Adam Ungstad is an information architect, writer & publisher. He has had a lifelong passion for Information Architecture in all of its forms, and holds a degree in Management Information Systems (MIS). Adam is currently at the World Health Organization. In his spare time Adam does freelance IT work, writes poetry, and takes photographs with film cameras.
IA Summit 2015 Main Conference Talk
Topic(s): case studies, enterprise, and taxonomy
This is a case study of a taxonomy project completed for the world’s football governing authority, FIFA. As a global organization over 100 years old FIFA has produced a large collection of official documents, and they needed a way to organize them.
From the business problem that sparked the project to the exercises, analysis and standards used to the derive the final product, we’ll look at each phase of this unique taxonomy project, and take away a few useful insights along the way.
- How to lead a taxonomy project
- Real-world taxonomy development
- Information governance for global regulatory bodies
Adam Ungstad: …give you a little bit of an overview of the structure of the ecosystem of football on the globe. There’s FIFA, which is a federation of different football associations. Then there are six confederations, and the confederations deal with geographical areas.
There’s one confederation for North America, one for Asia, one for Europe, one for Africa, and so on. There are 209 member associations. Every country has a member association. The USA has a member association. There’s a football club of Thailand, a football club of Senegal, Japan.
We got the football association of each of those. Within each member association there are clubs. Where I come from, in Switzerland, there’s a football club, has its own stadium. Within that club, it has a whole bunch of different teams. Then you get the players.
This is, again, professional players. I don’t have statistics for how many teams and players there are, but, there’s a lot. One of the things we all love here at the IA summit is context. To give a little bit of an example, FIFA is a global organization.
Nice to compare it to another global organization that I live close to in Switzerland, which is the United Nations. Within the United Nations, there are 193 member states. Within FIFA, there are 209 member associations. People might argue that football is a bit more global than actual United Nations.
I’m here to talk about enterprise taxonomy. What is taxonomy? Some people say it’s a scheme of classification. Other people would say it is a knowledge organization system. A taxonomy is anything ranging from a simple list to a collection of synonyms.
To hierarchies and sub-hierarchies, to a collection of assets, to an anthology. Opt in and IA community, a lot of our work focuses on the web, but what’s happening now is that a lot of businesses are managing huge amounts of information within their own organization.
They need to manage information to communicate with each other, communicate with other organizations, and none of that information gets on the web.
There is definitely a burgeoning market for enterprise taxonomy. One statistic I read said, “The average knowledge worker spends 2.5 hours a day trying to find information.” Time is expensive especially for knowledge workers. Taxonomy definitely aids findability, discoverability.
Why did FIFA need an enterprise taxonomy? They engage me as a consultant. What we’re they trying to do essentially?
In a nutshell, they had a big archive of documents that they had produced throughout their entire lifespan. Again, this organization’s been around since 1904. They had roughly 70,000 documents. All of them stored in a big SharePoint archive, which is called FIDEM.
Give you some examples of some of the documents. I had to pare down this list, but a few examples. This one looks like a pretty official document. It is the laws of the game, training manuals, meeting agendas and things like that. There’s all types of different committees.
You have circulars. A circular is like a letter that they would send to all of the teams that have qualified for the 2014 World Cup or the Women’s World Cup, which is coming up this year in Canada. Things like presentations. You have backgrounders, media releases.
Photographs were also in this archive. Again, this is a circular from 1958, which was for the Jules Rimet Cup, which preceded the World Cup. Even things like stamps issued by the Faroe Islands, commemorating a particular game. Stuff like that.
That’s a short overview of the entire collection of different documents that were in this giant archive. We had all these documents in this archive. Why did they need an enterprise taxonomy? Essentially, people wanted to start building automated publishing.
They wanted to have…primarily it was the extranet that they were building. They wanted to have an extranet such that the Football Association of Thailand could log in to their extranet and see only documents and content that was relevant to Thailand.
To be able to do that, you first need to know who that person is logging into the extranet, but then you need to be able to link that person’s identity with documents that are relevant to them.
They also wanted to do the same thing for FIFA.com as well as their intranet. That was the first primary driver. Setting up some of these automated publishing things. Linking that archive to other information collections.
The other business driver that the project sponsor really articulated was enterprise findability. In particular, the big pain point was correspondence. FIFA is a big organization.
Even though they only have about 300 to 400 staff, what was happening is that somebody would write a letter to FIFA. They would come in to person A. He would receive that and he’s say, “Oh, actually no. That’s got to be person B who has to respond to that.”
Hopefully person B did respond to it, but what was happening is that two months down the line, that same person would contact person C in the organization and say, “Hey, I wrote to you guys two months ago. Did he get back to me? No.”
And then that person C has to go and try to find out where that correspondence went. That chain of trying to manage correspondence throughout the organization was a real pain point for them.
This was originally a four month project that became a six month project. From a professional standpoint, I had worked in a project management office before, so I know a little bit about project management techniques. And was really able to use them on this project.
A lot of taxonomy work is typically project based, because it is, you come in. You have a set goal. You go. You do your work, and then you’re done. Some organizations, taxonomy will be closer to an operational thing.
For a lot of organizations, however, it’s going to be something that deals with a project. It’s really critical to set up your project right from the get go. What really worked well for me on this project is the way we structured it. We had our project sponsor.
A project sponsor is typically somebody who funds the project and says, “This is a priority for the organization.” In this case, that was the head of the secretary general’s office. We had the project manager, who is the person that recruited me. We had myself, the consultant.
And then what we did is we had a core team of about five people with people from the archive collections, somebody from corporate legal, somebody from the project management office, somebody from information technology.
That core team were people that I worked with on quite a regular basis. To give you a little bit of context. I was living in Geneva. FIFA was in Zurich, so most of this project was done remotely. I would go to Zurich, visit them once every two weeks or so to meet with the core team.
Beneath the core team we had the extended team, which was about 20 people or so. Their commitment to the project throughout the whole six month time frame was probably between 10 to 15 hours. So that was really useful.
The core team was comprised of people that had a real interest in this taxonomy, whereas the extended team were more subject matter experts across FIFA, from marketing and communications to the grassroots program and things like that.
The other thing that worked really well from a project planning standpoint for this project was dividing the project up into phases. When I submitted my application to the RFP.
I said, “This is the work I’m going to do. We’re going to divide it into project phases, milestones, for each one of those phases.” That was a good selling point. That’s why I was able to get this project.
I split this taxonomy again. This is my whole project structure that I developed for this one. PMI has their own projects, frameworks, all kinds of things. That’s Scrum and Agile.
This is what I came up with specifically for a taxonomy project, with a discovery phase, a kickoff, a large component of the project is definition and classification. Verification, testing and then close out. What I want to do is walk you through what I did in each one of these different phases.
First up was the discovery phase. That’s when I was getting to know the people within the core team. What you’re trying to do during the discovery phase is really trying to define what problem are you trying to solve as well as what resources you have to do with that?
And also to really gain a good understanding of the collection that you are a creating a taxonomy for. Some of the activities I did in that discovery phase were the stakeholder interviews. I did stakeholder interviews the wrong way. I’m a big believer in interpersonal communication.
People always say you’re going to get the best conversations when you sit down across a table from somebody. I did that and I took my computer and I sat in front of them. What happened was that I was trying to take notes while I was talking to them.
Which really impacted the flow of the conversation. The next time I do stakeholder interviews, I’ll likely use something on the telephone so that you have the pure conversation. And record the interview so that I can go back and take notes afterwards.
That is not easily done, though, because that costs money often. Particularly if you want to have your interviews transcribed. So you need to think about that early in the planning process. You may need to budget for it.
Then, again, still in discovery, did some internal research. Part of it was going to this FIDEM archive, the archive of 70,000 documents. And going through some of the analytics in terms of what has been used as well as some of the search logs.
Again, I mentioned FIFA is in Zurich, which meant that a lot of not so much the search group terms that people use, but rather the share pointy stuff was in Swiss, German, which was really difficult for me to be able to navigate, and understand what I was looking at in a lot of the time.
I was surprised by the little amount of analytics that were available. Analytics are big for websites. I’d like to see them be bigger for large information management systems within organizations.
As I mentioned again, within the discovery phase, a big part of it was really getting to know the collection I’m working with. Still to this day, I don’t really know a whole about football.
I spent, at least, probably a week, or two weeks reading all of these documents, and getting to know this collection inside out building my own sub-collection of those documents so that I could use them to prepare for the project Kickoff Workshop.
Part of also the preparations for the Kickoff Workshop is one of the activities. I’ll talk a little bit about was card sorting, needed to come up with terms, and things like that to be able to card sort before these things.
The project Kickoff Workshop. I did this as a half day, and what I did, instead of morning, or the afternoon, because we started at about 10 o’clock, and then we went top like 3:30, or something. People were able to book in their date with their own time at either end of it.
We gave them lunch too, which was nice, to have a little bit of unstructured conversation throughout the Kickoff Workshop. One of the things that also is really critical to starting off a taxonomy project right, if you can, is to have that project sponsor present.
Project sponsors are usually people with a lot of influence in the organization. They’re going to be busy, they’re going to have lots of things they do that are probably, they perceive as way more important than the taxonomy.
You can get them there for at least the first 10 minutes, they open the workshop, they say, “This is a big priority for me. I’m glad to see all of you here,” that will make a big difference to how your project proceeds.
Some of the exercises that I did in the workshop, the first thing we did is, we came in, had a stack of documents as I mentioned, because I had made my own sub-collection of that collection of documents.
I gave people a piece of paper, and I said, “Here’s your document. Define this document for me. A big blank unstructured piece of paper. Define that for me.” That worked well, because it has got people thinking a little bit about why we were there.
Next exercise I did is something I invented I call, Metadata Dot-Mocracy. There’s an example of Dot-Mocracy right outside this hallway for the Flex sessions. National information standards organization within the US, they look at Metadata.
And they divide Metadata up into three different classifications essentially. They divide Metadata into administrative, descriptive, and structural Metadata. During the discovery phase, I collected a number of different potential facets.
A number of different ways of classifying documents from existing taxonomies within the organization as well as from my own knowledge as well as from certain standards. Divided those all up into administrative, descriptive, and structural Metadata.
Gave all the participants 10 Dots. They had to go put all the Dots on the terms that mean the most to them. Then that way, if something is really important, they can put all 10 Dots on one term, they can put five on one, two on the other, three on something else.
Then, this is a type up of the result that I got. This was a really useful exercise for me, because I learned what peoples priorities were in the room. I learned that life cycle status was really important, and that projects were also important to people, authors were important to people.
I learned that nobody really cared too much about structural Metadata, which was surprising, and also a bit of a relief, because it meant I didn’t have to deal with that whole side of things. People did care about relationships between documents, which is coming back to that correspondence example.
People wanted to know is this the response to that correspondence, and that one has responded to this? It’s really this whole exercise. This, essentially, is a collection of Metadata elements that I can use to go and classify those documents.
What we did next is something called Metadata elements and values cards. That, essentially, I took each one of those Metadata elements, put people into groups of two, or three, and said, “Here’s your element, life cycle status. Now you help me create a controlled list of what terms can go into that element.”
In theory, I would get something like this for an example for a FIFA committee. People would sit down, they know if that was one of the ones that got voted in the Metadata Dot-Mocracy. People would go in, and list all the actual terms that could fit in there for me.
I’ll say this had mixed results. Sometimes, this worked really well, but it’s really hard to get a really comprehensive list out of people when they are sitting there, and they can’t go and refer to other things.
The other thing is that a lot of attributes aren’t really relevant to a controlled list. Attributes like authors, attributes like identifiers, and titles, you can’t really come up with a controlled list for that.
Next exercise was defining official, because as a consultant, my job was to come up with a way to classify all official documents. In the discovery phase, I had big questions about what exactly is an official document.
Now, it’s very critical from a project management’s perspective to be able to manage the scope of your project. I had people define what meant official to them. Some of the responses I got were things like everythingonfifa.com is an official document.
Another person said, “Everything in FIDEM big archive is an official document.” Somebody else said, “All official documents have to be signed. If it’s not signed by somebody, then it’s not an official document.”
Somebody else said, “Correspondents, if you send a letter to one person, or one organization, and it’s signed, it’s not an official document. In the case of a circular, a letter that goes to a whole bunch of people, that is an official document.”
Somebody said, “If it has a people logo on it, then it’s an official document.” There’s a lot of discussion on this. One of the other things that came up is the document “binding.” Then our contracts are official documents too.
That was useful because it helped me articulate that, and discover some of the things that I had to work with. Then we did card sorting. Card sorting, you can do it in person, or online.
Online, they’re both going to take you a lot of work to set up. Online will make it much easier for you to analyze the results for afterwards, but I like doing card sorting in person, because you get to facilitate their conversations.
I found it was a great way to get people to understand what the project was really all about. Last exercise in the Kickoff Workshop was a World Cup theme, which is essentially, and I’m sure you guys have all done something like this where you get people together, and split them up into groups.
You give them a problem to solve, they talk about it, somebody documents it. I did the same thing. I gave people a very structured document. Sheet, I said. At the beginning, I gave them a blank document to define those.
For this one, I gave them documents again but then I said, “Here’s your static Metadata element. There’s administrative descriptive structural.” People have to go and write those things out.
In terms of the actual analysis and definition. What happens in the biggest phase of the project, building a draft taxonomy. Again, you have to analyze workshop results, took a lot of time. A lot of taxonomy development is finding other taxonomies and putting them together.
And figuring out where the gaps, where the things stood, where the things not quite fit, where things duplicated. A lot of talk with the core team, lots of iterations with them, and again, managing the project scope.
One of the things that came up particularly in taxonomy development is synonyms and preferred terms. This is an exercise that we did with the extended to solve some of those synonyms and preferred terms.
I was looking through all these terms, and I found things like academy and technical center that seem to be used interchangeably. Are these things the same thing or not? I didn’t really know.
Again, academy and technical center, that’s the first two words on the top of that sheet.
I gave people sheets like that with things I thought that were synonyms. Another example was event, competition, tournament, and match. Those are all the same thing, or are they different., have people sit down, work together, and try to solve some of that stuff.
Along with synonyms, I was finding things, terms that were often used together that seem to be meaning the same thing. I did an exercise I called term granularity. An example, there’s this term organizational review and leadership retreat.
All these came together like the letters Q and U in the alphabet, always go together. I wasn’t sure if these things were necessarily the same thing or maybe they should be separated to create two separate facets from there.
Is there always a leadership retreat within an organizational review or can you do an organizational review without a leadership retreat? They do similar exercise with that put the terms up there, got people to solve them.
Standards. A real place where an information architect can bring value to an organization. This one, we use the Dublin Core, 15 elements. When I was first getting started in this field, standards were very scary. Their website’s really dry and boring.
The Dublin Core stuff, everybody should go home and spend an afternoon reading it, because it really is quite easy to learn. We also did use another standard, archival team wanted to use something called the general international standard archival description.
Another standard that’s used primarily for fonds, which is a fond is a collection of collections. Another thing about standards is that I use a Dublin Core, 15 elements for Metadata elements but again, as you saw, the elements and values cards have your elements.
And then you need to have controlled lists. One of the Dublin Core elements is format for a file or whatever it is that you are classifying. Dublin Core says, “Use format for your Metadata element.
And then what you should do is use ISO 639 for all of the terms that can be used in that format element. ISO 639 was things like .mp3, .docx, whatever. That gives you a really solid foundation. It also makes your collection interoperable with other collections.
If you ever decide to merge their collection with something else in the future, they can do that, the standards. We’ve all heard the term Metadata is a love letter to the future. That’s what standards are all about.
You also probably all heard the 80-20 rule, which is also known as the Pareto, Principle. I found that parts of this collection were very, very easy. Parts of the taxonomy were pretty straightforward, but there were certain parts that took up a lot of my time.
One of them was to try to figure out what is the difference between a manual, a guideline, a handbook, a policy, a directive, a standing order, interpretations, statements, cook books.
This is a bit of a two-dimensional problem because what is the difference between all these things in terms of documents that have been published versus the documents that should be, what should they be.
If something is labeled as a cookbook, should it really be a manual? Things like that. That took up a lot of time. The other challenges I had in this phase, were trying to get sensitive information from people. We had decided the contracts were official documents.
I had to get a list of contract types from their commercial legal department, which is a challenge, because they didn’t want to give me that information. I had to work on that and use a variety of techniques to get that information.
They had a very well-structured list of defined types of contracts. Again, managing scope. Getting feedback from subject experts in a timely manner because, again, for a lot of people, this is outside of their core job.
It can be hard for them to take time to tell you about certain things when they have their own work that they need to do. A really quick example of a list that appears or the organization everywhere. This is a list of a snippet of those 209-member associations.
This appears everywhere. If you read this, you can pretty quickly that this is not in English. It is also not Spanish or something like that. This is a whole mix of different types of languages, which is the right thing to do if being very official is what you need to do.
If you are writing a letter to the Austrian commission, whatever, that’s what you’re going to do. However, this is not very scan-able. In terms of the Suomen Palloliitto is the Finnish football association.
If you don’t already know that, you’re going to have to Google every single 209 terms to figure out what is the right one. Again, also we see our favorite word skewing the alphabetical listing. There’s one called the football association.
Which drove me nuts because I thought, all 209 associations, all of them said the association of this, the Association of Thailand, the Association of Senegal, the Association of Switzerland. I thought, “What country is The Football Association?” Turns out it was England.
Adam: Apparently, they invented football.
Adam: This is what I did to make that list. Again, this is a snippet. I took all of those terms but in one language. Now, this is a lot easier to scan.
Talking about testing and validation, the three testing, which is pretty standard, great online tool, optimal workshop. I found a tree testing that I almost forgot is that you need to have iterations of tree testing. It’s not enough to do tree testing once.
You have to do it at least two or three times, because tree testing will tell you, this is a picture and example of a bad task that people have to go and find and navigate, because everybody went in different directions.
You do it once, it tells you where your problems are, but then you need to make the changes to your structure and then test those changes to make sure that they are better than the first that you did. Other thing we found was…I love grocery stores as an example of a taxonomy.
Because there’s what section do you find the object you want in. The key with taxonomy, a lot of the focus is on finding things within the taxonomy, but that makes a very dangerous assumption that things that things have been classified right in the first place.
For this, we tested to see all the people who were uploading documents to the big archive, would they tag things properly so that those things could then later be felt.
I couldn’t find any commercial system to test this, so I did in Excel DIY version, which is again useful to see how the people tag things rather than how do they find them.
Project closeout. Taxonomy usually is going to be your final deliverable giant Excel spreadsheet. It is really nice if you can do even a basic visualizations of the first sets of your classes. The thing that’s up there is like a radial mind map.
The fact it’s radial, it doesn’t inform you of anything, it could still also be a tree, but it looks pretty. People would look at that rather than looking at the Excel document.
What are the other portions? One small thing we did in the taxonomy was that it created a standards map to show how some of the terms I had in the taxonomy map got to the two different standards.
What user labels to use? An example, Dublin Core has an element called coverage, which what they mean is geographical location. When testing, people thought coverage meant what is the subject of it.
We kept the symantecs of that term, but I use a different user-facing label that users would see on whatever system they’re using called place.
Final report. I didn’t, for this project, had a lot of connections to other parts of information management, to workflows, to quality control, to document life cycle. I didn’t really get into that in this presentation, but that was a big part of the project that I didn’t expect.
Final report covered a lot of those types of questions. Afterwards, that final report also needed to start raising some new questions in terms of how will you tag all of these documents, both the new one, which will be the workflow, as well as the existing ones. Where will the Metadata be stored?
Are you going to store Metadata inside the PDFs? Are you going to store it in your SharePoint catalog? Is this somehow going to be stored in a cloud application, like iTunes, GraceNote?
iTunes on your computer doesn’t have the Metadata for your favorite album. It goes out to the cloud and pulls the thumbnail and things like that into there, too. You got to start thinking about some of those things.
Here’s another one format, which is a sidecar file, too. Who’s going to maintain the taxonomy? What other collections need to be aligned with it? What makes a good taxonomy? From my perspective, it is balancing correctness with user mental models. Example of that is a tomato.
In science, tomato is a vegetable. If you’re trying to do a range of grocery store in terms of what is correct, in terms of science, you’re going to put that tomato next to the oranges and apples. Users aren’t going to find it there, because their mental model is that a tomato is a vegetable.
Some of the lessons that I learned from the project were, needing to manage expectations and scope. A big one for me was addressing implementation at the start of the project. My job in this project was to come up with a classification scheme, and then I left.
Both me and FIFA underestimated the amount of work that it is to take that classification scheme and then apply it to that collection. How are you going to go and classify all 70,000 of these documents?
As an information architect, my own career goal is to learn a little bit more about auto classification and learn a little bit more of those things, both because it is something the client needed to do but also because it would help me to facilitate the next step of these types of things.
Again, work flow, life cycles, work structures, everything is inter-twingled, as they say. That’s all I got for you. Thank you.
Audience Member: Hi there. I’m Andrew. Thank you for the great presentation. One quick question, you said at the beginning that knowledge workers spend 24 hours looking for information. Can you talk a little bit about the benefit that FIFA saw once your project was implemented?
Adam: The benefits that they saw in doing this work? A large portion of this was that they simply could not build those extra net unless the staff was classified properly. It’s a matter of fact. You cannot build this thing that they had in envisioned.
Unless they have this stuff arranged properly in the first place. And as well, I talked a little bit about this correspondence factor, but a lot of people were starting to articulate that frustration for other documents and things, too, right?
Part of the document management thing is that there were no real work flows in place to where to store stuff. So you’re getting stuff stored in email and on file stores and things like that.
Part of the taxonomy thing was to start that fire. Start that process of getting some real proper enterprise work flows in place.
Audience Member: Thank you so much for showing us a peak into your process. That was so interesting. My question is, did you move away from SharePoint? Yes or no question.
Adam: As I said, I was lucky. As an information architect, it didn’t matter what platform it was on. I came up with a set of classification schemes.
Audience Member: Got it.
Adam: They still are using SharePoint. Microsoft has its way of ingraining itself in these organizations, and then they can’t get rid of it. They are still using SharePoint.
Audience Member: When you were doing this work, were you working with somebody else that was designing or configuring the updates to the CMS? Or was that just not part of the scope of the project?
Adam: Yeah. It was not part of the scope of it, but it probably should have been is what I was trying to get at is that I was working in series and coming up with those facets and classes in isolation for what bricks you going to use to make that building.
That is something that I want to develop a bit more. Became a SharePoint expert. Because a lot of jobs out there are SharePoint information architect. It’s so common. Been there, too, right?
It’s also something to think about in terms of if you want to implement things, you’ve got to think about how you’re going to implement it to design the solution. That is something that personally I need to work a bit more on.
Audience Member: You mentioned, particularly with the process of coming to decide what was an official document that there quite a few different opinions. For that and for some other decisions, how did you either come to consensus or break a tie?
How did you come to make a decision on those?
Adam: It’s what we did is a large part of the project was they wanted to have types of documents, so manuals and things like that.
I showed, threw out some one sentence definitions, but we didn’t come up with a one sentence fits all definition. We had a draft with different document types. I sat down…that was largely done with me and the project manager.
And said, “OK.” Drew a line through all these things and said, “OK, yeah. These are all the things that we’re going to include in our definition as an official document.
Because, that’s the type of thing that you can have a big idea for it, but it is, if you’re trying to manage the project, you want to have some specifics on it.
Audience Member: I want to know what tools you use during the process for the taxonomy development and the tree testing and all that. Which software or tools you used for this.
Adam: Excel is a big one. Most of the software needs were pretty basic. Things like Excel.
For the testing, I used Optimal Workshop, which is a great tool, because it’s cheap. It cost like a 100 bucks to use it for one project or something. It gives you lots of fancy diagrams you can go and show to people.
Didn’t really use very many fancy tools. I know that there are a lot of taxonomy governance tools and things like that. I’m very interested in learning more about those, but most of this stuff was done using Excel, some visualization tools or.
I used some mind mapping software to create some of those radial diagrams. There’s a lot more that I could learn to start visualizing some of those things, which is also something that would help to make me look like even more of super-duper pro, right?
To have a great idea of know how to visualize some of the things. I know that there are certain software things, like smart logic and mon-data, stuff like that, what will help you auto-classify things and can be linked into SharePoint and stuff like that.
I can’t say that I used them to help on this project.
Audience Member: Hi, Adam. Question about the participants in the exercises. You had the dot exercises. Were the participants already familiar with the terms, like administrative Metadata and life cycles? Did you need to do some education with them?
Adam: The question was, were they experts in Metadata and stuff like that?
Audience Member: Yeah. Were they familiar? Did they have a basic understanding of Metadata and the terms, like life cycle? Or did you have to do some education?
Adam: Metadata, no. Life cycle, maybe. The pain point for life cycle was versions and stuff like that. You have one version of regulations. Is this their most current one? Has there been a superseded one? And stuff like that.
They didn’t know the terms to describe the problems, but they knew the problems, right? They knew that they were having trouble trying to get certain quality work flows throughout the organization. They could articulate the problem to them.
But no, they didn’t really know about Metadata and stuff like that. Like in the workshop, I used stories that were really relevant to them.
So I told them a story about arriving to Switzerland and trying to find my favorite juice in the grocery store to get them to start to understand taxonomy, about how I looked in the juice section. Then I looked in the fresh juice section and then in the cold section.
Couldn’t find it. Gave up. My wife found it in the import section later, right? So use some stories that everybody can relate to, to get them to understand a little bit more about taxonomy and Metadata.
Moderator: Unfortunately, that is our time for questions. I’d like to thank Adam for coming and speaking to us and sharing his expertise.
Adam: Thank you.