Local
Authority Websites National Project
Organisation Development Toolkit -
The organisation to support the APLAWS Content Management System
Developed for LAWs by
Contents
The purpose of this document is to assist Local Authorities who adopt the APLAWS content management system to determine and understand the impact on their organisation.
For the purposes of this document, APLAWS is used in representation of both APLAWS and APLAWS+. While the information is focused around APLAWS+, it will be of application to other enterprise-class, workflow-driven content management systems.
APLAWS functions
and processes
The Editorial
function and processes
Oversee, Support
and Administration functions
Functions and
processes mapped by roles at West Sussex
Observations of
West Sussex organisational implementation of APLAWS
Functions and
processes mapped by roles for Fylde
Observations of
Fylde organisational implementation of APLAWS
Functions and
processes mapped by roles for Stoke-on-Trent
Observations of
Stoke-on-Trent organisational implementation of APLAWS
Functions and
processes mapped by roles for Bromley
Observations of
Bromley organisational implementation of APLAWS
Functions and
processes mapped by roles for Newham
Observations of
Newham organisational implementation of APLAWS
Organisation design
options - roles
Where should
commissioning reside within the organisation?
Where should
publishing reside within the organisation?
Where should
administration reside within the organisation?
Organisation design
options – operating models
Fully devolved
organisation model
Fully devolved
control of Editorial function
Fully devolved
control of Editorial function & partial devolvement of Administration
Fully devolved
editorial function
Partially devolved
administration
Partially
centralised Editorial function
Deeper
centralisation of Editorial function
Optimising the
organisation structure
Teams, groups and
their purpose
The recommended
organisational structure for APLAWS’ operational teams
Responsibility for
APLAWS functions, by team
Functions and
processes mapped by roles
Corporate Editor
source of skills
Service Unit Editor
source of skills
Service Unit Editor source of skills
Role descriptions
and person specifications
APLAWS functions and processes
As a result of implementing the APLAWS content management system into your authority, there will be new functions and processes.
The Editorial function and processes
Oversee, Support and Administration functions
Case studies
There are several local authorities across the country which have implemented the APLAWS content management system.
These demonstrate a range of different organisation design options open to a local authority. Five of these sites have been used as examples of how different authorities have implemented new roles, or adapted existing roles, to adjust to and accommodate the new functions and processes resulting from the implementation of APLAWS.
In this section we look at the organisational implementation within:
- Fylde
- Newham
- Bromley
West Sussex
County
Functions and processes mapped by
roles at West Sussex
Observations of West Sussex organisational
implementation of APLAWS
- Devolved content creation control with commissioning at the service unit level
- Central final control - publish at site control level
- Central control within ICT (rather than communications service unit)
Fylde Borough Council
Functions and processes mapped by roles for Fylde
Observations of Fylde organisational implementation of APLAWS
- Commissioning is done at the business unit (service unit) level
- Centralised publishing to live – not a bottleneck as Fylde is a relatively small organisation
Implementation learnings
- Thoroughly plan your installation, particularly in respect to category lists, staff training and content type
Stoke-on-Trent County Council
Functions and processes mapped by
roles for Stoke-on-Trent
Observations of Stoke-on-Trent organisational
implementation of APLAWS
- Key ownership is held within the Communications team rather than the ICT service unit
- Publishing is devolved to service unit level
- Administration is devolved to service unit level, with the structure and number of roles, workflow etc, likely to be different from service unit to service unit
- Commissioning may come from the central communications team or from service unit level
- Large number of authors (200)
London
Functions and processes mapped by roles for Bromley
Observations of Bromley organisational implementation of APLAWS
- Bromley’s organisation is similar to Stoke, but with a more defined support function
- Unlike other authorities, there is a designated role for inputting data into the APLAWS system. This reduces the need to train all authors on the system and anyone can author content without knowing how to use APLAWS
- Key ownership is held within the Communications Team rather than the ICT service unit (no ICT service unit at Bromley)
- Publishing is devolved to service unit level
London
Functions and processes mapped by roles for Newham
Observations of Newham organisational implementation of APLAWS
- Newham’s organisation is similar to Stoke
- Devolved responsibility of overseeing and commissioning
- Key ownership is held within the Communications team rather than the ICT service unit
- Publishing is devolved to service unit level
Implementation learnings
- Define and configure the following in advance of going live:
- User roles
- Work flow
- Content folders
- Content folder permissions
Organisation design options - roles
As the case studies included in this pack demonstrate, there are a number of alternative routes a local authority may take when implementing the APLAWS content management system.
This section outlines some of the key organisational decisions and options an authority has when implementing APLAWS.
These include:
- Where should commissioning control be within the organisation?
- Where should you publishing control be within the organisation?
- Where should you administering control be within the organisation?
Where should commissioning reside within the organisation?
- The benefit of having communications led commissioning is that the communications officer can act as commissioner at both central and service unit level. Service unit communications officers can then be coordinated by central communications led unit, which allows for corporate consistency and direction while retaining service unit responsibility and autonomy.
- Total service unit commissioning will result in no consistency and gaps in web content and overlap and possibly contradiction
- It is not recommended that commissioning is centralised, since the central team does not typically know or understand the detail of service unit content and requirements for content
- Use of a central service unit (Stoke) to suggest gaps and commission service units to create content can be considered
Recommendation
Commissioning led by the communications team, but devolved to the service units. This will ensure corporate consistency and direction while retaining service unit responsibility and autonomy.
Where should publishing reside within the organisation?
- Total service unit publishing (editorial) results in silo based website. Lack of linking across service unit content.
- Central publishing allows final sign off before things “go live”. This is the “safe option”
- A disadvantage of central publishing is the risk of creating a backlog or bottle neck. This would be manageable in an organisation where there is low volume (Fylde) or where there is a large team to deal with the high volume (West Sussex ICT)
- Unlikely to have devolved publishing controlled by ICT, as ICT function is central rather than devolved.
- If ICT (web team) were previously in charge of website, they may continue to lead as editorial/publishing controllers.
- Otherwise, publishing should be done by appointed Editors who understand content for service units and structure of site as a whole
- Making content live is not technically difficult (therefore an easy responsibility to devolve, and not necessary to locate in ICT)
- May consider correlation between commissioning control and final go live publish responsibility
Recommendation
Publishing can be devolved with a reasonable level of assurance as to quality control so long as approval and Corporate Oversee function is in place. For smaller councils with low volumes to publish then a central publisher may be more appropriate
Where should administration reside within the organisation?
- The APLAWS system allows for devolved administration
- This means that different service units can control how they set up users, permission and workflow as best fits that service unit, rather than central admin having to fit or compromise for each service unit
- (e.g. Press office different to other service units in the way they want to publish)
Recommendation
Should the authority be very big and have many service units that work in very different ways, devolved administration is recommended. However, if it is small and easily manageable, central administration is recommended.
Organisation design options – operating models
The case studies highlight that different local authorities are using slightly different organisation design solutions to achieve the same end – effective use of the APLAWS content management system.
There are many iterations of how the organisation may be set up to support APLAWS functions and processes.
As we can see from the case studies, one of the key decisions to make is whether functions are controlled centrally or devolved to service units. The following slides illustrate various models for allocating the functions and processes that support APLAWS to your organisation. For each example there is some discussion.
Fully devolved organisation model
Most local authorities that have an existing website, but no content management system, have total service unit control with no central overseeing role, such as in the schematic above.
Often a service unit commissions a website to be built with no links to other service units websites other than those from the council home page. The result is a disparate and inconsistent website, hence the desire to implement a content management system.
The model below is more accurate with each service unit acting as a separate organisation resulting in a silo website with only the home page to link it.
Fully devolved control of Editorial function
In this devolved
model, the whole editorial function resides at service unit level. The
centralised level (either ICT or Communications) continues to have an
overseeing capacity to ensure coherence across the website.
This model provides a
central lead or direction rather than central control. Commissioning, creation
and reviewing of content still happens at the service unit level where detailed
knowledge of subjects sits. Publishing is also done at the service unit level,
so this model does not demonstrate a high level of control from the centre.
Fully devolved control of Editorial function & partial devolvement of Administration
Fully devolved editorial function
In this devolved model, the whole editorial function resides at service unit level. The centralised level (either ICT or Communications) continues to have an overseeing capacity to ensure coherence across the website.
In this central control model, commissioning, creation and reviewing of content still happens at the service unit level where detailed knowledge of subjects lies. Publishing is also done at the service unit level, so this model does not demonstrate a high level of control from the centre.
Partially devolved administration
APLAWS allows administration to be devolved. In this model, the centralised level may set up service unit head users and general workflow and then each service unit can set up the system to organise their own service unit how they wish.
This is of benefit where service units function quite differently in the way they produce and publish content, or have differing volumes of content produced.
Partially centralised Editorial function
All the support functions are centralised (ICT or Communications), with all control of user permissions residing at the central level.
The commissioning and creation of content is devolved to the service unit level, where detailed knowledge of subjects reside. The Approve, Publish and Review aspects of the Editorial function are centralised for a greater degree of corporate control.
Deeper centralisation of Editorial function
In this more centrally controlled model, the editorial function is shared between central levels (ICT or Communications) and service units.
Commissioning, creation and reviewing of content still happens at the service unit level where detailed knowledge of service unit subjects sits.
However, nothing may be published to “live” without central approval. In addition, all control of user permissions sits at the central level.
The central level may also commission content, should they believe it required, and it takes an active role in reviewing it when time stamps expire.
Hybrid of control
APLAWS allows administration to be devolved. In this model, the central function may set up service unit head users or general workflow and then each service unit can set up their own teams how they wish. This is of benefit where service units function quite differently in the way they produce and publish content, or depending on the volume of content produced.
In the model above, there is strong central control with nothing being published to the live site without the central function approving it first. Administration tasks are devolved, where as the more important and responsible process of publishing content to live is held centrally.
Optimising the organisation structure
Whilst it appears that the organisations demonstrated through the case studies seem to be adopting vastly different solutions, they are actually all using very similar solutions – merely iterations of similar concepts, with different names.
In fact, the “ideal” organisation structure for the APLAWS content management structure can be easily adapted to accommodate each organisation represented in the case studies.
The “ideal” organisation solution assumes the following attributes to be desirable:
- A corporate level of control over the overall content, look and feel of the website, balanced with service unit empowerment
- A lower training requirement
- Content is created by service unit subject matter experts who “know their area”
- ICT remain the technical enablers
- Communication team take on strategic responsibility of content
Teams, groups and their purpose
The recommended organisational structure for APLAWS’ operational teams
More than one role could be done by one person (e.g one person for Core Team; Service Unit Editor and Manager could be same person). More than one process/task can be done by a role (e.g. manager does edit, approve, publish).
Editorial Team could assume a formally controlling role to ensure central control, or could merely be a forum for sharing.
Responsibility for APLAWS functions, by team
Functions and processes mapped by roles
Core / Corporate Team
Core Team should manage user groups from service units to obtain feedback and input for direction strategically and developments technically
Core Team should also liaise with other councils to share learning
Editorial Team
Corporate Editor source of skills
This is a senior position, with relatively high levels of responsibility.
Could be whoever was in charge of existing website – may be Web Team in ICT. Alternatively use senior Communications person. This is front line to public and therefore important.
Service Unit Editor source of skills
Service Unit Editors should be someone who has a good overview of their service unit and what needs to appear for public consumption. This may be the Director, in the more strategic role
Service Unit Teams
Service Unit
Editor source of skills
Service Unit Editor
and Manager can be same person in a smaller council. However, Service Unit
Editor should be quite senior (perhaps Director level) and have a wide view of
the service unit and the sort of messages to be communicated. If senior they
may not want the tasks of editing, approving, publishing training etc. Service
Unit Editor may be a Communications Officer.
Manager source
of skills
Manager ideally
Communications Officer. Should be someone with good understanding of service
unit, good English skills and communication skills to encourage input from
staff. Also must be able to train/direct staff.
Inputter
source of skills
This should be an
administrator who is conversant with systems and accustomed to following rules
and standards. Benefit of not training
authors to use system is that there is more consistency in how content is
entered, meta data standards etc, and less training requirements. Also more
senior staff tend not to follow the rules!
Author source
of skills
Author can be anyone
in the service unit with knowledge of the subject commissioned.
Role descriptions and person specifications
The role descriptions and person specifications are provided separately.
It should be noted that the roles are described and titled, but each role may constitute an entire job, or part of a job
Role Descriptions
These aim to describe:
- The purpose of the role
- The designation of the role and position within service unit structure
- Main duties and responsibilities
- Scope of the role
Person Specifications
These aim to describe:
- Training and qualifications
- Competence summary
- Work related personal requirements