Quality in knowledge article creation

[RogueFader]

Hi. I was wondering what others do in regards to ensuring compliance from knowledge authors in regards to the quality of their articles they create.

Currently, we do have a guideline that font is a particular type and size, description is clear and easy to read, meta is added to help with searching for knowledge etc....

It seems that KBs come in for approval daily, where the font has been amended to their own personal preference and size. URLs are broken, attachments not included, meta missed etc etc....

Despite the fact we actually have a KB and sharepoint page which details how to create a KB, and this has been communicated and shared via Teams and training calls, it seems people don't want to read a KB on how to create a KB.

I've started to look at AQI, but to me this seems rather labour intensive on myside as it means I review all KBs after they've been published, I would like it if AQI was in place when knowledge was created so authors would be forced to check the content prior to publishing.

Is this something others have an issue with and how do you address is across the org consisting of multiple teams globally to ensure they follow guidelines.

Rant over..I need a tea.

Thank you

[John_Wilkes]

I would recommend having an approval work flow that comes through a central team. That way you can stop non-compliant Knowledge getting out there.

I looked at AQI and agree it is a bit labour intensive and didn't really help to be done after the article was published. Would be much better to have a way to include it in an approval workflow and have it generate some text on the emails that get sent depending on how an article fails. The score it gives is a bit too vague for me.

Checking each article can be labour intensive so you can either do a percentage check based on how many articles you get or try some automation in your checking. It doesn't work for every check you could want but for things such as fonts, headers, attachments or alt text you can copy the HTML from the article body and then get it checked with an excel formula to highlight if any non-compliant code was there.

For meta you could also make this a mandatory field.

[RogueFader]

Thanks John, that's something I may need to look into as this is all new to me.

As I understand it, the articles are created and then approved by the author or the owner of the article, once approved it then comes to me for 2nd stage approval and moves from review to published.

[RogueFader]

Thanks John. It seems that I am the knowledge process owner, manager, admin etc etc...

They all come to me to check prior to approval, this is great fun when I take any leave and I come back and 90% of my emails are notifications of articles due to retire or need approving or due annual review.

I can now see why the last knowledge manager decided to look for new opportunities. I'm not afraid of a challenge, but sadly this one practice is taking up most of my time these days.

[Juhi Yasmin]

Hello, We have multiple ownership groups with members who publish and maintain knowledge articles. Each ownership group has a manager who is responsible for the compliance of the knowledge article their group members create. Hope this help. The knowledge Process Owner is responsible defining, owning and improving the process but the operation day-to-day work is responsibility of knowledge ownership group mamangers.