STC Summit 2013: DITA Collaboration - Paul Wlodarczyk - easyDITA 2013-05-07

Paul Wlodarczyk
Jorsek LLC – Makers of easyDITA
May 7, 2013
Collaborating in
DITA
Lessons Learned from the
State of Collaboration
Survey

Today’s Agenda
• State of Collaboration Survey 2012
– What did we discover?
– What are the implications for DITA collaboration?
• Collaborating in DITA
– What’s required?
– What technologies are here to help?

SURVEY OBJECTIVES
The State of Collaboration 2012

About the State of Collaboration survey
• Survey Objective:
– Benchmark the current state of collaboration practices
– Content contribution, review, approval
– Reader-generated content and social content features
– Understand common challenges and unmet needs
• Targeted at information development organizations
– Info development managers and technical communicators
– Other stakeholders in the collaboration process
– Consultants and vendors
• Began collecting responses July 6, 2012
• 123 respondents, 78 complete responses as of 9/20/2012
• Survey remained open through 12/31/2012
• Updated annually to spot trends and discuss emerging issues

SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS

Participating Industries (n=102)
Multiple responses allowed so amounts total more than 100%
The vast majority of
respondents were in
High Tech sectors.

Participating Individuals (n=102)
The vast majority of respondents
were Technical Communicators
or their Managers.

Number of Publications (n=74)
30%
9%
19%
5%
5%
14%
7%
11%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
1-10
11-25
26-50
51-100
101-200
201-500
501-1000
>1000
Number of publications your organization creates annually
58% of respondents
release fewer than 50
publications annually

Deliverables (n=80)
The scope of
documents in the
survey was beyond
classic technical
publications – includes
marketing, sales, requi
rements, QA

Output Formats (n=80)
40% of companies still
print, but electronic
formats for mobile are
growing in importance.

Source Content Management (n=80)
CMSes help with
collaboration, but only a third
use them.

Localization (n=77)
Number of Languages you publish
58%
24%
5%
13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
1
2-5
6-10
>10
Localization introduces unique
needs for collaboration that we’ll
examine in this year’s survey.

Number of Authors (n=76)
49%
11%
9%
16%
4%
11%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
1-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51-100
101-200
>200
How many authors are in your organization?
49% have 1-5 authors
11% have >100 authors

Ratio of Reviewers to Authors
23%
14%
26%
9%
11%
8%
11%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
<1
1
1-5
5
5-10
10
>10
Analysis: (Number of Reviewers) / (Number of Authors)
More than 10:1
Fewer than 1:1
Exactly 5:1
Exactly 10:1
Exactly 1:1
In 30%, more than 5:1, highlighting
that collaboration is far-flung.
In 49%, there are 1-5 reviewers per
author.
In 23%, review is concentrated into a
group of fewer SMEs than authors.

AUTHORING

Structured vs. Unstructured Authoring (n=91)
73.6% are using
structured authoring

Unstructured Authoring Tools (n=80)
The ubiquity of MS
Word influences
how we think about
collaboration.

DITA AND XML ADOPTION

DITA Experience (n=102)
46% of companies
responding have
been using DITA for
a year or more.

CONTENT
CONTRIBUTION, REVIEW, AND
APPROVAL

DITA/XML vs. Other Analysis
• In order to understand how adoption of DITA or XML structured
authoring affects collaboration, we compared split-samples.
• Samples were:
– “DITA/XML”: using DITA/XML for a year or more
(labeled as “Using DITA/XML >1Y” and colored in green)
– “Other”: All other organizations (colored in blue).
• Remember: In most groups there is a mix of structured and
unstructured authoring and collaboration tools (42% use both).
– Note that some “Other” are trying DITA out, and some may
create up to 25% of their documents in DITA/XML.

SME Input to Authors (n=80)

SME Input Methods: DITA vs. Other
74%
61%
48%
7%
4%
17%
26%
65%
9%
67%
64%
64%
6%
12%
42%
6%
64%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Authors interview SMEs and take notes
SMEs supply product documents (e.g. specs, designs)
SMEs author draft content (unstructured)
SMEs author draft content (XML or DITA)
SMEs author draft content (hardcopy)
SMEs and authors co-author draft content (unstructured)
SMEs and authors co-author draft content (XML or DITA)
Author has access to product
Other (please specify)
Other (n=33)
Using DITA/XML >1Y (n=46)
How do SMEs provide input to Authors?
There is significantly less co-authoring
and content contribution in organizations
using DITA / XML for more than 1 year.

Review and Comment Methods (n=78)

Review and Comment Methods: DITA vs. Other
57%
20%
52%
22%
39%
26%
26%
11%
58%
64%
58%
15%
39%
6%
33%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
We distribute PDF documents and review with Acrobat review
features
We distribute Word documents and use track changes to collect
reviewer comments and proposed changes
We collect comments in email
We use a collaboration portal (e.g. GoogleDocs, e-Room, etc.) to
post the document and collect comments and proposed changes
We review documents with SMEs in virtual meetings and make
and approve changes in real-time
We use a DITA or XML tool to collect comments and changes
We collect comments in hardcopy format
Other (n=33)
How do SMEs and others review and comment on draft content?
26% of those using DITA / XML
for more than 1 year collect
changes in DITA or XML. This
does not close the gap in the use
of Word for collaboration.

Format of Final Review Content (n=78)

Format of Final Review Content: DITA vs. Other
43%
30%
13%
52%
22%
11%
58%
61%
30%
18%
3%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Complete unstructured draft documents ("proofs" without redlines /
change bars - includes PDFs)
Complete unstructured draft documents (with redlines / change
bars - including PDFs)
Only the portions of unstructured documents that changed
DITA or other XML - only the components that changed
DITA maps built just for review purposes
Other (n=33)
Which forms of content do you review and approve?
Over half of those using DITA / XML
for more than 1 year only review
content that changed, but their use
of PDF for review is still widespread.

Review Challenges (n=78)

Review Challenges: DITA vs. Other
59%
35%
54%
46%
37%
54%
9%
11%
52%
64%
70%
64%
55%
70%
21%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Authors have to rekey SME proposed changes
Authors have to reconcile conflicting change requests
Review and approval cycles delays publication of deliverables
Reviewers complain that process requires too much time or effort
Reviewers comment and propose changes on content that was out
of scope of the current revision
Reviewers and approvers do not respond in a timely fashion
Record keeping is insufficient for internal or regulatory audit
requirements
Other (n=33)
Which issues does your organization face for review and comment?
DITA / XML users report less
pain in review and approval.
12%
16%
18%
18%
16%
29%
7%

SOCIAL CONTENT

Tracking Views and Social Ratings (n=74)
Only 20% of organizations
have readers rate content.
track what is read on-line.

Acting on Social Ratings (n=74)
Organizations that have ratings use them
to identify valuable or “ailing” content.

Do Users Contribute? (n=73)
have end-user contribution.

Curating User Contributed Content (n=73)
When end users contribute
content, half of organizations
curate via the Information
Development organization.

IF THERE WAS ONE THING YOU COULD DO TO
IMPROVE COLLABORATION IN YOUR
ORGANIZATION, WHAT WOULD IT BE?

“One thing you could do …” – Process
• Product Lifecycle
– “*Info dev] included earlier in the product development cycle” – Tech Writer
– “Better notification from developers of product changes” – Tech Writer
– “Better communication about new features that are coming and how they affect
current documentation” – Tech Writer
– “Make spec documents from SMEs clear enough that a common controlled
vocabulary can be created, and that spec clearly indicates task flows etc.” – Tech
Writer
– “Prevent customer engineering from being a roadblock in getting information
about customer goals and needs” – Tech Writer
• Review
– “More timely responses from SMEs.” – Tech Writer
– “Train SMEs on collaboration techniques.” – Tech Pubs Manager
“Convince reviewers that modular documentation means not having to review entire books.”
Information Development Manager

“One thing you could do…” – Process
• End-user Involvement
– “Get more customer feedback into the document development / improvement
process.” – Tech Pubs Manager
– “We would like to know how the end users are using our documents.” – Tech
Writer
• Support
– “Have better coordination with Project Support (the people who actually interact
with the customers!)” – Tech Writer
“We would like to know how the end users are using our documents.”
Technical Writer / Information Architect

“One thing you could do …” – Tools
• Common Tools
– “An affordable minimal-DITA browser editor for the masses.” – DITA Consultant
– “All parties using the same tools to create, review, and manage content.” – Tech
Pubs Manager
– “XML/DITA implementation, everyone on same tooling/process” – Tech Writer
– “More collaboration that is viewable to all” – Tech Writer
– “Offer an easy *DITA+ authoring tool … Developers could draft procedures and QA
could write test plans in DITA rather than unstructured.” – Tech Writer
“Offer an easy authoring tool *for DITA+… Developers could draft procedures
and QA could write test plans in DITA rather than unstructured.”

• Review
– “An automated technical review application that will track reviewers, capture
input, trigger past due alerts, provides reporting features.” – Tech Pubs Manager
– “Making it easier for simultaneous reviews so that everyone sees the changes in
one place” – DITA Consultant
– “Review tool in which in-line comments would be displayed next to the content
under review.” – DITA Consultant
– “Ability to archive results of the review in a way that would be accessible to the
general public” – DITA Consultant
“Make document draft, review, and final more automated and easy to track”

• Change Tracking
– “See a history of changes within a document, rather than by comparison of two
versions in the CMS” – Other Management
• End-user Involvement
– “Provide a way for customers to give direct input to our content” – Tech Pubs
Manager
– “Move to a web-based content distribution model and enable feedback from end
users directly.” – Content Production
– “Incorporate social media in the products and their help docs to capture the end-
user’s feedback” – Tech Writer
“Move to a web-based content distribution model and
enable feedback from end users directly.”
Content Production / Tools Specialist

LESSONS LEARNED
State of Collaboration 2012

Differences in Collaboration Styles with DITA
• There are significant differences in collaboration between
organizations that have been using DITA and others
• In organizations using DITA, there appears to be less content
contribution from SMEs. Possible explanations:
– Organizations that did less collaboration were more likely to adopt DITA
– Limited SME access to DITA tools
– Limited usability of DITA / XML tools for SMEs
• Organizations using DITA for more than a year have less pain in
content review
– Probably due to reviewing only those components that changed
• Most organizations don’t appear to have found a DITA
replacement for Word-based and PDF-based collaboration.

WHAT DO WE NEED?
Collaborating in DITA

What do we need in DITA Collaboration?
Tools built for everyone, available to everyone
Editors built for SME reviewers, not for “DITA users”. Runs on every
computer or device. No software to download. Free reviewer
licenses.

Clarity around roles:
Am I an author? A reviewer? An approver?
An observer? A reader?

Limits to Scope Creep:
If I have the whole document to review, it’s “open season” for any
changes I want to make, even if it’s not my job or in the scope of this
review activity. Stop me before I kill again….

Progress Tracking for Review and Input projects:
Are we there yet? Who’s finished? Who’s late?

Easy method to Accept / Reject / Merge changes
We need to be able to merge everyone’s feedback into a final draft
document (like in Word today).

Tracking changes:
What changed since the last “official” draft? Since the last time I
looked? (like in Word today)

Traceability:
Where’s This From? Who approved this?

Audit trail:
An immutable record of who changed what, when, and why. This
should include the whole discussion…

Measuring activity / productivity / effectiveness:
Who is a role-model collaborator? Who is always holding things up?
Who lurks? Who expedites?

Getting feedback from Readers
Was it useful? Was it correct? Can we do better?

WHAT’S POSSIBLE?

Easy-to-use Editors for Contribution and Review
• Editors built for SMEs. Not only do they
hide the complexity of structured authoring…
…. but they use structure to help SMEs contribute
Example:
Editing a Task in easyDITA

Easy-to-use Collaboration Tools
• Review and approval tools that provide the best of Word and
Acrobat:
– Reviewer: Suggest changes (like Acrobat)
– Author: Accept / reject changes (like Word)
Example:
Review in easyDITA

Reader Ratings and Comments
• Content delivery platforms that capture reader ratings and
comments, and route them back to authors. Examples:
• Mekon DITAweb + XMetaL, Suite Solutions Suite Share, easyDITA + MindTouch
Example:
Ratings and comments in MindTouch
route back to easyDITA authors.

Content Analytics
Dynamic Delivery of DITA content enables measurement of what
readers search for, find useful, read, rate.
5/7/2013 60Collaborating in DITA – ©2013 Jorsek LLC, All Rights Reserved
Example:
Analytics in MindTouch

THANK YOU!
linkedin.com/in/paulw
paul.wlodarczyk
paul@easydita.com

STC Summit 2013: DITA Collaboration - Paul Wlodarczyk - easyDITA 2013-05-07

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie STC Summit 2013: DITA Collaboration - Paul Wlodarczyk - easyDITA 2013-05-07

Ähnlich wie STC Summit 2013: DITA Collaboration - Paul Wlodarczyk - easyDITA 2013-05-07 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

STC Summit 2013: DITA Collaboration - Paul Wlodarczyk - easyDITA 2013-05-07

Hinweis der Redaktion