• Like
  • Save
Implementing Structured Writing and Content Management Globally
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Implementing Structured Writing and Content Management Globally

on

  • 419 views

Presentation describes a case study on how to implement structured writing and content management. It discusses what went right, wrong, and metrics used to measure success.

Presentation describes a case study on how to implement structured writing and content management. It discusses what went right, wrong, and metrics used to measure success.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
419
Views on SlideShare
344
Embed Views
75

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
10
Comments
0

1 Embed 75

http://lavacon.org 75

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Implementing Structured Writing and Content Management Globally Implementing Structured Writing and Content Management Globally Presentation Transcript

    • Implementing Structured Writing and Content Management Globally Pam Noreault Sr. User Experience Content Specialist ACI Worldwide @pnoreault@LavaCon
    • Contact me – conversation • 20+ years experience in user assistance, content, and training • pamela.noreault@aciworldwide.com • pamnoreault@gmail.com • pnoreault - Twitter • Pam Noreault - LinkedIn @pnoreault@LavaCon
    • Here’s the story ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Case study on a global DITA implementation Project goals How goals were achieved What went right and wrong How we fixed what we screwed up and what we left screwed up Project outcome and the lessons learned Project timeline Cost savings/calculations Metrics used to track what we did
    • Big shock! Horrors!
    • Set the stage ● Four sites: UK, Germany, USA, and Canada. ● Seven languages and with an in-house translation team of 13. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ English German Italian French Spanish Japanese Simplified Chinese Traditional Chinese ● Inventory of ~350 documents in FrameMaker, Word, Help and Manual, RoboHelp (basic hell)
    • Actors in the play • Four Doc Managers - one per site • One Translation Manager - UK • Two Information Architects - US and UK • 20 Technical Writers • 12 Translators Names have been changed to protect the innocent.
    • Business goals • Reduce documentation and translation costs • Improve time to market • Improve content consistency
    • Project goals Main Goals ● ● ● Get rid of ● Manual translation processes ● Software and authoring silos ● Eliminate the focus on layout Introduce resource sharing across sites Focus on quality content Team Goals ● ● ● Convert doc to DITA Move content storage to a central repository Implement DITA OT as the publishing engine for PDF and Help
    • Business goals reached how? • Translation costs slashed • Shaved months off releases (Waterfall SDLC) • Content reuse helped consistency
    • What made the difference? ● Translation eliminated layout activities ● Translation eliminated converting content to XML prior to translating it and importing it back to source software ● Common software tools ● Resource sharing across sites ● Quality content ● Content converted to DITA (manually – shoot me!) ● Central repository implemented ● DITA OT used for PDF and Help for all languages
    • What went right 1. Doc team completed job in spite of tiny budget, no time, and little expertise 2. Translation team won big 3. Met the biz goals and project goals
    • What went wrong • No topic model caused element tagging horrors • No ‘sandbox’ DITA OT so stuff broke often • No concrete content reuse strategy so reuse horrors • Variable use for product names was a translation nightmare
    • Lessons learned ● Get dirty and ask for help ● Topic model – do one (keep it simple) ● Content reuse - avoid spaghetti linking and use common folders ● Sandbox – have one ● Translation impact – think it over with variables ● PDF customizations - Do NOT change the DITA OT files directly
    • Project timeline • Tool selection - 3 months • DITA OT for PDF - 6 months • DITA OT for web help - 3 months • Content conversion - 6-8 months • Pilot project - 6 months • All projects - 12 months
    • Cost savings (1 of 5) Reduced project cost by 5% • Accurate doc estimates = Accurate translation estimates • Reduced word count • Reuse of content • Reduced the number of drops for translation • Implemented translation guidelines – Lowercase text in headings except for first word, keyword reuse, XML source
    • Cost savings (2 of 5) Cut two weeks off time to market for releases •Stopped doing layout
    • Cost savings (3 of 5) Cut doco project costs by 30% •Reduced English word count •Eliminated layout •Combined docs to avoid redundancy •Content reuse
    • Cost savings (4 of 5) Cut translation costs by 50% • Reduced word count • Eliminated layout - Translation was doing layout on docs using Adobe InDesign • 50% of a project doing translation and 50% doing layout • Content reuse
    • Cost savings (5 of 5) Translation prep saved $24k per project • • • • • • • Saved 5 days of work for each translator Content reuse Keyword reuse Lowercase headings Reduced English word count Avoided gratuitous screen shots Common glossary terms 12 Translators @ $50 per hr - $50x40 hrs per wk + $2,000 per wk saved $2,000 x 12 translators = $24,000 per project
    • Metrics – do a BASELINE • Determine costs - before and after DITA • Measure time - before and after DITA • Companies push for FTE reduction with process savings. • Put money back into other projects.
    • Continue the conversation Pam Noreault pamela.noreault@aciworldwide.com pamnoreault@gmail.com Twitter: pnoreault LinkedIn: Pam Noreault