Working with Content Experts

An effective relationship between content expert and information architect is crucial to getting a quality product outcome. The information architect knows how to communicate information (knowledge) to a learner in the most effective and satisfying way, employing a set of usability guidelines. However, it’s the content expert whose knowledge and information the IA is conveying.

This is not always an easy relationship. In the trade, we can call it ‘creative tension’. Often it depends on attitude in the partnership towards the relative value of each other’s contribution. A content expert, for example, may feel as though the IA is stepping on their turf, lowering the standard of the resource communication to its lowest common denominator or not understanding the material or the learner. Sometimes content experts just don’t like their work being edited or correctly, and feel personally miffed by changes made or recommended.

On the other hand, the IA needs to be understanding, empathetic and, at the same time, forceful. They obviously have an essential role in this, and their skill is to manage the media in which they are working. I think here of the relationship between a good radio interviewer, and a guest. There is a symbiotic relationship here that makes for an excellent interview – the interviewer guiding the progress of the narrative, listening carefully and prompting or challenging when necessary.

Differences between content expert and IA can sometimes come down to differences in pedagogical thinking. For instance, because of the power of the interactive media, the IA presses for an active learning model - let’s get the learner active and doing things. On the other hand, the content expert may be of the ‘tell and learn’ school; all the learner needs to know is how to do it.

In dealing with this relationship, I’ve characterized four types of scenario, and some strategies for dealing with each.|

1. Let me write the book first.
The general assumption here is that online learning is much the same a reading a textbook. Obviously it’s not. I remember not too far back working in education radio when the content expert considered all they needed to do was broadcast their lectures. Too bad how an hour lecture sounded on radio!

In this situation, I generally discuss the need for a content limit in terms of the number of computer screens (pages) and then develop (cooperatively) a content structure or inventory. Then, we develop a template for the writing so that there is a consistency across the whole resource. There may be a brief introduction, links to other sites, activities, exercises, other media elements, downloads, etc. Starting with the content inventory in this case educates the content expert that there are word constraints, but advantages in terms of additional media resources.

The content expert then writes to the resource template, and the IA acts more as a traditional editor. What starts off as looking like a nightmare can develop into a very productive partnership. This will probably entail a number of drafts, but so long as neither mind this, generally an excellent resource will emerge.

2. Here’s the book I have just written.
Again the assumption here is that the book is easily transferable to a multimedia environment. The book metaphor is not the best to use, and often leads down false or winding pathways. My own reference is more an architectural metaphor, and to think of elearning spaces rather than pages. The book keeps us thinking of a linear, 2-dimensional space.

On the other hand, it depend whether the author of the book is willing to see major modification – like now with film and the book on which its based. We all complain that there’s not much relationship between the two, and that’s not saying much. Of course they are different.

So if the content expert is willing to allow substantial modification, and the IA steps beyond the book metaphor, this may be the most productive scenario in terms of speed of development. At least the content is there.

3. Here’s some PowerPoint slides that I’ve made.
This is based on quite a different assumption. The PowerPoint slides were probably used in a face-to-face teaching context, and the author fleshed out the content on the spot, often with very few guiding notes. Basically its all in their heads.

In this case, the IA is expected to be the content developer. On the one hand, this allows them quite a lot of control over the presentation-media issues. On the other, the level of the pitch and the content itself is missing.
In this case, I have resorted to taping the content expert as they speak to their PP slides. Then, constructing the content using the transcriptions and slides. This is a reasonably arduous task. Its important if taking this course to except that what you have written may not be technically correct, and to have the content expert read and approve versions as they are drafted.

But the process means that the IA can use every possible interactive device to build the resource and is not limited to the book metaphor (above). In effect, the content becomes an elaborate template and the content expert becomes the editor.

4. What do you want me to write?
The content expert here acknowledges that the medium is different to what they have worked in previously, and feel daunted or unconfident about entering this space. Here it’s a case of making the process easy and setting up clear templates in which the content expert can work.

Part of the process is educating the writer to the media differences. The danger is that the process is so overwhelming that it is slow and laborious, or the expert becomes more interested in ambitious media schemes that are expensive and difficult to execute - requiring complex animations, or loads of video. In this scenario, the IA looks as though they are the person putting (unnecessary) constraints on the interactivity of the resource.