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.
|