Responses to Web Governance Principles Comments

Issue Summary	Decision	Response
Clarify the roles of the OPA and OEI AAs, the Quality and Information Council, and the newly-created Web Council.	Agree to clarify thru text revisions.	Basic authority and responsibility for the web as an information management and communications tool are assigned through statute and Agency delegations to the AAs for OEI and OPA. For those reasons, the Administrator holds these two executives to be jointly responsible for the overall success of the EPA website. The Quality and Information Council, as a sub-component of the Senior Policy Council, has a role as the appropriate forum for high level input and oversight regarding the EPA website. The Web Council is a body which comprises the key senior officials overseeing web management in each AA-ship and Regional office. With an agenda coordinated by the Agency Web Content and Infrastructure Managers, it is expected to meet routinely and serve as a forum for web management information exchange. It is differentiated from other forums by the fact that the members are accountable to the senior leadership of the Agency for overall web management.
Further describe the two positions of Content and Infrastructure Managers.	Agree to make minor changes to the documents. "Responsibilities and Qualifications" for C&I Managers and Coordinators to be distributed by Kim Nelson and Natalie Gochnour.	The Content Manager and Infrastructure Manager will be designated by their respective AAs. They are expected to be senior managers who will be ultimately responsible for implementing this governance approach Each manager is expected to be supported by a deputy and a multi-disciplinary professional staff. Additionally, subject matter and technical experts from outside OPA and OEI may be called on for support from time to time. Since both OPA and OEI have managers and staff already devoted to web policy, content, software, hosting, and networking, the structures of these organizations (and the talented personnel therein) may not change. The difference is that the Administrator, the responsible AAs, and others throughout the Agency have recognized that web decision-making must be more focused, timely, and accountable. Consequently, this governance approach will vest more decision-making authority in those two manager positions. At the same time, their actions must be more visible and transparent. The Content Manager is seen by some to be the Agency's web 'editor-in-chief' with a mandate to enhance information presentation, communicate the Agency's message on a particular subject in a more cogent manner, and eliminate outdated and duplicative content. Several respondents felt that the term 'infrastructure' was synonymous with hardware and networking and made thoughtful suggestions about the web management structure based thereon. The workgroup, however, defined infrastructure in a broader context to include central web software (search engines, content management solutions, etc.) and protocols (i.e., metadata) as well.
Clarify the continuing roles of the Content Advisory Board (CAB) and other existing web workgroups.	Agree to minor word changes and clarification in this response document	This governance structure generally supercedes the existing structures, including the CAB and the QIC/CAPS, established by OPA and OEI in the past. The Web Workgroup remains as a 'committee-of -the-whole' for the entire community and the chair will sit on the Web Council.
Articulate where ultimate responsibility for content management and review lies within each organization.	Agree that the language in the governance documentation is in conflict with the 1998 CIO Policy Memo	The Governance Workgroup concluded after much consultation that the current approach of having Office Directors approve content is not working. Similarly, the term 'National Program Managers' in the CIO Policy Memo is confusing due to multiple meanings. The workgroup's approach was to request the designation of two positions within each AA-ship and Region to provide overall leadership on web issues. Content management and review is ultimately a shared responsibility, with program specialists having responsibility for the factual accuracy of content and OPA having responsibility for the presentation of the content (organization, completeness, readability, etc.). The final stages leading to posting are almost always collaborative.
Define "sufficient" resources to be devoted to web activities. Does this mean a new initiative will fund these activities? If not, then what is the CFO's role?	Agree to clarify.	Whether the website 'is an environmental program' or supports environmental programs, the Administrator considers the web as the most important communication and education medium of the Agency. Consequently, the overall thrust of the resource-related principles was to encourage managers to devote reasonable and appropriate base resources to the Agency's website. The workgroup was careful to use the term 'sufficient' rather other terms to avoid the perception that this should be a program with a 'blank check.' The intention was not to launch a new initiative in this time of exceptional resource constraints. Rather, it was to encourage managers to look within their overall resource base and 'right-size' their investments in the web to meet the Administrator's challenge. Since the Agency's Working Capital Fund is managed out of the CFO's office, the CFO and other senior leaders of the Agency are challenged to promote appropriate use of the web for communication with the public. In years past, charging mechanisms were seen by some to be a disincentive since sites which become popular engender higher hosting costs. With the recent advent of fixed cost hosting for web databases, usage is not a significant factor in hosting costs.
Promote topical organization and content by including within the principles	Agree	Topic-based organization of the EPA website is a key priority of OPA and OEI at this time. A principle was added to embrace topic-based organization.
Provide additional direction on content coordination and presentation through the inclusion of more detailed description of quality and timely content.	Considered suggestions and made a limited number of changes as a result	Many comments recommended specific and detailed language about various aspects of desired content. Generally, the workgroup felt that these were excellent thoughts that should be reviewed and considered by the Content Manager in more detailed implementation documents.
Include language to boost the development of multi-lingual pages	Agree to a limited reference	The workgroup supports multi-lingual presentation but was wary of this issue without considerable discussion among the Web Council.
Offer suggestions on process, proofreading, and clarity	Considered suggestions and made multiple wording changes as a result.	Respondents offered many helpful suggestions about plain language presentation, wording changes for clarity, and possible text additions.
Reduce confusion over the current EPA-only server policy within the governance documents	Agree to add reference to current policy	The workgroup's intention was maintain the status quo on the website hosting issue. Hosting within the EPA technology infrastructure promotes a holistic Agency web presence and permits a high degree of security and management oversight. A reference will be added to the current CIO policy on web servers and its existing waiver process.
Promote accessibility and usability to a greater degree within the documents	Agree to enhance emphasis on these subjects in the principles	The workgroup strongly supports accessibility and usability. There are, however, many details associated with these two important issues which must be dealt with in implementation documents rather than the high-level principles.
Consider these general comments on the web management at EPA, the governance document and the effort which produced it.	Agree to consider.	A number of respondents offered general comments which helpfully offered a fuller understanding of their philosophy toward web management and challenges we all face. Other respondents offered encouragement or criticism about the process, timeframes, and specific text fragments within the documents.
Express concerns about Web Product Review	Agree	The workgroup heard many concerns about product review although only two comments were specifically offered on that subject. OPA has already made significant changes to web product review, including the assignment of web team members to program offices. OPA is in the process of dropping the use of PROTRAC for managing the development and review process.

Revised Dec 10, 2004

Responses to Web Governance Principles Comments

Local Navigation