return home

Mar
26
2011

More Cartoons, Church Websites, and Committees

I just came across another great cartoon meant for webdesigners. It is part of a weekly series published by the good folks at http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/. You can check it out below.

Webdesigner Hell

This cartoon really hit home with me because this precise experience has led me to do a lot of thinking around the process that churches, and any organization really, go through when it comes time to redesign their website.

The typical process goes something like this:

  1. The committee is formed by selecting the group of people  within the church or organization who seem the most "tech savvy" 
  2. The committee reaches out to a few different web designers and gets bids on the new website based upon the features that the committee seems to really like on other webistes.
  3. The bids come in and the committee is forced to sort through completely different bids for completely different products. At this point it becomes like comparing apples to dishwashers to pants.
  4. The committee, somehow, agrees to hire a particular designer or developer.
  5. The designer/developer takes the committee's input then produces the initial product.
  6. The committee reviews the product then suggests tweaks and changes that would make it better.
  7. The hired professional then bangs her/his head against their desk as the product suddenly devolves into Frankenstein's Website.
  8. This continues until all parties are frustrated, then, somehow, the project comes to conclusion.

After observing this process many times and hearing the same experience from other developers/designers, I began to realize that the adversarial nature of this process was neither the result of a bad committee nor the product of an overly stubborn and proud designer. Rather, the entire process, especially when it comes to churches, is completely flawed.

The flaw in this process is the goal. The typical process assumes that the goal is to produce a product...the website. Both parties, the designer/developer and the committee, want to produce a good product. However, that is not the true goal of the committee. This is because the committee is not made up of detached bureaucrats who only want an outcome. Rather, the committee is made up of real people who's real goal is to have meaningful participation in the things that they care about. In the case of a church website, the committee's true desire is to be able to participate fully in this ministry.

With this desire for real, meaningful participation in mind, it is easy to see how this process can frustrate a committee and devolve into nothing more than providing feedback and, like our cartoon above, making changes for the sake of changes. This is because that type of interaction is really the only way provided for the committee to engage the process.

Things get worse when the committee does engage the process in this way because it ends up creating an adversarial role between them and the professional they have hired. Why is that? Well, the professional is also a human. And, from their standpoint, the process is equally flawed. He/she feels like they were hired to produce a great website. The use all of their professional knowledge, skill, and experience to produce the best product they can. Ultimately, the pour a bit of them self into it. Then, the committee, whose most "tech savvy" member most likely has trouble with email and simply wants everything to have rounded corners, offers their critiques and criticisms. 

The problem with all of this is that the meaningful roles need to be reversed. If anyone is pouring themselves into the product, it needs to be the committee or church or team, not the developer or designer. If anyone needs to be providing expertise and guidance, it needs to be the developer or designer, not the committee. That's why, when my business, 3 Story Church, works with a client, I flip-flop this process.

Here's my process (in a nutshell):

  1. The committee is formed, hopefully with as wide a cross section of the church's population as possible...no tech experience required.
  2. I meet with the committee, in person, on a Saturday. The day begins with me providing a workshop about church communications, church website, and social media.
  3. After the workshop in the morning and after a lunch break, we meet again for a session where we work together to define just who the users of the website will be, how they will tend to use the website, and what things would keep them from having a good experience.
  4. Next, we work together to define what story we want the website to tell, what types of information and content we want to share on the website, and how those things might go together. That's it for Saturday.
  5. On Sunday, I worship with your church. After worship and after lunch (we all have to eat), we meet again. This time I present a series of characters that represent the types of users we had defined on Saturday. I describe these characters as if they were real people. They will be how we will talk about how the website is used.
  6. After introducing the characters, I present some wire frame mock ups of the website to represent some of the features and functions we had talked about the day before. We work together to decide what is best for your church.
  7. Finally, we look at some design styles to go along with the wire frames. I call this the carpet sample phase. We work together to decide what design direction is best to meet the needs and goals of the website...that we all defined.

When I leave on Sunday afternoon, the structure, strategy, and design is mostly decided upon and laid out. More importantly, though, the committee has had more than just a say in these things, they have had a faithfully engaged role in this ministry. The committee has done more than simply say, "I like this" or "I don't like that". Rather, they have, with my guidance and partnership, made decisions and laid out direction based  on strategy and processes that they, no matter their level of "tech savviness", understand. 

This may not be for everyone, but I've experienced this process leave a committee or team feeling more than just happy with the final product. I've experienced it leaving the committee or team feeling ownership of and engagement with a real ministry...and that's so much better and more effective than just a pretty website.



care to comment?



url:


prove you are human:


recent comments: