Content management systems have made some aspects of managing web content easier. However, many organisations are still struggling with content approval processes.
What is going wrong?
A range of concerns are common.
- It takes too long to get content online because there are too many approvers or steps in the approval process
- Bottlenecks occur because there are too few people acting as approvers
- Approvers don’t want to use the system to manage approvals because it is too clunky or they don’t like reading content from a computer screen
- Content gets rewritten by approvers, making it less readable or introducing other problems
- Approvers make so many changes to the content, that it no longer meets its original intent
- Content gets approved before it is reviewed, then publishers are reluctant to allow editors to make changes
- Authors find ways to bypass the approval process because of the problems they’ve had with it
- Content still has errors, despite going through an approval process
Considering the role of the approval process
The main reason that approval processes are not working well is that many organisations have not given enough thought to why they have them. What is approval for? What role does it play in content development? Is approval the same as evaluation or review? What is an approver expected to do? Does all content require the same type of approval?
Automating key publishing processes means that is that there is often little discussion between authors, reviewers and approvers. This adds pressure to a poorly designed approval process.
Improving the process
Discuss and define the purpose
Ensure that the role the approval process plays is discussed, agreed and documented. Different types of approval—for instance legal or marketing approval—must be clearly defined, along with the types of content they apply to.
Define and assign roles
Define each role in the content publishing process. Content approvers need to know why they are reviewing the content and whether they can change content or simply recommend changes.
Assign roles and responsibilities based on skills, knowledge, authority and availability. If legal approvers tend to add legalese to your content, don’t allow them to make changes. Limit their role to sign-off.
Be flexible and responsive to changing needs
Different parts of the organisation may require different approaches. This may include allowing some publishing steps to occur outside the content management system.
Over time, needs may change as personnel and publishing requirements change. It is important that web managers encourage feedback and respond with changes to processes as needed.
Don’t just approve—plan and review too
Most people mention problems with the approval process because it is one of the few parts of the publishing process that is formalised. In fact, things are going wrong much earlier.
Content should be planned before it is written. Approvers won’t be suggesting or making radical changes if writers have already discussed the content with them. Make sure anyone who could affect the final copy is consulted. Get their input. Make sure they are aware of why you are publishing the content, who it is for, the information needs it must meet and the language appropriate to the audience. This will make the approval process work more smoothly.
Content should also be reviewed and edited before it is sent for approval. Quality content will take less time for approvers to check, and bottlenecks and other delays can be reduced.