Interesting reading the comments about how useful/useless consultants can
be when trying to improve the usability and/or design of a website. As we
(ILRT at Bristol University) do quite a lot of this sort of consultancy, I
feel the need to mount a bit of a defence here!
1. While I agree that the client knows what the important information is,
they often don't know how users behave when they try to find that
information (and what other objectives users have). That's when your
Information Architect (who may well come from a library/info science
background) can be really useful, in producing scenarios of how a user will
behave on your site (based on research, of course) and finding new ways of
navigating your content from a user perspective, ie, one that works!
2. Websites (and intranets) tend to be political hotbeds which is why it
can be useful to get in the 'outside view'. You could also read this as
getting an external person to corroborate your viewpoint! Sadly, I think
it's sometimes the case that senior managers respond better to 'expert
opinion' from consultants than from their own people. As someone who's been
in both roles - client and consultant - I have no idea why this is.
3. Traditionally many consultancy companies have focused on winning work
from commercial companies. What commercial companies want from their
websites is, primarily, a marketing channel that will give a return on
investment, ie, make more profits. While marketing is also important for
the not-for-profit sector, the definition of 'return on investment' tends
to be much more multi-faceted. As the vast majority of consultancies are in
it for the money, they seem to find it pretty difficult to get their heads
around this.
Sarah Agarwal
Project Manager (Usability)
Internet Developments Group
Institute for Learning and Research Technology
http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
University of Bristol
8-10 Berkeley Square
Bristol BS8 1HH
+44 171 928 7192
|