Content Integration
by David M. Raab
DM Review
April, 2001
The last few articles have discussed the "interaction manager"--a
central system that coordinates contacts with customers across
independent touchpoints. The key role of the interaction manager
is to make decisions about how to respond to a specific
situation. But these decisions must be translated into specific
content before they can be presented to a customer. Handling
this efficiently turns out to be one of major challenges in the
interaction management process.
The form of the content depends on the touchpoint system--it
may be an HTML page, telemarketing script, direct mail letter,
WAP message, and so on. Content for each touchpoint is usually
created and managed independently, either in the touchpoint
system itself or in a specialized system such as a Web page
development tool. The interaction manager itself rarely performs
this function, although a few systems do manage email messages
internally for user convenience. Content management itself is a
demanding operational process with extensive requirements for
text and graphic manipulation, version control, authorizations,
work flow, controlled deployment, staging, expiration dates,
geographic and other distribution constraints, security, and
other functions.
But while the interaction manager does not actually manage
content, it must somehow ensure that its decisions can be
delivered through whatever content is available. At one extreme,
the interaction management rules may actually include references
to specific pieces of content. This requires that the user know
what content is available when the rule is being defined. The
communication may be handled manually (by having the user look
at the content management system), automatically (by having the
interaction manager read the list of available content items
from the content manager), or in some hybrid fashion (perhaps by
having the user manually enter the list of available contents,
or having the system import the list periodically). The problem
with any of these methods is that the rule must be changed if
the appropriate content changes--perhaps because the old content
becomes obsolete or unavailable. If the content reference is
physically embedded in the rule, this reference may be hard to
find and in any event must be manually modified. At best, this
is a lot of work; at worst, the system will ask for content that
is unavailable or inappropriate. This approach also makes it
difficult to add a new touchpoint, since every rule must be
modified to add the new content references.
The other extreme for the relationship between content and
interaction management is for the interaction manager to pass
back a generic decision, and let the touchpoint (or content
manager) determine what content is appropriate. This shifts the
translation burden away from the interaction manager, although
the fundamental problem still remains of how to determine which
content relates to which decision. In some ways, moving the
responsibility to the touchpoints makes the task even more
challenging, since touchpoints are less centrally managed than
the interaction manager. This means that when a new
decision--say, a new offer--is added to the list of possible
outcomes that can be returned by the interaction manager, each
touchpoint must be updated separately to execute that decision.
But this approach does simplify the problem in other ways, since
the touchpoint system is inherently aware of changes in
available content and can make adjustments without the
interaction manager getting involved.
Other approaches are also possible. In some arrangements, the
interaction manager passes back the actual message to be
displayed--say, a bit of text with a product name--which the
touchpoint then puts into an appropriate format and delivers.
This works well enough but is limited to fairly simple
communications. Another approach is to define a standard set of
attributes to describe content, and have the interaction manager
return attribute values instead of references to specific items.
The touchpoint or its content manager can then find whichever
available content comes closest to meeting the specifications.
This approach avoids the need to explicitly link a particular
interaction management decision to a particular piece of output,
but does require that all touchpoints employ a consistent set of
attribute definitions. It also requires a mechanism to choose
similar content when no exact match for the specified attributes
is available.
A more radical solution is to create a central content store
that holds content for different touchpoints, and perhaps even
to create multi-media documents that hold different forms of the
same offer. This is possible with object technologies or XML
documents. Mapping interaction manager outcomes to a single
content store is considerably easier than mapping outcomes to
each touchpoint individually. Still, methods that avoid explicit
mapping altogether will ultimately be needed to avoid an
administrative burden that will stunt large-scale deployment.
All of these approaches are used today in some degree,
although the most implementations still rely on explicit content
specification within rules or custom integration between the
interaction manager and touchpoint. Well designed systems also
provide fail-safe mechanisms that display default contents if no
valid reference is received. They also report on invalid
references that allow administrators to research and correct
such conditions after the fact. Systems may further help
administrators by providing lists of all rules that employ a
given piece of content and allowing universal search and
replacement of content references. They may also let the
interaction management administrator view available contents to
ensure they include the intended messages.
Some interaction managers also provide functions related to
multiple offers in general and to Web banner ads in particular.
These decision rules must consider not only the current
customer's interests, but also the number of items that can be
displayed simultaneously; methods to rank, sort or prioritize
the items; the number of impressions, click-through or unique
viewers that have been promised and already delivered; the
number of times a customer is allowed to see the same item and
the minimum interval before an item can be repeated; the revenue
associated with different items; and so on.
David M. Raab is president of ClientXClient, a consulting
and software firm specializing in customer value optimization.
He can be reached at
draab@clientxclient.com.
More News & Reviews
Copyright 2001 CLIENTxCLIENT Contact:
info@CLIENTxCLIENT.com
Call: 908.350.3012
|