Corporate Sites and Back Channel Communication

 

Definition of back channel communication: "'Grapevine' or informal communications that travels parallel to (and sometimes ahead of) official channels in an organization or society" from BusinessDictionary.com.

Of course, the "real work" of organizations is usually done informally, so unofficial communication is extremely important.  That said, if you run a large Web site, you have probably encountered these types of internal issues:

• Multiple meetings re-hashing the same thing.  This can happen even without back channel communications by people not attending "decision-making" meetings, but it becomes worse when those that did not attend talk and get energized / momentum behind alternative decisions.  Of course, people getting energized and coming up with creative solutions to problems is important, but channeling that into an efficient fashion is important.  
• Groups not understanding what is happening with the Web and the tools, resulting in unproductive and negative conversations.  Obviously, this can lead to negativity when people's expectations (which may have little grounding if communications are poor) are not met. 
• People feeling that some groups are receiving unfair treatment (for instance, loud and/or annoying internal users getting undue attention).  If some groups get special attention from the implementation teams, then not only will other groups get upset but you may be doing your Web site a disservice.  

These types of issues arise from unproductive back channel communications.  Again, this is for large sites in organizations that are probably already bureaucratic.  If you work somewhere that these aren't issues, then count yourself lucky and maybe this blog post will seem ridiculous.  If you do have issues like those above, then perhaps setting up these frameworks / processes will help: 

• effective Web Strategy and Web Governance.  One result of setting up effective Web Strategy and Web Governance will be a clear set of Policies and Standards that drive your Web site.  This will mean that, regardless of whether it's formal decision-making or people creatively and independently coming up with useful solutions, the discussion will be within the realm of what makes sense for the organization.  
• a clear communications approach.  One of the reasons people have negative discussions is that they just don't know what's going on.  Often, this is not their fault.  So make sure you have a process in place about how to communicate about your Web presence (what changes are upcoming, how decisions were made, what was not done, any performance issue updates, how to get help, etc).
• a process for people to effectively provide their feedback.  Good ideas can come from anywhere, so you should have a way for anyone to make suggestions for improvement.  Note that this could be feedback on policies and standards, but also more detailed decisions such as how the CMS needs to be implemented.
• rules for how decisions are made.  If people are going to be providing suggestions, then they need to understand how that input will be considered.  For example, if ultimate decisions are made by a committee that votes, then rules such as who gets to vote, how votes happen, what is a quorum, etc, need to be clear to everyone.  The decision-making process would normally be different (and with different people) for policies, standards, and more specific areas such as tool definition.  At any rate, having this type of clarity helps avoid re-hashing decisions at multiple meetings. 

In summary, if you suffer from negative and inefficient, internal back channel communications around your Web presence, then consider setting up effective Web Strategy and Web Governance and defining communications, internal user feedback approach, and decision-making processes.