When do you have too much information?
Modern organizations have armies of people trained in producing and publishing information, but there is a huge and growing lack of people who are skilled at organizing, analyzing and prioritizing it.
The Christmas 2009 airline-bombing attempt in the USA showed what can happen when there is too much information and too little skilled analysis. “It’s clear now that there were multiple signs in recent months that Abdulmutallab was a potential risk,” Bruce Crumley wrote for TIME in January 2010, “but they were simply lost in the unmanageable flood of information the U.S. intelligence and security agencies are designed to produce.”
As President Obama stated, “This was not a failure to collect intelligence, [but] a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.” U.S. authorities are forced to sort through a massive flood of intelligence on a daily basis. “Connecting the dots becomes more difficult when multiple streams of intelligence empty into several different lakes,” the TIME article pointed out.
As one spy official put it, “Basic details can now get overlooked as surveillance becomes more technical and computerized and people wait for a warning beep to sound.” Basic details such as the fact that the would-be bomber paid cash for a one-way ticket, and that he didn’t check in any bags.
Ours is the era of the information Big Bang. I think it’s an absolutely wonderful time to be alive. Information has been whipped away from the grasp of the elites and delivered into the hands of the masses. Information is power and power has been distributed.
However, as with any explosive event there are challenges that need to be faced. I thought I’d be used to it by now but I am still often stunned at how badly most organizations manage their websites.
Take, for example, the web ‘management’ approach called distributed publishing. The theory was: buy the tool, train people to use it and watch them go. What happened? Each division or department that the publishing tool was distributed to sought to publish to the website with the absolute minimum resource input. If ever there was a disastrous non-strategy it is distributed publishing. It led to website junkyards full of vanity publishing and out of date garbage.
The Web is important. The Web is very important. For an increasing number of organizations, the Web is critical to success. We need to seriously raise the standard. Anybody can put up a document. It requires precious little skill to write boring, vain, unreadable, organization-centric content.
It takes a whole other level of skills:
1. To reject such organization-centric content.
2. To commission content that will help customers complete top tasks.
3. To organize top-task content in a way that will make it easy to be found and to make sure that tiny task content does not disrupt searches for top task content.
4. To review and remove out of date content.
5. To connect the right dots (to link well).
There is no greater skill a web professional needs to develop than the ability to create quality links. Many websites do not need more publishing. Rather, they need more linking of content in appropriate task journeys. Linking is a complex skill because it requires you to see the task through your customer’s eyes.
Too much intelligence to blame
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1952203,00.html

Allan Tanner says:
Added on February 1st, 2010 at 9:41 am“If ever there was a disastrous non-strategy it is distributed publishing.” Never a truer word. We have had a lot of issues around quality control, content ownership, content currency, turnover of publishers and so on, all due to a distributed publishing model. We are now aiming to reduce the number of publishers substantially and ensure that those who remain have the right skills and are given the time to do the job. It can be a hard sell to make this change as it can be viewed as controlling or dictatorial, but ultimately it is the only way to retain some element of consistency and quality control on a large site.
Mike Simpson says:
Added on February 1st, 2010 at 9:51 amWe use distributed publishing (though we don’t call it that). We have 40-50 departments, each running their own website, all completely different apart from (a) our logo and (b) general room for improvement.
Creating and running a website is, nowadays, very easy to do, especially if you have a CMS. But it’s a truism that anything which is easy to do is actually very difficult to do *well*. It’s easy to play the piano - you just press down on the keys in order - but it’s difficult to play it well enough that anyone wants to listen.
Even before our CMS was introduced, there was an assumption that running a website was a simple task. Pick an (overworked) secretary with no interest or background in web communication, send her on a one-day HTML course (nowadays a one-day CMS course) and then make running the departmental website part of her job.
The results were often very poor (albeit not through any fault of those secretaries). But because the Powers That Be don’t understand the importance of the web, they either don’t care or (more likely) don’t know how bad their websites are. And they’re bad because the website is seen as a minor administrative task. Or it’s seen as a purely technical matter and given to the department’s IT support, which always strikes me as rather like asking a printer to write a leaflet.
For those of us sitting in the central communications office, it’s enormously frustrating. It’s not, to be honest, a matter of identifying the skills that web professionals need. It’s a matter of understanding that there are such things as web professionals and you need to employ them, rather than just giving the job of *Managing Your Principal Customer Interface* to whoever is least busy in the admin office.
Gerry McGovern (blog author) says:
Added on February 1st, 2010 at 12:39 pmMike & Allan, well said! You speak with obvious (bitter) experience. You sum up the experiences of so many people.
jenn_lee_ca says:
Added on February 1st, 2010 at 3:02 pmAmazing how people use the web but still don’t get it. The mentality of “reinventing the wheel” still runs strong in corporate hallways!
I agree, in the Internet, the problem is not scarcity of information but an over abundance. What happens in over abundance? People cannot make good choices (read: The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz).
Malcolm Gladwell’s new book, “What the Dog Saw” has a great article that talks about too much information as applied to Enron. Sure, there were lots of people jumping on the band wagon, but there were also people cautioning that it was a risky investment. I think Gladwell’s book highlights the issue of too much information leading to groupthink and discounting of critical information.
I would like to see more strategic planning around website planning or a digital strategy that ties the use of the web to overall corporate goals. I think it begins when we as marcom professionals go beyond our comfort zone and put ourselves in the shoes of the customers.
Jim says:
Added on February 1st, 2010 at 4:43 pmI could have written Mike’s comments - his experience is almost exactly like mine. The distributed publishing model was in place here long before I arrived, but I’ve been arguing (in vain) that there is no proof of the assumed cost savings. They have no data on how much time/money goes into the site. My point is always that we might be able to afford several full-time Web professionals for the same amount of money. (I am the only one for a local government serving 160,000 people.) I spend a huge amount of my time going around supporting the part-time Web publishers (often teaching the same tasks over and over because they don’t do them enough to master them,) or cleaning up their messes, and that reduces the time I have to add new features or improve the design. I have pointed out the distributed publishing assumptions do not factor in quality at all, and while we’ve been spinning our wheels the public’s expectation of Web sites in general has evolved considerably. I think our leadership is starting to understand all of that, but unfortunately the economic realities mean nothing is going to change in the foreseeable future.
FJ says:
Added on February 1st, 2010 at 8:03 pmMost government websites look like they were designed by 12 year olds (and that’s an insult to 12 year olds!).
“It led to website junkyards full of vanity publishing and out of date garbage.” Sadly = about right.