis indicates that there is much repetition of certain subject areas throughout the different courses, and although the focus and the level of detail may be different from course to course, content should be examined more closely to determine whether there are inconsistencies, and to see whether there are similarities that could potentially be unified.
A more in-depth analysis of the topics on investment strategies shows similarities in the overviews of Course 2, which touches on investment strategies, and Course 4, whose entire focus is investing. Table 6.9 outlines the similarities.
Table 6.9. Analyzing Course Content Further
|
Course 2 topics |
Course 4 topics |
|---|---|
|
The investment planning process |
An overview of investment planning |
|
Taxable and non-taxable investments |
High risk versus low risk investments |
|
When to invest for optimum tax benefits |
Investing to reduce taxes |
|
Tax on investment income |
How much to invest and when |
|
Sources of investment income |
Note that many of the topics covered in Course 2 are similar to the topics in Course 4—similar enough that they should be compared to see whether they are inconsistent, where they differ, where they should differ, and where they are alike.
Closer examination of each topic shows that much of the content in “investing to reduce taxes” and “taxable and non-taxable investments” is similar. This is also the case for “how much to invest and when” and “when to invest for optimum tax benefits.” The information on the investment planning, though, is inconsistent.
The findings in both the top-level and in-depth analyses show numerous opportunities for the college to reuse content as well as correct inconsistencies. Correcting discrepancies is critical in learning materials; students learn information one way, then when they encounter an inconsistency in a future course (or sometimes even the same course), they have to either figure out which version is correct or deal with conflicting information. This is especially critical in an e-learning environment where the materials themselves become the instructor; students often don’t have another source to help them figure out what’s wrong, or even to discover that something might be wrong. Some students may not notice inconsistencies, and may learn incorrect information.
After discrepancies are corrected, information can be chunked into RLOs and reused in whichever course is appropriate. If more detail is required to teach the same topic in a more advanced course or to accommodate different learning objectives, information can be added to the RLO, each level of detail comprising another RLO. Wherever the “core” RLO is used, however, it is consistent.
The pharmaceutical industry produces masses of information on new drug products for different audiences: product information sheets for regulatory agencies (such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) and doctors, and pamphlets, brochures, and information inserts for patients. Doctors use the product information sheets, also known as labels, to learn the uses for the drug and how to prescribe and administer the treatments. The information includes indications (conditions that the drug will alleviate), dosages, warnings, and so on. In addition, there are different information sheets for patients. These are the pamphlets, brochures, and information inserts you find in the drug packaging when you purchase the product.
A comparison between the table of contents for a physician’s product information sheet and a patient’s information insert for an asthma medication shows numerous similarities. Figure 6.1 shows the tables of contents for both samples and the content relationship between the two.
The headings provided for physician and patient are obviously different, but all the content in the patient’s information sheet appears in the physician’s information sheet as well, indicating that much of the information can be reused. The difference is primarily in the organization of content. In addition, although the content is the same, the language in the patient information sheet has been simplified to increase readability.
This example clearly indicates there are a number of opportunities for paragraph reuse. A unified content strategy would enable the content to be systematically reused in alternate structures. Once the content appears in alternate structures, authors can create derivative versions of the original to increase readability for the patient version. Reusing content in this manner ensures it is the same and accurate in all locations; also, if the source content changes, the derivative content authors are notified of the change so they can maintain consistency and accuracy in their derivative versions.
While you are analyzing your content, it’s a good idea to build a reuse map. A reuse map identifies which elements of your content are reusable, where they are reusable, and whether they should be reused identically or derivatively. The person responsible for setting up your content management system will use the map to set up the reuse logic. For now, the reuse map serves to keep track of potential reuse and it will be refined further when you create your information models (see Chapter 8, “Information modeling”). The map uses the symbols shown in Table 6.10 to indicate the types of reuse.
Table 6.10. Reuse symbols
|
Reuse |
Symbol |
|---|---|
|
Identical |
I |
|
Derivative |
D |
|
Source [2] |
S |
[2] Note that “Source” is somewhat arbitrary. In an audit, it is simply the first document to which you compare other documents. Later, when you create content, it is the first instance of the content. Your processes may define which content should be created first and therefore define your source. | |
For example, the reuse map for the medical devices example would look like the one shown in Table 6.11.
Table 6.11. Reuse map for blood glucose monitoring devices
|
Content |
Owner’s guide |
Quick reference card |
Quick start |
Press release guide |
Web site |
Brochure |
Product package |
Label (package insert) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Company logo |
I |
I |
I |
I |
I |
I |
I |
I | |
|
Contact information |
I |
I |
I |
I |
I |
I |
I |
I | |
|
Important (read the owner’s guide before…) |
I |
I |
I |
I |
I |
I | |||
|
Product description |
D |
D |
I |
S |
D | ||||
|
Setting up the meter |
S |
D |
D | ||||||
|
Testing the meter |
S |
D | |||||||
|
Sampling the blood |
S |
D |
D | ||||||
|
Inserting the test strip |
S |
D |
D |
D | |||||
|
Interpreting the results |
S |
D |
D | ||||||
|
Caring for your meter |
S | ||||||||
|
Solving problems |
S |
D |
D | ||||||
As shown in the previous examples, a content audit can help you determine how to reuse content across a number of different information products. Where content is different, does it have to be different? Can information that is similar be made identical? Are there reasons for it being similar as opposed to identical (product name, for example)? Should content in one media be identical to most of the content in another media (for example, on paper versus on the Web)? How will your information products be used and are there valid reasons to distinguish them from each other (for example, to accommodate differences in users and their needs)? These are the types of questions that you need to answer as you develop an intimate understanding of the content in your information products.
Once you’ve done a thorough, critical analysis of your content and drawn up a reuse map, do the following:
Summarize your findings in an analysis report, which contains your observations about the content and what you learned about your current content life cycle. (See Chapter 5, “Analyzing the content life cycle.”) You use the analysis report to confirm your findings with other members of your team (whose content you may have analyzed during the audit). You also present it to others in your organization whose support you will need to move ahead with your unified content strategy.
Document your recommendations and your plan for a unified content strategy. Include information on the new content life cycle, because it will be supported by a unified content strategy. (See Chapter 7, “Envisioning the unified content life cycle.”) Again, present your report to others in your organization whose support or approval you will need as you move forward with a unified content strategy. For example, you may need to request additional funds—beyond your established budget—for some of the research and design.
Doing a thorough content audit is critical to implementing a reuse strategy because it tells you how content is currently being used, how it could be reused, and what needs to be done to create effective unified content.
Establish the scope of the audit, remembering to look beyond one document set. Look at content across media and across content areas to see the potential for reuse.
Select representative samples of your content, based on the scope of your project.
Examine a document’s TOCs and top-level structure for structural or heading similarities so you can determine where to look further.
Look at selected samples closely, making observations about how information is used and how it could be reused. Decide whether differences are necessary, what information should be unique, and what information must be consistent.
Draw up a reuse map that illustrates potential reuse of information elements, as well as the type of reuse.