Key Points
- Coherence — a digital presence that is consistent and connected across user journeys — has to be raised *early*; by the time an RFP goes out, it is too late.
- Silos persist for predictable reasons: not even trying, working at the wrong organizational level, chasing a buzzword, fixing only the top-level 'shell,' assuming it's too hard, or ignoring backend systems.
- Concrete methods move you forward: define the "missing middle," run executive decision-making workshops, use depth scales, visualize the impact, analyze comprehensively, and product-manage your website.
For over 20 years I've worked with organizations toward greater digital presence coherence. This is never easy, but I thought I would share some thoughts on the methods toward coherence based on my battle wounds from involvement in these projects.
What do I mean by coherence?
Organizations settle into silos. Teams start thinking that "the website" is just their silo'd sliver of the organization's overall digital presence. Coherence is when a digital presence (across sites) is more consistent and connected across important user journeys, whether or not organizationally if the silos still exist. See Coherence: consistent & connected.
When do you need to consider coherence?
Early. If you have sent out an RFP for a redesign for example, it's too late. If you remember one thing from this article, remember that these coherence discussions need to be early!
What are some of the common reasons deepening coherence doesn't happen?
Not even trying, or really even thinking about coherence. Let's face it: this is the most common reason. A team thinks of "the website" as one existing silo (even if it is the main or corporate site) and naturally wants to replace it without really considering alternatives. Note: I hope it goes without saying the creating a microsite is usually even worse and a move away from coherence. Download Microsite checklist.
Attacking problems at the wrong level organizationally. This one is quite common as well. I'm all for making things happen organizationally without formal authority, but some decisions just need to be made higher up organizationally.
Focusing too much on a buzzword or specific solution. I see this frequently as well, where some hot buzzword is seen as the magic elixir and basically blinds the team to the actual, core issues. An example would be something like thinking that headless is the answer, without considering whether that component is really secondary to deciding how different source systems will be integrated. See Move from buzzword bingo to real innovation.
Focusing solely on brand or "shell" issues. Although blatant consistency issues (such as logo inconsistency) are definitely a problem, in the grand scheme of things these are relatively easy to resolve. Solely concentrating on very top level consistency (for instance the header of lots of pages or the first layer of the site hierarchy) doesn't lead to coherence where pages are also properly interconnected.
Considering it too difficult before even starting. Fear of "boiling the ocean" leads to not even thinking about a more coherent digital presence. Now there are techniques to better look and transform broadly, so this should at least be considered.
Not considering the backend systems. For digital presences of any complexity, there will be backend systems. There's no way to rationalize the front end experience without aligning these backend systems.
Some methods
One, perhaps underlying, reason that teams stick with their current silos is that they either declare some extremely high level vision (without considering how/if the team can achieve it) or just just straight into implementation (without considering what approaches might be even stronger). So you should define The Missing Middle, where you define just enough to move toward higher impact than you might have otherwise.
Moving toward coherence and breaking down silos is a messy, human undertaking (definitely not formulaic), but here are some techniques I have found useful that may work in your case:
Executive Decision-Making Workshops. Define a question that is important to the digital presence (and organizational goals), clearly lay out why the current state is an issue, spell out the pros/cons/effort of different possible approaches, and drive to decision in a tight format for busy leaders. Note: one of the most important elements of one of these workshops is carefully crafting the question (contact us for help).
Depth Scales. Instead of throwing around buzzwords without teams actually understanding what they are agreeing to or aligning on, a depth scale lays out a range of possible depths to which a capability can be implemented. Although it can be challenging to break down a problem like this, it both ensures better understanding of teams on what you are attempting to accomplish but it also allows for more dynamic planning (instead of tossing a feature when the going gets rough, perhaps just going down the depth scale a notch so some benefit of that capability is implemented).
Visualize the impact. It can be tough to communicate the current situation vs. possible other futures. There are a variety of ways of visualizing the impact, from comparing current flows vs. target flows to methods of showing the pervasiveness of issues.
Analyze comprehensively. When doing an analysis of a digital presence, the temptation is to revert to doing a narrow, spreadsheet analysis on a subset of the overall digital presence. But this can be yet another way of presupposing that only narrow changes are being considered. Instead, consider analyzing comprehensively rather than selectively.
PRODUCT manage your website. Most teams look at website improvements as project-by-project. Instead, if you think about managing the overall presence as a product instead you will naturally start looking at the way of making higher impact changes (which are frequently not siloed).