It's 'Our' Web Site

It's a common challenge for Web site management: who is responsible for managing the content so that it stays fresh?

In the case of the Missouri Foundation for Health (MFH), the responsibility is shared among a large number of staff members, not just the communications department.

That sense of shared responsibility didn’t happen by accident but grew out a shrewd decision that Bev Pfeifer-Harms, the foundation’s communications director, made at the outset of the web redesign project.  She put together a team representing staff from across the foundation to contribute to the redesign.  As a result, MFH’s new Web site not only has the appearance and function the foundation needs but greater willingness from staff to do their part to keep the site up-to-date.

By the time MFH's decided to tackle a redesign, its existing site had been in place for six years --"well beyond prime for any Web site." More so, the original site had not been designed to be flexible or easy to manage.

For instance, it had no content management system and lacked ways for program teams to customize their content and presentations.  At the same time, the site did little to feature MFH's interest in the impact of proposed legislation and other aspects of Missouri health policy, where the foundation has a "significant commitment." To add content, Pfeifer-Harms said, they had to "add another layer to the onion," requiring people to dig deep to find important content.

While some MFH staff had contributed to the planning and development of its previous Web site, the number – in retrospect -- had been too small, thus making the site something that only a few in the foundation felt a sense of ownership for, Pfeifer-Harms said.  As a result, there was a "complete disconnect between staff and their involvement in the Web site," Pfeifer-Harms said. The web site was a "communications thing" and not seen as a shared enterprise. 

For the redesign – which took about a year from the time MFH hired a firm – the foundation’s communications team included people from across the foundation in reviews and to offer feedback -- not just random opinions, but constructive suggestions for making sure the final site met everyone’s needs. Pfeifer-Harms said.

"It's been an interesting process -- it's a lot more than just colors and designs, it's about getting people engaged in the process," Pfeifer-Harms said. "From an internal standpoint, what we've accomplished is [for] the staff to see that the Web site as a changeable thing and something they can be involved with," Pfeifer-Harms said.

MFH found many ways to gather feedback and increase buy-in over the course of the project:

• Involving staff in the selection of a vendor. The Web team sought input from a cross-section of staff as they developed a request for proposals. They then asked staff to review the top five of the nine proposals. Once the group narrowed down finalists, the entire team met the firm that eventually won --St. Louis-based VividSites.
• Letting people know when the materials or information in progress would make good Web content, especially within the redesigned Web site. Pfieifer-Harms said program staff were encouraged to think how they could use what they learned on site visits or other program-related activities as content for the Web.
• Highlighting examples of how staff can customize the Web site to serve their needs. One of MFH's team leaders was interested in creating "something new" for his program's Web page. He had enough content for a more content-rich section, which the Web team used to create a new, flexible template for other program pages.
• Encouraging teams to select staff to be trained to post content. Today, MFH has trained two or three people from each area to post content. A member of the communications team reviews content for style consistency and then approves posts. As a result, Pfeifer-Harms said, the Web site is "getting much more buy-in." 

One issue MFH still faces is a common one: preventing staff from using jargon in content they create for Web site or forgetting who the ultimate audience is. "Since we started the redesign project I have repeatedly told my colleagues that it's not about what information we need to tell, but what information people need to get from us. Sometimes, that's the same thing, but sometimes it's not." 

Pfeifer-Harms says the foundation has received favorable comments from visitors to its new site.  People appreciate how it helps them "see more of the totality" of MFH's work and to see that health policy is "just as important as our funding." 

Her advice to others? Take the time the project needs. "Don't try to run it through," she said. While at times she was frustrated by how slowly things were moving, in the long run, the feedback was "invaluable."

--Emily Culbertson