Josh C — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:04:53 GMT

This is a new perspective for me. My current title is ‘Copywriter’, however, our team just completed design an implementation of an internal knowledge base. We worked in tandem with a wonderful IA and technology team to define user requirements. Where the IA was focused on marrying the design with the technology, we brought insight as to what users are looking for in the content and how to design the CMS and presentation layers for fast answers.

We relied a great deal on information mapping theories, principles of adult learning, design and our unique organizational experience. The end result is a unique product fit for only our users but with a presentation that could be adjusted to other parts of the organization.

Our team was the final word on designing the taxonomy, meta data, thesaurus, search configuration, tone/style of content, cms template configuration and many other facets. However, all of these decisions were formed in collaboration with the technology and design team members.

I think the key is to recognize the dynamic nature of teams. Each member brought a different project background and talents. Sometimes these talents overlapped but the results is a better project for our client (employer). Content is still king and those that produce most of the content have unique insight into the needs of the user group. Each role is dependent on the other for success. Being part of project that can design and dictate content requirements from the outset is refreshing. IA, IT and other acronymns don’t always bring the freshest view of what’s possible. As an ignorant content producer we think more about what if’s because we don’t have to implement the technology to make it work.

Josh C — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:19:56 GMT

Today the company I work for is at a transition point. The executives call it a ‘turnaround’. This ‘turnaround’ is being driven by a series of failures and missteps that ultimately lead to layoffs and being out of sync with the larger market.

I’ve noticed how positional authority can predict the optimism of an employee. Directors and above are generally very optimistic and driven to see the company succeed. The lower you are on the food chain, the tendency for pessimism increases. I work in retail so the low man in the food chain interacts the most with our customers.

Is the individual attitude governed by financial benefit or something less tangible like work ethic or ego? Or maybe it’s the realization that my ability to change an culture like a company is less as an individual contributor?

It’s no wonder we see similarities between these societies and todays companies. Many of us invest significant energy at work and our fortunes rise and fall based on the success of our employers.

On the one hand it’s about finding the simple path to success, but in a larger organization it’s about identifying each employee as a leader to lead the adaptation from failure – executives need to listen and act decisively. No doubt the members of your team were optimistic, smart and capable of running a profitable company. I’ve discovered that in a small team it’s harder to take the time to see the bigger picture.

A start-up I worked for came to the brink of folding before realizing that talented people couldn’t create the ‘rain’ to support the good intentions. The masters of navigating failure realize the path from good intentions to reality lacks a road map. Maybe it’s dumb luck, maybe it’s fate – but I wouldn’t trade the failures for more success. Of course I’m not on Easter Island :)

Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Josh C