Search projects fail for all the reasons any project fails, but there are
a few obstacles that loom especially large for search. Understanding the worst
pitfalls of search can help you avoid them—or at least put a name to
your current misery. We’ll go further than naming what ails you, and
outline a path to sidestep the big mistakes and offer advice on how to escape
the holes you’re already in.
Our advice is primarily for search project and program leaders. The big problems
all belong to you, and they fall in these areas:
•
Vision
•
Requirements and Technology Selection
•
Findability Policies and Procedures
•
Measuring, Communicating, and Investing in Progress
CULTURE SETS THE TERRAIN FOR SEARCH PROBLEMS
Search problems occur across the project lifecycle. Some problems are entirely
predictable and mundane, common to all types of projects: project management
gone awry, technology instability, failing to reach closure on requirements,
etc.
What makes search different from other projects, and sets the stage for the
big problems to come, is what amounts to two cultural issues:
•
Understanding how to be effective content publishers
•
Rapid evolution of search and its uses
We’re not going to suggest that you take on your corporate culture. But
you need to understand how culture impacts search success because you’ll
be struggling against the cultural tide as long as you are working on findability.
COMPANIES AS CONTENT PUBLISHERS. First, most companies do not understand how
to be effective content producers. In fact, most companies don’t believe
they are publishers. They think they make diesel engines, software, or chips,
or sell fashion or building supplies. However, most companies have publishing
operations, just as they have HR, accounting, and logistics operations. But,
while people have mental models and role models for HR, accounting and other
core competencies, they have little idea how to be a content publisher. Without
the habits and structures that support content publishing—and findability—your
information collections will not be in tidy shape. In fact, they will be
a mess; people won’t find the information they need, and they won’t
understand why it’s so hard. What’s far worse than the current
mess is the organization’s lack of will to fix it. People do not understand
the tasks and roles that must be funded in order to achieve the findability
that the organization needs, and, as a result, attempts to secure funding
(by people like you, who do understand) will fall on stubbornly deaf ears.
RAPID EVOLUTION OF SEARCH AND ITS USES. The second issue is as much environmental
as cultural. Search is an arena undergoing tremendous change. For the past
five years, there has been great change in search usage: what people use
it for, what questions they expect to answer, what kinds of information they
index, what sorts of people use search, what context they use it in. Expectations
have risen steadily as search engines have become more competent. I think
we are on an event boundary, and search engines are about to blossom into
every application you buy. This will have a phenomenal impact on user productivity,
but it will also drive expectations and demand. The bottom line is that it
is impossible to guess who will use the search service you are building,
and what questions they will expect it to answer. Nailing down requirements
in this environment becomes extraordinarily difficult: we are like pilgrims
in pursuit of the unknowable.
Project and Program Lifecycle Pain Points
Search projects follow a classic lifecycle, as depicted in Illustration 1.
But if search projects are to deliver great search, they need to become,
or be supported by, search programs. Search projects are like planting grass.
Search programs are like getting the grass to grow, keeping it mown, and
controlling the weeds. My lifecycle addresses the search program lifecycle,
which typically starts with a successful search implementation project. Following
the implementation, the search program kicks in, with the ongoing activities
of monitoring and managing quality and findability. The concluding step,
expanding the program, occurs when your program is successful: your monitoring
and analysis indicate what needs to be done, and your metrics prove the worth
of doing it.
Search Project and Program Lifecycle
© 2007 Patricia Seybold Group Inc.
Illustration 1. Search projects and programs follow a lifecycle that involves
planning, execution, monitoring, and improvement. Most projects tackle a
step or two in the lifecycle. Delivering great search really depends on programs
that invest in search on an ongoing basis.
In the search project and program lifecycle, there are four phases that we
observe to be particularly difficult with search, each with its own problems,
which are summarized in Table A.
Pitfalls During the Search Program and Project Lifecycle
(Please download the formatted PDF to see the table at: http://www.psgroup.com/detail.aspx?ID=854.)
Table A. The six biggest pitfalls in search programs and projects fall in four
areas of the search program and project lifecycle.
The solutions to these problems are not simple or easy to perform. You can’t
solve them alone; they require a range of talents and roles. However, we can
offer some insights into how to deal with each.
VISION
The earliest mistake in your search project or program is virtually unrecoverable:
The failure to establish and communicate the right vision. If you fail at
this point, the project will not succeed, and you will probably not be able
to resuscitate it. In establishing your vision, you must set a significant,
desirable, achievable goal. To communicate it, you must present a simple,
familiar, and evocative story that helps anchor people to the project, tell
them what to expect, and help them think through what will happen and what
it will mean. Here are some examples:
•
Customers will find the best product for their situation in less than five
minutes.
•
A customer will be presented an answer to a product usage question in one minute.
Ninety percent of these usage questions will be answered online by 2008.
•
A customer with a problem will be on the path to resolution in two minutes
or less, from our Web site. Forty percent of resolutions will be unassisted
in 2008, growing to 80 percent by 2010.
•
Eighty percent of employees will use the internal knowledge base at least weekly.
Notice the metric attached to each vision; this will come in handy later.
The vision is based on rational decisions, but it takes passionate commitment
to communicate the vision and convince people that it is important and right.
Ideally, the project lead or program head is the proselytizer, and the executive
sponsor opens the doors for the pitch. Plan to deliver your pitch daily for
the first year of your program, and weekly for the rest of your tenure.
If you’ve already gotten this wrong, this is a devastating mistake, akin
to damaging your brand. The recovery will require beginning fresh with a new
project, new project name, and a new project leader.