{"id":1360,"date":"2013-10-08T22:26:17","date_gmt":"2013-10-08T22:26:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/\/"},"modified":"2016-01-19T22:28:37","modified_gmt":"2016-01-19T22:28:37","slug":"taking-think-tank-communications-to-the-next-level-determining-what-goes-where-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/taking-think-tank-communications-to-the-next-level-determining-what-goes-where-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Taking think tank communications to the next level: Determining what goes where (Part 1)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0<\/i>A \u201ccommsversation<\/a>\u201d between\u00a0Jeff Knezovich<\/a>,\u00a0Melissa Julian<\/a>\u00a0and the communications team at\u00a0ECDPM<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n

Unless a think tank is comprised of only one person, it\u2019s unlikely (and perhaps unwise) that each person in a team has exactly the same skill set. In a similar way, various parts of a think tank or research organisation must specialise in specific functions and skills \u2013 a\u00a0Durkheimian \u2018organic society\u2019<\/a>\u00a0writ small. For such a society, Durkheim observed that they were more likely to have laws and regulations that facilitated cooperation rather than those that punished individuals.\u00a0Kicking communications activities up a gear within an organisation requires a similar approach: rules (however formal or informal) that facilitate cooperation around its constituent parts.<\/p>\n

Within the communications remit, that\u2019s about figuring out\u00a0what goes where<\/strong>. In other words, it\u2019s about determining: a) what should get done, b) who is best placed to do it, and c) empowering those who are best placed to do it to, well, actually do it!<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve seen various different models for this \u2013 everything from a strict \u2018command and control\u2019 model (the phrase ‘YOU DO NOT SPEAK TO THE MEDIA. ONLY I SPEAK TO THE MEDIA. IF THE MEDIA COME TO YOU, YOU COME TO ME. GOT THAT?’, comes to mind) through to a highly decentralised\u00a0laissez faire<\/i>\u00a0approach. Except in extreme situations, I would veer towards a middle ground \u2013 one that creates clear roles and expectations for all players, perhaps formalised through some sort of \u2018service level agreement\u2019 (SLA).<\/p>\n

But before we get there, let\u2019s start in this first post of this section by talking about \u2018le petit a<\/i>\u2019 in the paragraph before: determining what ought to get done. And when thinking of communication planning, let\u2019s put it within the context of the\u00a0content strategy<\/b>.<\/p>\n

What is a content strategy?<\/h2>\n

A content strategy is a basic framework to ensure a range of appropriate content in a timely manner. It should be based on a clear\u00a0understanding of the type of work an organisation does<\/a>\u00a0as well as their\u00a0target audiences<\/a>, which we conveniently just covered in the previous set of blogs (it\u2019s like we planned it or something!).<\/p>\n

Core outputs<\/h3>\n

The most important element of a content strategy is setting out the stall of core outputs to be produced by a particular project or organisation. This allows a project or think tank to clearly establish specialised series of outputs, which helps to establish a strong brand and pre-determined channels and structures for researchers to publish.<\/p>\n

The types of output should be clearly distinct from one another. The\u00a0Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement (CHFI \u2013 previously CHSRF)<\/a>\u00a0recommends a 1:3:30 strategy, whereby a report should be published in a one-page overview, a three-page summary and 30-page full report. While I think it is excellent advice for publishing reports (though I would probably prefer a 1\/2:4:32 strategy given constraints of paper-based publishing), I would argue that different lengths do not make different series in and of themselves. Rather, in creating different output series, we\u2019re looking to reach different types of audience using truly distinct formats.<\/p>\n

To set out the stall, each output type should be complemented by a short description, as well as certain characteristics of each. This can be produced in a tabular format for quick reference. Although there will be others depending on the organisational context, important characteristics to include might be:<\/p>\n