I cant concur more, the "working groups" and "pilot teams" are not SMEs in any of the project process or implementation area, let alone have the systems expertise, leaving the "expert advisor" the contractor that was hired to implement the system, and thus far on 4/5 projects, all deadlines have been pushed backed, no enforcement is being made on the contractor deliverables, the contracts that are not being met are firm fixed contracts, so, there is no accountability, its a mess.

I have only been here less than a year, but can see why people go straight back to silicone valley...

I think working groups need to include SME's for web, PR staff and IT. It's when you ignore the need for someone's knowledge until after the fact that you generally have to turn around and re-create sites. It needs to be a comprehensive, inclusive process that takes into consideration the knowledge of each area - the web staff as experts at creating sites, the IT staff in making sure the site doesn't carsh, and the PR folks in knowing what is needed on the site (creating a site without knowing what is going on it is a pretty big waste of time).

The point I am making is the Public Affairs and IT are often considered the web experts, when in fact they should not be. That is not to say they add no value, but web design, web programming and related web skills are a specialty. That point is being overlooked time and time again, and the result is poor planning, bad websites.

Too many websites have a limited staff and seem to be an afterthought of IT Management. There is a battle between public affairs and IT requirements/needs, principles and responsibilities and OPSEC brings up many issues. The webmaster has to wear too many hats and no matter what takes the brunt of the responsibility for too much.

Yes. You want to make great sites? You need these multidisciplinary teams with the right experience, skills, tools, and support - it's as simple as that. And strategic experienced leadership is essential.

There is no magic bullet.

It's getting more critical as electronic channels continue to evolve. I added another suggestion, about supporting a culture of innovation, which overlaps with some points here.

This touches on a larger issue within federal service/GS pay system...the GS Series. I've watched and helped people try to write PDs for similiar specialized positions: for instructional design, e-publishing, web content editors and educational technology specialists - and there are no SERIES to put these in; they get lumped in IT or Visual Information or PA or Writer/Editor or 1700 series and if you look at those flysheets they are rarely useful.

There needs to be a complete revamp of OPMs GS series to include new series for these jobs or updates to other series that have relevant and current information.

If you can get the series and position titles right, you might stand a chance of getting a team of the right people (instead of people qualifying for a 1700 Instructional Design job b/c they have 15 years experience as a Child & Youth Services employee).

Sorry, little off-topic.

Well,you've brought the elephant to the room: governance. US government websites have been around since 1995, and we still don't have a "web manager" classification, nor do we have any agreement at all about what the web governance structure should be. We see that most web operations are in public affairs shops now. But does that really make sense? So let me toss this into the hopper: either put the web team in an office of communications (distinct from PA in that they are not all about press) or - better yet - an office of customer service. Make sure they have all needed skills: writing/editing (plain, of course), subject expertise, usability analysis, audience analysis (metrics), contract management (if you use contracts), budgeting, and web design. There may be more, but you get the drift. The key is to put the web team where they can be successful, where they are neutral (can support all silos), and where they can be customer-focused. OK - go at it. What say you?

I noticed some no votes on this topic. I would be very curious to hear why someone would be opposed to this idea.

Candi, check out this other post someone put up there on professional development: http://web-reform-dialogue.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Professional-Development/82261-4097

Why I voted no on this: You need more generalists not fewer. Part of what makes the government website creation and revision process so ponderous is that every job is sliced and diced into miniscule little pieces. Obviously there are more technical specializations (e.g. database interface, security scans) that require depth of knowledge but if everyone on a given web team has the capacity to do well 90% of the things needed to launch a site then any staff member can be plugged into any project in almost any capacity. You wouldn't have sites waiting on the 508 specialist or the content specialist or the SEO specialist.

Very few can do 90% of the things well, even if they think they can.

For example, most programmers know basic CSS, but are often leaned on as the organization CSS experts because they are the only ones in the organization who know CSS, yet they only know BASIC CSS. That doesn't line up, and reflects a lack of understanding of the state of web design at the professional level.

The larger the site gets, the more you need a team of specialists to help plan, build, manage and improve the site.

Knowledge management is more important longterm than any particular current web implementation skill.

Bob, I have to disagree. I would never say, for example, in an engineering, science or policy organization that organizational strategy is more important than, say, engineering expertise. They both have their place, but if you don't have the specialists to do the work and/or make sure it is done accurately by contractors at a technical level then the mission and strategy is for naught.