KnowledgeBlog

I’m a little late with getting this to press however at the end of July Amanda Broomhall from AIB Consulting held an enlightening and interactive session about Information Architecture and Intranets. The session was organised by the IIM Melbourne chapter. The following summary is my interpretation of the key lessons from the talk.

Amanda commenced by talking about why organising information, that is, Information Architecture, is important to an organisation’s Intranet. Firstly, IA is especially important for an Intranet because ‘users get used to where things are’. That is, they build up navigational memory over time for the pieces of information that they regularly re-use. This is in contrast to the Internet where users are not overly surprised when information has moved and often avoid navigation all together through the use of search. So if you structure your information well then you can achieve an architecture that is not too complex or deep and therefore save system users a lot of time in both clicks and path learning.

Secondly, and related to the first point, IA is important because users go to the Intranet when they’re looking for some specific information or they want to complete a specific task. Users don’t generally visit the Intranet to simply browse or check the organisation’s news. In fact, from the perspective of an Intranet implementer I would propose that we discount completely the chance that anyone will go to the Intranet to merely browse. Taking this view focuses the Intranet implementer on making sure there is critical information and services on the Intranet so that users are forced to use the system. However, that is my digression, Amanda was simply pointing out that when you are clear that users are going to the Intranet to specifically find or do something then it is clear that IA is an important Intranet success factor.

Another point made was that the process of completing an IA project is important because every organisation is unique and therefore so is every Intranet. Undoubtedly organisations that are in the same sector, such as law firms or accounting practices, will share some similarities in their navigational structures but that doesn’t mean they’ll be the same. Factors such as size, history, culture, service focus, clients and so on influence the way information is structured. In essence, a little like a fingerprint.

From Amanda’s point of view the key to Information Architecture is understanding both the user and organisational context. The organisational context, I suggest, can be formed from investigating matters such as the organisation’s clients, services, relevant legislature, business partnerships, mission statement, objectives, management style, structure and existing content sources (shared drives, current Intranet) . To analyse the user’s context Amanda suggested a number of techniques such as shadowing and card sorting, the later of which we tried during the session.

The card sorting exercise is conducted with a number of cardboard cards, each with a one, or a couple, of words depicting a potential end node of information. For example a card may say “HR Policies” or “Meet the Executive Board” or “Timesheet Submission”. Use of end-nodes without any potential grouping cards such as “Services” or “Operations” is referred to as ‘Open’ card sorting because users can create their own subject areas. The opposite, with grouping cards, is naturally referred to as ‘Closed’ card sorting because the facilitator is removing some of the users ability to come up with their own groupings.

It is an advantage if the workshop group includes representatives from different parts of the organisation and it helps if the group is small (i.e. conduct multiple small card sorting workshops). During the session our workshop was a mock-up of a ski field site. It was interesting watching the dynamics of my group. Immediately one member started to sort cards into mountain groupings. For example, Eating on Mt Hotham, Shopping on Mt Hotham etc. Meanwhile another member of the group immediately started sorting cards into activity groups – Eating, Shopping etc. We quickly had to make a decision – how would we group these? How would someone expect to find out about Eating on Mt Hotham? Through a Mt Hotham path or through an Eating on the Ski Fields path? (Though the answer isn’t as important as the question, we decided on grouping by location).

The card sorting workshop is useful for devising a practical Information Architecture, but it has other useful consequences. It achieves both user buy-in as well as highlighting the difficulty of the task to users. In my mind it also would help in users understanding others needs and thereby grow their own understanding of the organisation and consequently prepare them for navigational concessions they may have to make. On the latter point, navigational concessions, there was some discussion about utilising multiple paths to find a peice of information. This is a valid and useful technique but I’m wary that it might be counter-productive if over used – especially in a menu structure. Problems may arise in terms of maintenance overhead, navigational tree complexity, perceived logic and user training.

In summary, an interesting presentation. For me it raises questions such as “Are users more likely to use search anyway? (or are their particular types of users who use search?)” or “How does a methodology to arrive at an IA differ from the methodology to describe a Business Classification System in Records Management?” – but hopefully we can get to these in the future.