INMA_A01.QXD

work. The only way such a process can be detailed is if it is written down and its impor-

tance communicated to all the participants. It will also help if technology facilitates the

process. In particular, a workflow system should be set up that enables each of the reviewers

to comment on the copy as soon as possible and authorise it. Content management sys-

tems are now commonly used to help achieve this. The copy can be automatically e-mailed

to all reviewers and then the comments received by e-mail can be collated.

The detailed standards for performing a site update will vary according to the extent

of the update. For correcting a spelling mistake, for example, not so many people will

need to review the change! A site re-design that involves changing the look and feel of

the site will require the full range of people to be involved.

Once the process has been established, the marketing department, as the owners of

the web site, will insist that the process be followed for every change that is made to the

web site.

To conclude this section refer to Activity 9.1 which shows a typical web site update

process and considers possible improvements.

RESPONSIBILITIES IN WEB SITE MAINTENANCE

Activity 9.1 Optimising a content review process

Purpose

Assess how quality control and efficiency can be balanced for revisions to web content.

Activity

The extract below and Figure 9.10 illustrate a problem of updating encountered by this

company. How can they solve this problem?

Problem description

From when the brand manager identifies a need to update copy for their product, the update

might happen as follows: brand manager writes copy (half a day), one day later the web manager

reviews copy, three days later the marketing manager checks the copy, seven days later the legal

department checks the copy, two days later the revised copy is implemented on the test site, two

days later the brand manager reviews the test site, the next day the web manager reviews the

web site, followed by updating and final review before the copy is added to the live site two days

later and over a fortnight from when a relatively minor change to the site was identified!

Figure 9.10An example of a content update review process

Brand manager

writes copy (1)

Web manager

reviews copy (2)

Marketing manager

reviews copy (2)

Legal dept

reviews copy (2)

Copy implemented

on test site (3,4)

Brand manager

reviews test site (5)

Web manager

reviews test site (5)

Copy updated

on test site (6)

New copy

live (6)