I.A. DESIGN FOR COLLABORATIVE WORKFLOW

Jay Franco Digital Asset management

This information architecture case study details the design and implementation of an internal file management system.

SUMMARY

The design firm that I worked for was experiencing file management and organization problems causing inefficiencies and large amounts of redundant files within the design department. I teamed up with a product manager and another design director to create a solution for the file management and organization problem which we presented to the COO. Our solution was to introduce a new folder structure and file naming convention that could support collaborative design work.

PROCESS

UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM

At the time, all the product designers (about 30 people) were responsible for keeping track of their own design files and would often store them locally on their hard drive rather than on the server in a mutually accessible location. Everyone had their own organization system. If someone was out of the office, or left the company, or had hard drive failure this became a huge, expensive problem for the company.

The problem was that there was no company standard for file management, which forced users to come up with their own systems. These competing systems often created issues with collaboration, version control, and file redundancy. Users experienced frustration due to misplaced or lost files and many inconsistencies, which created a culture of mistrust and blame.

The company recognized the problem and appointed me along with a product manager and another design director to help find a solution. Initially, we brought in a consultant who recommended a digital asset management (DAM) software system. The DAM software would facilitate file sharing and archiving, but it was expensive and did not address many of the other problems. Also, as 95% of the design department worked in the NYC office and files were rarely shared outside of our local network.

We recognized that the DAM was unnecessary and began looking for other solutions.

We started with interviews to gain an understanding users’ workflows, pain points, and the processes they felt were working well. We examined their activities, tasks, and the types of files they were generating. We found that no matter how users were organizing their files, they all had very similar work flows and were generating the same kinds of files.

Through our interviews we found two common pain points: difficulty collaborating with other users and difficulty locating other user’s files. Users were possessive of their files and felt exposed when they saved their work-in-progress on the server. They didn’t understand the company’s reasons for asking them to store files there.

We also interviewed users’ managers who had similar difficulties with locating files and collaboration, but were also frustrated with version control and inefficiencies. Managers did not have much time to train new users or enforce rules for file management. We also talked to leaders in other departments to get an understanding of their interaction with the design department. Interviews with upper management revealed that they were mainly concerned about money and protecting their assets—server storage and maintenance is expensive, so they wanted to reduce the number of redundant files and also implement a system for backing up digital assets daily.

FINDING A SOLUTION

Interviews helped us crystalize our objectives:

• facilitate easy collaboration

• the system needed to be intuitive and require very little training

• standardize folder structures and file naming conventions across the art department

• reduce redundant files

• mandate that all files be saved on the company’s server which is backed up daily

Using a card sorting exercise, we determined that there were three main types of files: original designs, presentation materials, and reference materials. Using these categories as a framework, we sketched out various ideas in a brainstorming session. We tested our ideas against various scenarios that we constructed which helped us narrow down the possibilities. The process of testing against scenarios was really useful and revealed a lot more difficult edge cases than we originally anticipated.

The brainstorm sketching process produced some wonderful novel ideas which we incorporated into our proposed system. The system consisted of silos on the server that could be backed up daily or weekly, depending on the function of the files.

We created a testing platform on a new server partition, and granted access to select users for testing. Observations revealed that we needed to tweak some category names for clarity, but the system was very intuitive overall. Users were able to easily find the correct place to save a file, usually on the first try. It became clear that the biggest challenge in implementing the system would be enforcing individual file naming conventions, but managers were willing to do this. We distributed a packet with examples and a key for file name codes, which the managers explained to each new user. After a while, it became clear that the system was self-revealing, and almost no explanation was necessary for new users.

CONCLUSION

Most interesting, was that the problem revealed a deeper issue with the company culture. The design department needed to work collaboratively, but many designers felt possessive of their design files. After implementation of the system, we observed a much higher level of collaboration within teams and between departments. The was project a success and ushered a major positive culture shift to the company. Through strategic thought, research, and testing we created a file organization system that is intuitive, collaborative, and able to accommodate the company’s ever-growing archive of design files. By balancing the company’s goals with the the user’s experience we found a sustainable solution.