New for the sake of new?
Written June 4th, 2007 by Neal LinkonI’m constantly being asked by various elements of our health care system about trying “new and innovative” approaches. For you and I, most of these aren’t really new. But for the people requesting them, they consider it a bold and dangerous forray into the unknown.
What usually sidetracks the conversation, however, is when I turn the discussion to what they want to accomplish. What are their goals and success measures? They usually have no idea.
A good example is a recent request to try some “new and innovative” approaches to recruiting. On the possible wish list was the use of audio and video, podcasts, instant messaging and chat, etc. So I asked where they thought our current recruiting efforts were falling short. Not enough applicants? Not the right quality? Applicants not clear on what they are really applying for? And what would qualify as success? X% more applicants, faster filling of priority jobs, or something else?
What I got was a lot of blank stares and statements about how important recruiting was to the success of the organization. Oh, and I forgot the most important thing: One manager had put in his goals for the year to try an unspecified “new and innovative” tactic in recruiting. Results didn’t really matter as long as we tried it.
At the end of the day, not much of what they were asking about are difficult, and all might be good experiments. But is it the best use of resources when we don’t even have a problem to solve or a goal to reach?
Please tell me I’m not alone in facing this issue!
June 5th, 2007 at 9:04 am
You’re right on target, Neal.
I was given the project of creating some new approaches to online recruitment, despite the fact that a large majority of our site visitors are already going to our HR pages.
I added a PPC account for our site, which is certainly trafficed (and our monthly invoice reflects so), and basically suggested things that other organizations were already doing!
June 5th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I couldn’t agree more. This echoes what I was saying in my blog post: too many people are clamoring for “something new and cool” without thinking it through at all.
I think it is our obligation to help them focus back on the organizational/department/service mission, and then to decide how any new tools will really do a better job of accomplishing that goal. HR is such a good example. We’ve relegated it to a less visible spot in our navigation in an upcoming design, believing that job seekers (being the largest percent of our visits) are motivated to find the job search when they hit the site, and will do that on their own. We’re saving the big real estate to entice those who may need more enticing.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Interesting approach, Judy. It does make sense. But how did HR take that?
June 6th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I couldn’t agree more. So many times do I get the ‘let’s try this – everyone else is doing it, and it looks new!’
What are the goals of the project? Why are we doing this? These are the important questions to keep in mind.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Reminds me of my favorite observation about new technology, “Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should!”
At the same time, we all must strive to be recognized as a thought leader in our respective organizations, remain open-minded to the possibilities of new media, and certainly avoid coming off as “Dr. No” to our various constituencies.
I like your approach, Neal. Ask ‘em what they want to accomplish, what would constitute success, and how it compares to current methods. The answers probably become self-evident.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:49 am
We totally agree Neal. Are you also asking them to define their business requirements/objectives in writing prior to or immediately following receipt of the request? Not sure how effective this approach would be or if it’s worth exploring development of a request template to include these items. We’ve toyed with that idea but have yet to operationalize a request form. I wonder how others have handled it?
June 7th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I loved Judy’s message. We tried proposing that as we are relooking at how our site is organized, and you would have thought we asked for the HR VP’s first-born child. “The web site is primarily for patients,” sez I.
To respond to DebbieK, no, we aren’t quite that formal in our processes. I do believe, as cdierker said, that we need to be trying new things just to see how they work. So we strive for a balance. I’ve always advocated a “just try it” approach to web development, but there is a limit!
June 7th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I’m facing the same problem! It’s interesting that when we had the Norman/Nielsen group (www.nngroup.com) come in do a big consulting gig on a new information architecture, one of their strong recommendations was to move the Careers link from the upper right corner to the bottom nav – that’s where people expect it and look for it. So we did. For three weeks. You’ll see it now on our left nav bar. (A compromise.) The issue was was that our recruiters couldn’t find the link and they translated that to getting fewer applicants although the numbers didn’t show that.
So the larger issue here is when internal clients add items to their “plans” that call for doing new and innovative things. So much of what we are now being called on to do is counsel them that that isn’t what people are looking for online from us. It’s exhausting.
June 19th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Judy, I’m also interested in how HR has responded your idea. I am faced with the very same issue. HR is telling me that they hear constant complaints about how “hidden” jobs are on our site. I can argue this until I’m blue in the face, but it doesn’t seem to matter. I agree that job seekers are extrememly motivated and if they are already on your home page because they want to work for your organization, then they will find where it is that they need to go to apply for a job. Our HR site also receives the most visits of all of our sites.