Information content process management (replaces "Content creation")
SFIA 3: Definition
The planning, design and creation of information content, to be delivered electronically or otherwise. This includes managing the quality assurance and publication process.
Proposed for SFIA 4.0:
The management and tuning of the processes that collect, assemble, refine and publish information, especially in unstructured and semi-structured forms, for delivery to the user at the point at which it is needed.
-
Information content process management (replaces "Content creation"): Level 6
-
Information content process management (replaces "Content creation"): Level 5
-
Information content process management (replaces "Content creation"): Level 4
-
Information content process management (replaces "Content creation"): Level 3
-
Information content process management (replaces "Content creation"): Level 2
Content Management?
Posted by
mikechad
at
2008-06-05 11:03 AM
There is a proposal (from the Information Mgt group) to change "Content Creation" to "Content Management", with the followig revised definition: "Management and tuning of the processes that collect, refine and publish information, especially in unstructured and semi-structured forms".
Content v Digital Media?
Posted by
tgmcewan
at
2008-06-10 04:22 PM
The field of Digital Media Asset Management is growing and to some this encompasses Content Management. To others Asset Management is about preserving and exploiting an archive (which involves tracking IPR and paying royalties) while Content Management is about assembling the content to deliver to the enduser at the point at which it is needed. Configuration Management, at least as deined by IEEE, could be said to cover both. Content Creation on the other hand reflects the old discipline of technical authoring, brought up to date (at least slightly) to incorporate other forms of digital media. Here we have a clear potential to overlap/duplicate Skillset's definitions.
Further issues arise with the increasing trends to automatically aggregate content, other forms of computer-generated content creation, and web 2.0 style user-generated cvontent. For example, designing systems that provide a context-aware ALT text for an image selected via metadata to illustrate a webpage, creating the environment to capture and tag user-generated content, content moderation, search engine optimisation
Further issues arise with the increasing trends to automatically aggregate content, other forms of computer-generated content creation, and web 2.0 style user-generated cvontent. For example, designing systems that provide a context-aware ALT text for an image selected via metadata to illustrate a webpage, creating the environment to capture and tag user-generated content, content moderation, search engine optimisation
Separating content and process
Posted by
dcflint
at
2008-07-24 03:30 PM
This is not written as a skill. In fact there are at least three groups of skills here:
1) Content creation
2) Planning, design, and QA of the content
3) Management of the publication process.
It's clear that (3) is different from the other two in being more technical and requiring less knowledge of the specific content. It should really be dealt with as an aspect of process design and management and the SFIA4 proposal is consistent with this.
Skills covering (1) and (2) are needed.
1) Content creation
2) Planning, design, and QA of the content
3) Management of the publication process.
It's clear that (3) is different from the other two in being more technical and requiring less knowledge of the specific content. It should really be dealt with as an aspect of process design and management and the SFIA4 proposal is consistent with this.
Skills covering (1) and (2) are needed.
Content Creation must remain as a distinct skill
Posted by
dfarbey
at
2008-08-27 04:23 PM
I am a reviewer for the Content Creation skill, and my background is in this particular area. As well as being a BCS member, I am an Associate Lecturer for Sheffield Hallam University's distance learning MA course in Technical Communication, a Member of the Institute of Scientific and Technical Communication (ISTC) and a Tutor for its Open Learning Course in Technical Communication, a Senior Member of the Society for Technical Communication (STC) and a Past President of the STC's UK Chapter.
I want to register my very strong objection to this proposed change. Content creation professionals (technical communications specialists) are very poorly represented in the IT sector in the United Kingdom, and eliminating the Content Creation skill from the SFIA is bound to make this worse. Changing the title to one that focuses on "process" rather than on the skills required for content creation would degrade the technical communications function even further, and would make much of the existing content of the level definition irrelevant, or at the very least obscure and difficult to find. (Surely "process management" is an activity carried out by senior practitioners, whatever the skill area, and not a skill in itself?)
I would argue that there is an importance in not including the word "information" in the title of this particular skill. This skill focuses on content creation and delivery, and ideally requires different aptitudes and training from that required of other information technology professionals. That these aptitudes are rarely recognised by the IT sector, and that the training required is not readily available, are secondary issues that need to be addressed elsewhere. I would hazard a guess that 99% of the skills described in the SFIA are used in developing highly sophisticated automated systems, and all of these skill descriptions concentrate on the technology and the technologists. This may well be the only skill that requires practitioners to look at automated systems from the point of view of the user. I am not familiar with the other skills areas so I cannot comment on the degree of perceived overlap, though in my mind it is clear that "publishing information" and "publishing information on a web site" are not synonymous. I would be very interested to see the proposed "Information publishing" descriptions.
As I have not been a party to any of the discussions or decisions made so far, I may well have missed some significant reasoning behind the proposed change. I would be interested to know if any of the people involved in these decisions came from a technical communications background or was, for example, a member of the ISTC.
I want to register my very strong objection to this proposed change. Content creation professionals (technical communications specialists) are very poorly represented in the IT sector in the United Kingdom, and eliminating the Content Creation skill from the SFIA is bound to make this worse. Changing the title to one that focuses on "process" rather than on the skills required for content creation would degrade the technical communications function even further, and would make much of the existing content of the level definition irrelevant, or at the very least obscure and difficult to find. (Surely "process management" is an activity carried out by senior practitioners, whatever the skill area, and not a skill in itself?)
I would argue that there is an importance in not including the word "information" in the title of this particular skill. This skill focuses on content creation and delivery, and ideally requires different aptitudes and training from that required of other information technology professionals. That these aptitudes are rarely recognised by the IT sector, and that the training required is not readily available, are secondary issues that need to be addressed elsewhere. I would hazard a guess that 99% of the skills described in the SFIA are used in developing highly sophisticated automated systems, and all of these skill descriptions concentrate on the technology and the technologists. This may well be the only skill that requires practitioners to look at automated systems from the point of view of the user. I am not familiar with the other skills areas so I cannot comment on the degree of perceived overlap, though in my mind it is clear that "publishing information" and "publishing information on a web site" are not synonymous. I would be very interested to see the proposed "Information publishing" descriptions.
As I have not been a party to any of the discussions or decisions made so far, I may well have missed some significant reasoning behind the proposed change. I would be interested to know if any of the people involved in these decisions came from a technical communications background or was, for example, a member of the ISTC.
Forgot your password?
New user?
