Scriptorium

Replatforming your content operations isn’t just about swapping systems. In this episode, Alan Pringle and Bill Swallow share what organizations must consider to successfully replatform. From navigating technical debt, system integration, and the people caught in the middle, they discuss change management, technical debt, and why your exit strategy should be part of the plan from day one.

Software isn’t forever. Systems come, systems go, they get improved. Your requirements are ever changing with the content that you need to manage. Not thinking about your next jump is really to your detriment.

— Bill Swallow

Related links:

LinkedIn:

Transcript:

Disclaimer: This is a machine-generated transcript with edits.

Introduction with ambient background music

Christine Cuellar: From Scriptorium, this is Content Operations, a show that delivers industry-leading insights for global organizations.

Bill Swallow: In the end, you have a unified experience so that people aren’t relearning how to engage with your content in every context you produce it.

Sarah O’Keefe: Change is perceived as being risky; you have to convince me that making the change is less risky than not making the change.

Alan Pringle: And at some point, you are going to have tools, technology, and processes that no longer support your needs, so if you think about that ahead of time, you’re going to be much better off.

End of introduction

Alan Pringle: Hey everybody, I am Alan Pringle, and today I want to talk with Bill Swallow about content operations and replatforming. Hey Bill, how are you? 

Bill Swallow: Good, how are you doing?

AP: Good. So I guess we should start this by saying the reason why we want to talk about replatforming is really we have done a few replatforming projects. We’ve had some prospects reach out who are interested in doing it. So I guess we need to explain what it is and some of the things you have to think about when you’re going through the process. So if you would not mind, would you define what we mean by replatforming content operations?

BS: Sure. So generally when I talk about replatforming, it’s in the context of a company having one system in place and maybe it’s time has come and they need to move into a new one. So it’s the entire process of determining what type of system you’re going to need, what your requirements are for that and being able to lift everything up from the old system that you want to carry forward and put it in the new system, configuring it and what have you to get it to work going forward.

AP: So we’re not talking about using a whole new technology or a whole new platform. It’s shifting to a similar platform for some of the reasons that you just mentioned. And I think that’s another thing. There are several reasons why a company might want to do this. And I know our clients have had various reasons for doing this. Let’s focus on those for a little bit. One of them, I know you kind of already touched on this. Sometimes you just outgrow a system. It just… that’s how it is. So let’s start with that kind of, it’s not sustainable anymore because you’re bigger, too big now for what that system can do.

BS: Sure, either you’ve outgrown it or it’s approaching end-of-life or it’s just not meeting the needs that you had five or ten years ago when you bought the system. So there are a lot of different factors there, but basically it comes down to what are your requirements and is it meeting your requirements? 

AP: Right.

BS: Are you able to get the things done that you need to do given the fact that, you know, the world is quite different now than it was five or 10 years ago.

AP: Exactly, and there’s another angle here too that I think we need to briefly mention is that sometimes you’re gonna have two sets of requirements because two companies can merge or there can be an acquisition and then all of a sudden you’ve got two content operations platforms that are pretty much doing the same exact thing and I guarantee you the IT department is not gonna have that. 

BS: Absolutely.

AP: So there could be a situation where you’ve got two, and one of those is going to go away. And in some cases, and we should talk about this too, it’s not necessarily about picking one. It’s not uncommon to go to a whole other one. So there is quote, “No loser.” That’s also an option.

BS: That’s very common because usually in the case of a merger, you have two established groups with two established systems that may be starting to age out on both sides. And it doesn’t make sense to spend the time and the effort to move one group into the other system when that system is probably going to be replaced in a few years anyway.

AP: Yep. So basically, the circumstances of the merger have provided a perfect opportunity to do something that’s painful. Replatforming is not magical. There’s still going to be technical hiccups and everything else. But at least it’s not as painful because you’re both moving out of systems that maybe aren’t optimal into something that will basically treat your content creators and all the people managing content much better because it’s going to support their needs better.

BS: Or at least everyone goes through the same pain together of learning a new system. It’s team building.

AP: And so you bond through shared pain experiences. Exactly. All right. Yeah. huh. We’ll go with that. We will go with that. There’s some other aspects here too that are kind of related to that. And that are the idea that things, because things are getting maybe rickety, that things are getting too expensive to maintain. You keep making these little tweaks and changes in things that become less and less repeatable. And that adds up. That’s time and money that you have invested.

BS: It certainly does. Aside from the hard costs of licensing and just the general time to use the system, produce things, you do have, after you’ve used the system for so long, you’ve got your workarounds built in and they may not be a best practice and the workaround may solve the problem on its face, but you’re doing a lot of things that you really shouldn’t be doing with that, you know, with that workaround in place. You really should be doing something that’s a little bit more streamlined. And, you know, as you’re bringing new people in and new groups in, whether it’s a merger or whether it’s just another department that realizes that, Hey, you know, they have this, you know, shiny system over here. Why don’t we start using it too? If you have workarounds in place, it takes a lot longer to get people up and running in a new system because not only do they have to learn the system, but they have to learn how you’ve worked around it.

AP: Right, and that’s where you start talking about technical debt because all of those workarounds that you’re describing, that equates to technical debt. And one day, you’re gonna get your backside handed to you because you have all of this technical debt. And replatforming is the perfect time to press that reset button and say, we’re gonna get rid of those things. We’re gonna have a system that addresses those problems in an official, correct way, and none of these weird workarounds. 

BS: Mm-hmm.

AP: And by the way, those workarounds, what if the person who did them leaves and hasn’t been documented well? 

BS: Yeah, that’s a big problem. My guess is that if you’ve been using one particular system for, you know, 10 years or even more, you probably have a lot of content just sitting there that hasn’t been touched in years, hasn’t been needed in years, but it’s still sitting in the system.

And it’s still coming up in search results as people looking to, you know, find topics that they need to edit for a new release. And it’s just getting in the way. It’s a good time to, you know, cut clean and, you know, ditch all of that old content that you no longer, that you know, you no longer need and focus on, you know, what you need to produce going forward.

AP: Yeah, I think maybe sometime on the show Hoarders, they can do episodes on content people and their technical debt, and basically just hoarding all of this content in various digital forms all over that nobody’s actually looked at. I’m sure we would all laugh and be horrified at the same time by such a show. 

BS: It wouldn’t make for exciting TV, though.

AP: Yeah. So let’s talk about the overall process for how this kind of works. We’ve talked about what it is, a lot of the reasons for it. So let’s talk about how to do it. And it’s not a one-size-fits-all thing. We can tell you about our experiences that we’ve had. But I know one of the first things you got to do, for example, is choose your new system where you’re going to be moving into.

BS: Right. And out of the gate, the knee-jerk reaction is to go with something new and shiny, but you really need to sit back and figure out what it is you need that system to be able to do and how you need that system to be able to do it. you know, we’ve had a lot of clients who’ve come to us after setting up a system, maybe two or three years prior, who just are like, this is just not working for us. And as we talk with them, we realized that, you know, they, essentially, you know, had a square peg and they bought a round hole to put it in. And here they are three years later, still trying to force that peg into the hole. So you need to sit back and really think about your requirements and not the requirements that you have today, but the requirements that you have today and anticipate having at least five years down the road.

You have to leave yourself open because otherwise your opportunity for growth in that system is limited by your choice, and I hate and we always say, know choose tools last. Same thing goes for the systems. The reason why we’re talking about it up front is that you do have an existing system. You do at least need to identify some candidate systems that you’re going to be moving into and have clear requirements for those systems and why you want to look at them further before deciding on the one you’re going to implement.

AP: And those requirements can help you identify the differentiators, the things that make one system a better fit for your needs. And the more fine-tuned and discrete your requirements are, the easier time you’re going to have finding that match for the new platform that you need to address all of those requirements. 

BS: Mm-hmm.

AP: Another part of this is moving the content from the old system to the new. So let’s talk about content migration, because that, a lot of times, I think people underestimate what that can take, even when you’re talking about basically two very similar technology stacks.

BS: That’s the easy part. Content is content, Alan. It’s just all just words. It’s fine. You can move it. No problem. Yeah, I think this is the most overlooked piece of all of it. Even if you’re moving from one system that uses the same format for the content under the hood to another system, you’re still going to have to make changes. 

AP: We can take this outside later. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

BS: The old system maybe had a couple bells or whistles that handled things a very specific way. And the new system has a couple of other ones and they don’t match. So you’re going to have to find a way of mapping from, you know, content type A1 to content type A2. Even though they’re both content type A, you still have these little differences that you need to map out.

AP: Right, because what may have been best practice in your existing system may have required a custom thing that that system does that system B does not do. So you’ve got to find the equivalent of what that custom thing is. We’ve run up against that quite a few times and it’s not that uncommon, but you’re right. It’s rarely a one-to-one situation, unfortunately, even if the underlying foundation or structured standard you’re using data in particular is the same thing. So yeah.

BS: Mm-hmm. Yeah, DITA in particular is interesting because you would think that all systems would play with a documentation standard in the same way because it is a standard. It’s not the case. There are different efficiencies that the systems bring that come with some modification. And it’s not to the standard itself, but how it interacts with it. And it may do things like replace linking with, you know, linking via file name with, you know, linking with a UID, a unique identifier. And that unique identifier is going to make perfect sense in that system that you have now, but it’s going to make absolutely no sense once you move it to another system. So you have to find some way of converting it over. 

AP: Exactly.

BS: That being said, that’s the best case scenario that you have two systems that use the same underlying content technology, and you just need to map a few things differently. There are other cases where you have a completely different approach to content from system A to system B. One might use XHTML or might use something else, might use RTF, who knows? And then you move to another system that uses XML or uses Markdown or what have you. But that is a bigger lift and shift where you suddenly have to remap and convert everything to a new format.

AP: And that’s really the distinction between moving to a whole new system and replatforming. What you just described there is really going to a whole new tool environment, a new process. Whereas what we’re talking about more is where you’re basically using a tool in the same area or a competitor of the tool you’ve got now. 

BS: Mm-hmm.

AP: And it’s just moving things over and fixing those little custom things that aren’t going to work in your new system. So yeah, there are all these levels here. And I think one thing we really need to communicate here, even when you’re replatforming from one tool that’s very similar to the new one you need, there is still work to be done there. It’s rarely just a very clean cut, lift and shift. And a good example of that is the publishing pipelines, because tools in this area have slightly different ways for publishing and getting your content out into the world.

BS: They do. And even if you’re using the same, you know, the same publishing pipelines that you’re able to somehow lift them up from one and drop them in another, because of the changes in how the system handles the source content, you’re still going to make, need to make modifications to those publishing pipelines later because, you know, like my example with links, because they’re going to work differently in another system. You need to tweak the output generators to handle those links appropriately.

AP: And another example of that is when your content system integrates with other systems, the way that, for example, your content system integrates with a workflow management system, it may be different with the other system, or your product lifecycle software, that can also have to be hooked up differently. Or who knows, maybe you’re changing it all together. So you also, beyond just looking at the publishing pipelines, look at how other systems are integrated in with your content development system.

BS: Right. It’s not a matter of just, you know, unplugging all the wires and plugging them back into the new box that you bought. I mean, it’s very different in some cases, you know, one may have a built-in API, another system, you know, it might have no handling, and you have to build an API to now, you know, talk to whatever your portal, your workflow management, your digital asset management system, what have you. It’s usually never clean cut. You can never just unplug those wires and plug them back in. And yes, there are no wires involved usually.

AP: Yeah, well, and by extension of that, like you can’t just, you know, unplug and replug, you also have to think about people and how they have used that system to create and manage the content. You’ve got to kind of help them understand the differences and basically help them remap and reprogram their brains to understand, okay, you did it this way in system A, you’re going to have to do it. This way in system B, it’s a little bit different. So you still have the training and change management requirements. Again, it is not lift and shift, and that goes for people’s brains. It’s not gonna work like that. It’s just not.

BS: Mm-hmm. No, no. And another thing that a lot of people tend to gloss over is the amount of testing that’s required once you get the system stood up. You have to make sure that all the content is valid in the new system, that it’s running and behaving properly, that you’re able to publish outputs, find where things might be dropping out as you publish content and fix those. So it’s never going to be a very straightforward project.

AP: Yes. I agree, and I think this is a good time to like offer up some closing tips on things to think about, and I know one of them is this is going to take longer than you think.

BS: Yeah, yeah. I’ve, I’ve warned people to budget at least six months, and that doesn’t mean about six months. That means at least six months and expect it to take longer. Even if it’s a, even if it’s as close to a lift and shift as you can get, it’s going to take time. and some of the reasons for that are not only is the system going to be different and you have to stress test it and make sure that it’s, it’s going to work in a live, you know, working environment, but remember that you also have competing demands at work as well. So that you can’t have your entire team just stop what they’re doing for six months or even pull it into three months and say, we’re going to stop everything, not do any production work at all. And we’re going to focus on just standing up this new system. You really can’t do that.

AP: That never happens because there is no such vacuum on this planet in the business world, right?

BS: No, you can’t stop. You cannot stop the production machine. You need to keep going. Aside from all of your daily job requirements, you now have the additional requirement of setting up a system. trying to shortchange yourself with a short timeline is not going to… First of all, it’s unrealistic. Second of all, it’s not going to gain you anything. If anything, you’re going to implement things incorrectly, you’re going to start out of the gate with workarounds in the new system and it just, ends poorly.

AP: And sometimes you’re going to have to keep that legacy system running. You’re going to have parallel systems because it’s a CYA is what that is. Just in case something goes sideways with the new one, you still have your old process and can use it to deliver content that has got to hit some particular deadline, for example.

BS: Right. You’ve got to keep things moving. You can’t just stop work. But, you know, all that being said, the number one thing you need to do when you’re thinking about any type of a shift in technology like that is to take advantage of the changes that you’re going to be making. You know, if there are, you know, if there is content that you don’t think you’re going to need going forward, move it to the side. You might be able to move it in later. You know, don’t have to necessarily delete it, but don’t bring it into the system unless you know you’re going to need it. It’s a great time to do some spring cleaning on your existing content database. Move in the stuff that you know you absolutely are going to use, and then slowly start bringing in other stuff or not, if you end up not needing it.

AP: And then do a hoarder intervention, because you may need it. And that kind of brings up one of the last points I want to talk about. Having an outside perspective, yes, like us, come in and help you kind of think through this, that can also be helpful. And really, I think the last point I want to make is, on the edges of this discussion, is really, you always have to have an exit strategy, even when you’re going into a new tool. It really will benefit you to do something that seems so counterintuitive and to think about, what are we going to do if this tool goes away while you’re implementing the new tool? Because the fact you’re doing a replatforming already tells you that exiting is a reality, and sometimes you’ve got to do it for all the reasons we just outlined.

BS: Mm-hmm.

AP: So always be thinking about how are we gonna get out of here if we have to? That’s something that a lot of people in the heat of trying to get something new stood up, they really don’t think about.

BS: Mm-hmm. Yeah, software isn’t forever. Systems come, systems go, they get improved. And your requirements are ever changing with the content that you need to manage. So not thinking about your next jump is really to your detriment.

AP: And on that most excellent note, I will thank you, Bill, and we will end this here. Thanks.

BS: Thanks.

Conclusion with ambient background music

CC: Thank you for listening to Content Operations by Scriptorium. For more information, visit Scriptorium.com or check the show notes for relevant links.

The post Make the move successful: Replatforming content ops appeared first on Scriptorium.

What does it actually mean to govern your content in the age of AI, and who’s really in control? In this episode, Sarah O’Keefe sits down with Patrick Bosek, CEO of Heretto, to unpack why the quality, accuracy, and structure of your content may be the most critical factors in what your users experience on the other side of an AI model.

Patrick Bosek: In today’s world, you don’t have 100% control. There are a couple of different places where this needs to be broken up. One is the end user: what they physically get and what control they have versus what control you have. Then, there’s what control you have of how the AI model is going to behave based on your information and your inputs. Whether or that model is public, like a user accessing your documentation through Claude Desktop, or private, like a user accessing your documentation through your app or website, the governance piece comes down to what control you have immediately before the model. And that breaks down into a couple of things: completeness, accuracy, and structure of the content.

Related links:

LinkedIn:

Transcript:

This is a machine-generated transcript with edits.

Introduction with ambient background music

Christine Cuellar: From Scriptorium, this is Content Operations, a show that delivers industry-leading insights for global organizations.

Bill Swallow: In the end, you have a unified experience so that people aren’t relearning how to engage with your content in every context you produce it.

Sarah O’Keefe: Change is perceived as being risky; you have to convince me that making the change is less risky than not making the change.

Alan Pringle: And at some point, you are going to have tools, technology, and processes that no longer support your needs, so if you think about that ahead of time, you’re going to be much better off.

End of introduction

Sarah O’Keefe: Hey everyone, I’m Sarah O’Keefe. I’m here today with Patrick Bosek, who is the CEO of Heretto. Hey Patrick.

Patrick Bosek: Hey, Sarah. Long time no chat.

SO: That is, I guess for certain values of long time. We decided today that we wanted to talk about AI and governance, except I promptly tried to come up with a synonym for governance because I’m afraid that when I say that particular word, our audience just walks off. So, okay, Patrick, what is governance?

PB: Well, so first of all, thanks for having me on, and second of all, I’m excited about this one because based on our little bit of chat before the show, it sounds like we’re actually gonna have some things to argue about this time around. 

SO: I would never.

PB: Well, usually we tend to agree right like I think that we’re generally pretty on the same page about stuff. So I’m excited. I’m pumped. Okay, so governance. I mean, obviously it has a ton of different meanings to different people but in the way that I want to talk about it today, because it was my suggestion. It’s related to the governance of content, specifically in the way of the inputs to AI systems. So you can think about the process of controlling for quality, accuracy, the things that matter in the actual content and information before it gets into the AI system. So it’s kind of the upstream quality, totality, structure, all of that checking and assurance ahead of whatever your experience is going to be downstream, of which one is the most contemporary and most interesting is AI.

SO: Okay, so this is making sure that it is not garbage in so as to avoid garbage out. 

PB: Yeah, I would say that’s a fair statement.

SO: Yeah. Okay. And can we use AI to do governance of the content we’re producing?

PB: Well, that’s actually a very interesting question. And I think the short answer is somewhat right now. So before I go, okay, before I like fully answer that, I want to put a little disclaimer in here. The stuff with AI is changing so quickly that we should date-stamp this episode.

SO: It is March 19th, 2026. And it’s nine-ish Eastern time.

PB: Yeah, we are recording this on March 19th, 2026. Now I feel, yeah. Okay, so now that people know when it is that we’re talking about this, I feel a little bit safer in answering. So there are aspects of governance you can do with AI today, for sure. And there’s new capabilities coming online all the time. I actually think, broadly speaking, the thing that’s going to be most challenging about governance is going to be the pieces that can’t be done with AI continuing to not continuing to do them because it becomes like as the human part of the loop becomes smaller and smaller, it becomes so much easier and easier for the human to just click accept because like the AI gets it right, does it, the automation works that kind of thing. And you know, I’ll use like an AI coding analogy because that’s what I spend a lot of time with AI on. 

So I use Claude CLI. That’s my primary method of vibe coding or whatever you want to say. And I even find myself like just clicking accept sometimes. But I’m still forcing myself to like, get it, and read the code. And like, I had it write a shell script yesterday. And I was almost about to run it, and I was like, this is a shell script. I should not do that. I should definitely read what’s going on inside of this shell script, but it, gets to a point where like you start to trust it. 

SO: Yeah.

PB: And as we start to inject AI into the governance layer. So like we build skills that check certain parts of our information architecture or, you know, they kind of act as linters if we’re in docs as code or, you know, whatever it might be. There’s going to be like a form of trust that gets built up. And because we kind of like, tend to think of these agents as like human, they’re not, we tend to prescribe like a human form of trust, you know, like when you have a coworker that does the right thing all the time, you tend to just let them work. And I think that’s kind of the challenge and in the human side of governance. So that’s a really long way of saying.

You can build tools and skills and patterns and things like that in AI that will help with governance. But fundamentally, it’s my belief that for the type of documentation or content that you and I work on, and I think most of our audience works on, which is has to be right, has to be accurate, has to conform to standards, et cetera, et cetera, right? It’s product documentation. It’s critical information. I still think that every single word needs to be read and considered by a human being. So really long answer to that question.

SO: Right, and then fundamentally, if the AI is right half the time, then I’m going to read everything pretty carefully, knowing that 50% is wrong and I need to fix it. The problem, I think, is when it gets to be 90% correct, you just sort of glaze over because you’re looking for that last 10%, right? So it’s the difference between like doing a developmental edit, where you’re going deep into the words and just rearranging everything and fundamentally changing everything, versus doing a final proofread, where it is far more difficult to read 100 pages and find one typo than it is to read 100 pages that are just trash. And you’re like, start over, rearrange this, reformat everything. We’re not even worried about the typos yet because this is just fundamentally wrong. And so to your point, as it gets closer and closer, you start to believe in the output that it’s generating, which then means almost certainly that one typo, which in your example could be a shell script gone rogue, could be really, really problematic.

PB: Yeah. And that’s going to be the challenge of our times in a lot of ways. I think there’s still going to be some aspect of origination that’s going to be necessary for quite some time. even with like automated drafting and pipelines like that, coming online, because in certain places, those work really, really well. but in other places, they, they don’t really work very well yet. It’s going to be the process of like becoming orchestrators in a way where, you know, we’re not rubber stamps, and we’re like really truly adding value and actually defending against the challenges that are going to come up with the automation that we build.

SO: Fundamentally, like I saw a reference to this this morning and somebody said, you can write essentially an extractor that’s going to generate your release notes, right? So there’s code updates and you just automate the generation of release notes. Now, I personally am not so sure that you actually need AI for this. Given properly commented code, you could just generate the release notes, right? But setting aside that particular small argument in here. You automate, you can automate the generation of release notes because release notes are essentially, this is the delta between version one and version 1.01 or, know, and here are the changes. It’s a change log. What that means though is that the changes were captured in the code. They’re in the code, like the logic or the information is already there.

What we’re doing is extracting it and reformatting it into something that a human can look at on a single page and say, okay, I understand what the changes are and how these apply to me as the user of the software and whether or not I should upgrade. That’s different than we’re going to introduce a new feature into this code and I need to write about why this feature is interesting and relevant to you. The question to me is where is new information being introduced into the system? Where is that information encoded? And then once it’s encoded, we can extract it and process and do things to it. But the fundamental question is still at what point does new information get into the universe that the AI is capable of processing against?

PB: Yeah. So there’s like four things I want to pick out of this. Cause you just, you just touched on an area of like, I would say research for me, which we didn’t talk about beforehand. So this wasn’t intentional. so I’ve actually worked on deterministic and AI release notes systems myself. Like that’s been just like a thing that I spent quite a bit time on. 

SO: Define deterministic.

PB: So deterministic is like traditional software. So it’s just like, it’s running be a logical code that has no AI in it.

SO: And AI is not deterministic, which is kind of like the key point.

PB: Right. And AI is not deterministic. So AI is probabilistic. So it’s using math to generate outputs. So anyways, so I can tell you that using AI for release notes is a far produces a far better outcome than traditional deterministic because even though release notes are fairly well structured and understood, you know, input to output, you think it would be a pretty easy conversion sort of, there’s a lot of edges where it just doesn’t work. It gets too fuzzy. And then, one of the other things that AI is really, really good is good at is summarization and translation. So if you think about like what AI is doing inside of like generating a release note about a piece of code. So it goes in, it looks at the JIRA and the code and it says, okay, so the JIRA describes it as this, the code does this. I’m going to describe the new change, whatever it is, it’s summarizing all that information into something much smaller. And then it’s translating it from either being code to being English or from being developer English to being human English. And it’s putting it into something that you can then publish. And those are things that it does quite well, because it has pretty discrete inputs. a lot of the stuff, there’s a lot of patterns there that it’s very familiar with.

But as you were discussing, it’s like you were mentioning the things where it still struggles is less with like the what is in here and the why would you use it? What is like the, how you use it in like a higher sense. And you can actually like take this back to a similar issue we had with API documentation pre AI, where it was very common that people would go and build developer portals.

And the API documentation would just be a spec effectively, where it would list out the end points and the variables and that’s it. Right. And then Stripe came and like blew everybody’s minds about around and just put conceptual information around it and describe what the API was meant to do. and then like gave you examples of how to use it. and tutorials and patterns and things like that, that turned that information from being this kind of almost the conceptual educational purpose portion of the corpus in a way that the human beings can and should.

PB: A lot of it is generated, but like generated output to be something that was very usable by humans. And I think that like that piece of it in my experience so far is still quite necessary. I’m not saying that AI can’t get there, like we date stamped this, time stamped this earlier, but today from what I’ve seen, even the most contemporary models are not, they’re not coming in and building out.

SO: Because it’s not, the purpose is almost certainly not in the code, right? The purpose is in the product design meeting where someone says, we need a feature that’s going to accomplish these kinds of things. And the code says, do these kinds of things, but it doesn’t, the code itself doesn’t necessarily say why. And so unless you add a recording of that product design meeting into your AI corpus, which you can do, or the transcript, then maybe it can get to what was the intent as opposed to what does this code do.

PB: So that’s a good point. And I’m actually going to contradict what I said just slightly here.

SO: Ha!

PB: So you’re right. If you take really, really good product inputs and you run them through into the docs, that can get you a certain distance. But then we actually run into the thing we were supposed to be about, which is governance. And we started talking about, which is the human loop.

SO: Mm-hmm.

PB: And I think that those products, so I’ve actually done testing on this very recently. The inputs from at least our product team, they tend to work better in terms of like white paper style information than they do in terms of docs information. because like what’s in the product information, there’s a lot of like how and why and what’s covered and that kind of stuff. 

SO: Mm-hmm. 

PB: And like at a business level, but it’s not really a user level. It’s not, I’m struggling for the right words here, but it’s, it’s not the pieces of information that you want somebody who is thinking, should I go and touch this? Why should I go and do this? Is it going to serve me? Is it a good use of my time? Those kinds of things. What kind of value am I going to get out of it? Not the organization, not like, is it making a valuable feature? Like that kind of things. Like what is it, what’s in it for me as the user? it has been less good in creating those outputs in my experiments thus far. so that negotiation of like, okay, like what did product want us to build? What did engineering actually build? What got done? how does this incorporate with the rest of the product? you know, what’s our priorities? Like, how do I then take that down into something that is serving the user really, really well. To me, that’s still really a human skill that I think will stay that way at least this year. mean, I mean, but for the foreseeable future, know, obviously foreseeable futures feels a lot shorter sometimes these days than it did in the past.

SO: This year. This week. Yeah, okay. So on the topic of governance, we’ve talked a lot about sort of the backend development, whatever. But what about governance on the delivery side of things? if you have, because you do, end users are interacting with chatbots, with conversational interfaces to get the information that they want. And the question then becomes, how do you govern that? How do you manage that to ensure that they get the right information?

PB: Yeah, well, so I think we, this was really the thing we wanted to talk about today, right? Like this was the core, this is the hard problem.

SO: This is the hard problem.

PB: I think it’s fair to start by saying in today’s world, you don’t have a hundred percent control. I think you made that point when we were chatting before, like that’s just not part of like what happens today. So I think there’s a couple of different places. It’s like, this needs to be broken up. Like one is like the actual like end user, like what they physically get and what control they have versus what control you have, and then there is what control you have of how the model is going to behave based on your information and your inputs. You know, whether or that model is a public model, like somebody’s accessing your documentation through Claude Desktop, or whatever, or if it is a private model. like somebody’s accessing the information through your app or your website. so from my view, the governance piece really comes into like, what control do you have immediately before the model?

And that breaks down into a couple of things. So it is like completeness, accuracy, and structure of the content. Aand the completeness and accuracy are a thing that we’ve always had to deal with. The thing that’s different now is that, you know, we, as we were just discussing some, some portion of our content is going to be generated. Um, so there is going to be inputs coming in that need a different form of validation. I need, they need to be looked at a little bit differently than they would have had to in the past. Cause it’s not just an expert working on it and, so like you have the, so you have that piece. And to me, the key in making sure that you’re going to have the governance for the accuracy and completeness of the information ahead of the model really comes down to like still using structure. 

And like, there’s a big debate about is structure good or bad for models and those kinds of things. And I wanted to touch on this here, because I this is really important. Structure is not for the models, at least the structure that you maintain your content in. I’ve seen tests on both sides. It works, doesn’t, whatever. It’s markdown is better, this format is better, whatever. I think generally speaking, the idea that markdown is the thing that should actually be the final input to the model is probably true. But the structure is because without reuse, without the ability to use validation on the structure. The structure gives you the hooks to do deterministic validation and other forms of automated governance that are non-AI. Those things are very dependable. Humans will go crazy.

So like with the quantity of information you’re going to generate, if you don’t force those systems to use reuse, so humans look at less things and have been understanding of, this is supposed to be the same as this. Now it’s very similar, should it be? Like when something is reused, it’s not just an efficiency thing. It is a signal that that piece of information, that representation of the world is the same, except for maybe these little tiny things that are flagged as it is over here. That’s a signal to a human being to make sure that’s true. It should be true. Right? So this, these forms of information architecture, where we’re developing these structures that are signals to humans, are going to become more valuable as we need more and stronger signals to be able to do our jobs in the governance process for what’s generated. So that’s the point I wanted to make on like the pre, I would say like the pre-deployment piece of the content. And I just said a lot, so I’ll let you argue with me.

SO: Right, the question of, well, I think the question of in what form, there’s the question of how are we authoring this, which of it needs to be structured and organized and reusable, et cetera. There’s a completely separate question of how do we deliver this to the AI for processing, right? 

PB: Mm-hmm.

SO: Like what is the encoding for the AI delivery endpoint, and whether that’s XML, probably not, or Markdown, or you ship it through an API of some sort, that’s a different question from how do you develop and control the content in the authoring environment, right? So fundamentally, I don’t care how we’re feeding it into the AI. I got in a conversation with somebody the other day who said, well, we need an Excel spreadsheet for X, Y, and Z purposes. OK, well, I’m not authoring this stuff in Excel. That is not happening. And when I say this stuff, I mean a lot of content, right? So fundamentally, Excel, a really, really terrible way of doing this. But I don’t care. I’ll just author it in whatever and deliver it as Excel. Because we can do that. 

PB: Right.

SO: We can write a script, output it to Excel, and then pass it down the line. We can have extensive discussions about the use of Excel for content transport and how this is one of the seven what plagues or whatever. okay, so in terms of governance though, I think it’s fair to say that we are allowed to disclaim responsibility for the public-facing chatbots. If you, the end user, go to a public chatbot and prompt it to do a bunch of stuff and eventually get it to output a piece of content that makes you happy but is not accurate to what is in my source content, right? Because you just said, no, change it to this. Then that is on you, right? You operated all those prompts. That is fundamentally a you problem. And I’m talking about from a liability point of view more than anything else, right? You’re not going to get to call me up and say, hey, your product did bad things. Well, why did you do that? Well, know, the chatbot told me to. 

PB: Yeah.

SO: However, if we’re talking about a private LLM, now we’re talking about company.com’s private chatbot built on their internal content with their or our internal guardrails. Now we have some responsibility as the content creators and the operators of said AI chatbot to make sure that the content is accurate. And the thing that’s keeping me awake at night is, okay, I go in there as an end user and I say, give me the instructions for how to do a thing, right? And it comes back and it says there are eight steps and there’s a warning. Before you do step eight, make sure you turn off the power or something. And I’m like, you know what, these steps are too long. Hey chatbot, remove all the warnings.

PB: Yeah, so.

SO: That’s a thing I can do.

PB: Well, it’s a thing you can do. I have so, I have so many thoughts on this. So, it’s a thing you can do today with public models. I’m going to go one direction. Then I’m going come back to the internal stuff. All right. So in the public model space, I suspect that as these evolve, they will start to accept certain portions, like forms of metadata. However, it might be decorators, might be some form of tagging, might be, I don’t know, something else, right? When they’re referencing certain pieces of content, they’re given very strict like patterns they have to stick to, like they can’t delete warnings, right? So if you put like some kind of like biohazard on your published content, I don’t know, like something where it says like you can’t delete the warnings, right? That the public models will eventually respect that. I suspect we go that direction in the next call it two years. And at that point in time, I think that your responsibility as the content creator is going to be very, similar. I think it’s the same actually for the internal system and for the external system. 

Let’s not talk about like the development or architecture piece of it. Yeah, let’s talk about the content piece exclusively. And it’s going to come down to maintaining the proper structure. So it’s going to be the information model where a warning has to be a particular type of warning and it has to be labeled and placed in a particular place. A step has to be a step. Right? So like, you know, you can very easily see, an ordered list being treated in one way and a set of steps to be treated in another way. And this, this is already the case by the way. So like, this isn’t, this isn’t novel. if you go and you publish a public doc site and use JSON-LD to, specifically indicate, you know, using schema.org, Markup, you know, these are steps, whatever else you want in there, Google AI or not, we’ll treat that differently. Anthropic, I haven’t tested those. I’m not going to say for sure, but I think the other AI models also, when I asked Claude if it used it for a presentation, it said yes. But I actually tested it in Google now that I’m thinking about it. I don’t know if I should admit that publicly. But, my testing now that I’m thinking back to it. Yeah. And I’m thinking back to it. I was actually testing using Gemini.

SO: It’s impossible to keep up, you know?

PB: I wasn’t testing using Anthropic, but Claude’s response when you’re asking it, how it interprets these things, it says that it uses the JSON-LD as a portion of its interpretation of the response. And I believe that that is true based on the testing I did with the models basically behave the same way in these categories. So what’s your responsibility? Your responsibility is to govern the structure of the output in such a way where it gives the proper indications that comply with the contemporary understanding of the metadata that the models are looking for. 

So looping back to the internal systems, I think we’re going to come to a point where the internal models you’re running, like open source, open weight, whatever you want to call them in terms of, I think they’re going to be primarily open models, right? They’re going to be open source of some form. They’re more or less going to behave the same way as the public models. And you’d expect them to kind of comply with the same general things. The difference is that you’ll have probably a little more control over post-training, which I think is, I don’t know if it’s a good or a bad thing in the context of what we’re talking about. but you should be able to train some guard rails into them. And then you should be able to put some level of deterministic guard rails on them.

And you can always provide them guidance. Now guidance isn’t perfect. It’s flawed. Like people can circumvent it, you know, like pretend you’re a chatbot that doesn’t care about guidance. But like you really have to work to get around it. I think when you have those guard rails in place. So this doesn’t keep me up at night is what I’m saying. It’s a really long way of saying it doesn’t keep me up at night.

SO: Well, you know, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the analogy of the rise of desktop publishing to the rise of AI, which I understand fundamentally makes no sense.

PB: Let’s do it with it. I’ll do it.

SO: Yeah, let’s go with it. Think for a second about the rise, not the rise, but in fact, the an output. And this could even be in print. One of the most famous failure in techcomm examples that you see that everybody makes jokes about is like you’re going along on a page, a printout, doesn’t matter, right? And you get to the bottom of the page and it says, “Step one, cut the blue wire.” And then you turn the page, and it says, “But first…”

So in the AI world, okay, you know, we put in guardrails and we say you’re not allowed to remove the warnings and whatever, but fundamentally at the end of the day, I start processing this output, I mean, I’ll just tell it, hey, give me a PDF, right, of the output, and then I’m gonna reprocess that PDF somewhere else. I am bound and determined to get this thing down to like a quarter page of actual text because I don’t wanna read any more than that.

And you know how you get these terrible tech docs that are nothing but warnings for the first 20 pages? All those legal warnings? Warning, if allergic, do not use. Warning, do not walk underneath the unstable whatever because it might fall on your head, you dummy. All those warnings, right? Everybody thinks they’re useless, but they’re in there because somebody at some point said, I’m allergic, but how bad could it be? And they took the pill or whatever. They’re annoying. Don’t serve me. They serve the organization in protecting them from legal liability. So I’m just going to strip them. And if you try to prevent me from doing it, I’m just going to go around you. I’ll flatten it down to something that’s not smart anymore, and then I’ll take them out. 

PB: Right. Yeah.

SO: Now, arguably at that point, you know, when we’re in a courtroom years later, and they’re saying, why did you take the pill that almost killed you? It’s like, well, the docs didn’t say to, well, you know, they did. You went through like eight steps to get rid of that warning. 

PB: Yeah, there’s no liability here.

SO: I know. But the context issue is the thing, right? And the point that you’re making is that if the back-end authoring and governance is good enough, those warnings will make it into the initial output. And I think that’s true, and I agree with that. But fundamentally, and you know, removing warnings is a pretty extreme example, but fundamentally, the end users are basically saying, I don’t care how you package this content and I don’t care why you packaged it this way. I want this at an eighth-grade level instead of a 12th-grade level. I want it in French, and I want it to be no more than 100 words. And at that point, you start to lose information, right, and context. And how do we make sure that that end product is still, I mean, are we going to end up in a place where the AI says, I’m afraid I can’t do that, Patrick?

PB: So, okay, so this is actually a more interesting problem than the warnings piece because in the fact that it is more specific, like it is, it’s a not your problem because what you’re asking the AI to do is you’re asking it to perform one of its core functions, which is summarization. And I do think that you’ll be able to provide AI guidance inside of the content that you have. And now that I’m thinking about this, I’m not going to say for sure that you can’t do this today.

But the point is that when an AI is going and referencing, we’re going to say a procedure, right? If somebody wants, you know, give this to me in a fourth-grade level, and it’s written, you know, at a high school level, that’s a scary situation for sure. But I do think that you’re going to be, you’re going to see organizations being able to say like, you know, this is, this cannot be changed. Like this has to be delivered as… I think there are already some level of guardrails around those things. Again, like when you use good structure to indicate, like these are steps. They have to be reproduced as they are. Like I think the AI systems have been designed to understand that like those are, they can’t play with those because, like, you know, those are specific intentional procedures. But it’d be very interesting to test this. This is not a thing that I have specifically tested. Have you tested this? Are we?

Are you like about to drop a truth bomb on me? You’ve like gone and like looked at like some chemical engineering output and you’ve been like, Hey, give this to me at a second-grade level. It’s like mix the blue thing and the red thing.

SO: Let’s not go down that route. I don’t wanna say that, that we’ve pushed this into failure. But again, circling back to governance, I agree with everything you’re saying around making sure the content is set up in such a way that the AI will succeed. 

PB: Okay.

SO: The most common use case right now for AI is that there’s an AI team being stood up somewhere in the organization, a large organization. And all of that structure and all of that governance and all those attributes and all that metadata that you’re talking about is all in, hypothetically, it’s all in the content. We’ve got like the world’s greatest, you know, structured semantic content. The AI team is picking off the end product PDFs and shoving them into the AI.

PB: Yeah, I… Well…

SO: So yeah, now we’re very sad. like, yes, I agree with all of that. It’s just that the gap right now between what should be happening and what actually is happening, which is we don’t have time to wait for those people and we don’t have time to configure an API to inject, inject, ingest all this stuff, maybe inject.

And you know, we could run it through like an MCP, model context protocol, type of thing and that would make it so much better. But you know what? There’s a SharePoint bucket over here and I’m just gonna like trawl the whole thing and go for it. And I ingested five versions of the same document that are you know, 10, 8, 6, 4, and 2 years old. Yeah, okay, whatever, who cares.

PB: So I believe this is happening because I’ve also seen it.

SO: Did I mention I’m not sleeping?

PB: So I’ll tell you why I am sleeping. So, for one, this doesn’t tend to be my problem. There’s that. I have the really nice situation of being kind of a solution to this problem. 

SO: Mmm! Huh. So you’re saying I should switch sides and get out of services and go over to product. That’s what you’re saying. It’s not a bad idea.

PB: So, you have to, no, I don’t know that I’m saying that, there’s, there’s plenty of other problems in product. So the reason I’m not concerned about this is because most of those projects that I’ve had, you know, a front row seat to fail. And they fail pretty quickly. They tend to fail before they launch, which is good. Actually. It’s really good. because like they’re like, we built this thing with this garbage and we got garbage and you’re like, sweet. So, and because that worked quickly, then they can go and they can do it right.

What I’ve seen, where I believe the future is, at least the immediate future in this is that content teams are going to be responsible for publishing very, very high-quality web materials, like similar to what they’ve done in the past, except better, right? Like has to have semantics, has to have certain aspects of structure, has to be well organized, has to have certain chunking and like all those kinds of things. And the models and the surrounding ecosystems are going to get very good at leveraging those materials. They’re already getting quite good at it. So the impulse for an internal AI team to go and get your PDFs off your SharePoint is going to go down because the barrier of getting information off of your extremely good help site is going to be extremely low. 

That’s going to be the easiest path. And then for the edge cases, when like, let’s say you’re doing post-training on like, like the FinBERT model or something like that, like you’re like building a very specific AI application and you want very specific pieces of information. In those cases, you’re going to have to use an API because you don’t want the whole set of information. You just want the 5% that applies to your use case. So those teams are going to be have to be sophisticated enough to leverage the, either the graph at a granular, like the graph, the structure or whatever it may be, the metadata, the selection mechanism, and then also the structure to like do the filtration to get the pieces they want. So those are the two worlds that I see. I see like very general-purpose stuff and that’s going to be hooked into what’s going to be great for just users anyways, like the better, the more semantic.

PB: The more well-organized your help site is, the better it’s going to be for humans. It’s going to be better for your AI agents, internal and external. And then for the other side of the world, the really, really specific use cases, those teams are going to have to be sophisticated enough to do the really, the deep engineering and concept extraction. so I think what you’re seeing right now is a symptom of just a nascent skill inside of organizations, but I don’t think it stays that way which is why it doesn’t concern me that much.

SO: Okay, well that’s a happy and optimistic world that I, too, would like to live inside. Before, I think that’s actually probably a good place to leave this, but did you have any final closing thoughts, encouragement for people as they’re listening to this ranty, well mostly me ranting, you sounded very reasonable, but do any final parting shots?

PB: Did I? Well, I appreciate you saying I sounded reasonable because I don’t hear that very often. 

SO: Compared to me.

PB: So I do think that profession is changing, and I think the world is moving very quickly right now. And I think that anybody that tells you otherwise is being disingenuous. I think there’s a lot of energy around how it is we leverage these systems and how that changes, you know, our profession is like, you know, content people, whatever portion of the content people you fit into. I personally don’t see the, the general profession going away, at least in our version of the world, like maybe the marketing content, is going to get swallowed a little bit more. I don’t know. I don’t spend a ton of time there.

I see the act of intervention, governance, orchestration, understanding, and coordination in our world as being essential. I haven’t seen anything that has indicated to me that that’s going to go away in the immediate term. And I think there’s a good chance that it genuinely just doesn’t really ever go away. I think it’s something which is going to be critical for the long term. But I do think that people are going to have to keep up on the current state of how we’re working with our tools. And it’s going to be a different pace than it has been in the past. and then I would offer one more warning on that. So one of the things that I see really frequently in our world is the impulse to go and use AI in places that you don’t need to. So a number of people have released like skills libraries, recently for Claude and some of them are really, really well put together. Like they’re really interesting. The people who are releasing them have done an incredible job and service the community by releasing these things. But one of the things that I’ve noticed about them is that a lot of the functionality that’s in these skills libraries that we’re outsourcing or automating with AI, it all works with deterministic systems already. And you should never replace a deterministic capability with an AI capability. There’s two reasons for that. One, it’s more expensive with AI. It may be less expensive to build and procure, but it’s more expensive to run. And the running is the thing that you do for the long haul. So like just on that basis, like you should not replace things that you can do with deterministic system relatively easily with an AI system. But the other thing is AI systems aren’t deterministic. So you’re not going to get the same result every time. 

So if it’s something that is well done in a deterministic way. You should do it in a deterministic way. So there was a package of skills that was recently released that I went and looked at that was, you know, kind of very, very well put together. I looked at the skills and I was like, if you’re using a structured CCMS, like in structured content, you don’t need 95% of these. Like all this stuff just happens. Like it’s all, it’s all solved problems. We solved these problems 20 years ago. Why are we writing skills to do this stuff? Like this makes no sense. So I do think as everybody should be keeping up with the AI, as it is a value-add efficiency improvement in their work, it should also be reasonable about where it’s applied. It’s really exciting and capable in certain places, but it doesn’t mean it’s a thing that should replace everything. There are still the historical tools still work really, really well. And over the long haul, they’re higher quality and lower cost. So that’s my kind of like ending word of warning, which you asked for it by the way.

SO: That sounds about right to me. So Patrick, thank you. And I’m sure this conversation will continue, and we’ll see what happens.

PB: Thanks, Sarah. Always a pleasure.

Conclusion with ambient background music

CC: Thank you for listening to Content Operations by Scriptorium. For more information, visit Scriptorium.com or check the show notes for relevant links.

The post Who controls your content? AI and content governance appeared first on Scriptorium.

Good content fundamentals have been the foundation of effective product content for decades, and those same principles are exactly what make content AI-ready today. In this episode, Bill Swallow and Alan Pringle explain how attending to your hierarchy of content needs is the key to AI success.

Alan Pringle: Right now, AI is not going to fix bad content problems. It is going to regurgitate that bad information, giving your end users information that’s flat out wrong. If your content at the basic source level is wrong, your AI by extension is going to be wrong. And that is the unglossy, unvarnished, hard truth that is still, I don’t think, seeping in like it should across the corporate world.

Bill Swallow: It really does come back to the fact that, despite the world changing on a day-to-day basis, the fundamentals have not changed.

Related links:

LinkedIn:

Transcript:

This is a machine-generated transcript with edits.

Introduction with ambient background music

Christine Cuellar: From Scriptorium, this is Content Operations, a show that delivers industry-leading insights for global organizations.

Bill Swallow: In the end, you have a unified experience so that people aren’t relearning how to engage with your content in every context you produce it.

Sarah O’Keefe: Change is perceived as being risky; you have to convince me that making the change is less risky than not making the change.

Alan Pringle: And at some point, you are going to have tools, technology, and processes that no longer support your needs, so if you think about that ahead of time, you’re going to be much better off.

End of introduction

Bill Swallow: Hi, I’m Bill Swallow.

Alan Pringle: And I’m Alan Pringle.

BS: And in this episode, surprise surprise, we’re going to talk about content.

AP: Really? Who would have thought?

BS: But more specifically, what good content means today. Today, everything is all about AI. There is lots of change in progress with regard to AI tooling and content delivery with AI. But have the needs for content really changed? And I would say that off the bat, if you’re doing content right, you really don’t have to reinvent the wheel to make it AI acceptable.

AP: No, in this crazy AI-hyped world we’re in, there’s some very basic foundational things that tend to get overlooked because they’re not sexy, and they’re not special and hot and whatever else. All that kind of marketing garbage that just sets me on complete edge and makes me want to say profane things in podcasts. 

The bottom line is, there are things that the content world, and especially our little subdomain of it, product content world, has been doing for decades now. And I mean decades. 

BS: Or should have been doing.

AP: Correct. There are basic tenants that have been in place for decades. That if you’re following them, you are starting down the road of success with AI. I think to kind of prove our point, we’re going to step back and look at some of the things that Scriptorium has talked about and written in the past and see how it stacks up. And Bill, you found one. And let’s talk about that blog post that Sarah O’Keefe wrote. What was the date on that again?

BS: It was 2014. And that is when we came up with the hierarchy of content needs. And it really wasn’t so much an invention as it was just a regurgitation of what it means to create good content. So we have a pyramid of content needs. At the bottom, we have available. So is content available? Does it exist? Can someone get to it? I think that we’ve mostly solved that problem given the dearth of information we have out on the internet. But as we know, that information is not always useful. So we go up a rung or a layer on that pyramid and see whether or not the content is accurate.

And if it’s accurate, if it provides the correct information, that’s fantastic. Then we go up another level and see whether or not the content is actually appropriate. So it can be correct. It can exist. But is it appropriate? Does it meet a reader’s needs? And is it formatted in a way that works for the reader to ingest?

Then we go up a step further and see whether or not the content is connected. And this is where we kind of get to the more modern aspect of content. Does it link out to correct additional resources? Is it available to people in a variety of means? And does it engage with the audience?

And then finally, at the top of the pyramid, we have intelligent content. Is the content intelligent? And we’re not talking about AI here at all, but we are really talking about is the content fashioned in a way that it can be used intelligently across different media?

AP: That it can be manipulated for different purposes. And that is quoting Sarah directly. And I think that is key here, because that is what AI does. It takes information and basically chops, slices, dices it, and provides it in a new way via a chatbot, for example.

So that is that whole manipulation that Sarah is talking about. And we will post a link to the post in the show notes so you can read this at a greater detail to see how well this hierarchy of content needs has stood up. And she even talks about, for example, integrating database content, how you can pull in other information product specifications.

If you think about it from an AI lens, I think that parallels pretty closely to the idea of retrieval augmented generation, where you are pulling content from other sources and kind of weaving it in with what an AI engine is providing you. So RAG is, I think, could be kind of interpreted as another way of integrating other information into the way that AI is processing that content.

BS: Right, mean, because AI, I mean, it’s not really an audience, but it is a delivery point. There are some structural needs that need to happen there. But ultimately, you’re still writing for people. You might be writing in a way that it allows the AI to repurpose and refactor the information so that the audience gets exactly what they’re looking for. But it still needs to be somewhat tailored to the needs of people because AI in itself, it doesn’t care what the content is, but it’s going to try to produce something for an eventual person to be able to read.

AP: I think that then in turn points to something else in our vast compendium of Scriptorium content. And that is a book that Sarah and I wrote, the first edition in 2000, which just kind of makes me shake my head. I know this is not a video podcast yet, but I’m shaking my head in disbelief. The book, Technical Writing 101, has three editions, published between 2000 and 2009. We will put a link in the show notes. You can still download the third edition. And by the way, it’s free. You can get a PDF or EPUB. It’s free. You can get it from our store with some more recent resources from the store. 

But to me, I flipped through that book this morning. And I was genuinely surprised at how much of the advice on how to create good product content still is true in this AI era. Everything of talking about modular, writing things in a modular way, being very systematic and structuring things, even if you’re not using a structured authoring tool, use a template, make things very standardized. These are all things that, yes, they make for better, consistent, standard, tech-com, product content for the person reading it. But let’s pretend like AI is the person reading, and I’m doing air quotes here, reading it. It is going to do a better job of understanding, again, I’m sort of personifying here, and I know that’s sort of a no-no.

But if you feed AI, a large language model, content that is very structured, that is very templatized, that is standardized, that is in bite-sized chunks, and also, this is very important, the idea of metadata, which we do talk about in that book briefly. We do talk about it. Because you need to be able to label it for different audiences, because I’m thinking about someone sitting, trying to use a product, trying to use a piece of software, talking to a chatbot. And the chatbot is going to ask it, what product are you using? What’s the model number? All of those kinds of things. And now we’re getting to this whole idea of labeling and breaking things apart so that a chatbot, just like a user of a product.

Let’s say somebody has a printer that’s on the highest end of the scale. They’re going to have a lot more features that apply to their model than to someone who bought a more basic one. But the thing is, if your product content has not clearly labeled what are features in each of the models, the chatbot is going to spit out the wrong thing. So again, this idea of breaking things up in discrete chunks and labeling them in a way where someone who wants specific information about a specific model, they can get it. And it doesn’t matter if it’s from a web page, it’s from a PDF, a printed book, God forbid in 2026, or from an AI chatbot. Those rules still apply. Those fundamental principles are still there.

BS: Mm-hmm.

AP: I think one of the biggest problems here is when people do not have those fundamentals already in place, right?

BS: If they don’t have those fundamentals in place, they can’t get to the top of that pyramid that Sarah was talking about. And really those fundamentals are those first three layers. Content is available, content is accurate and content is appropriate. If you can actually nail those three layers of the hierarchy of content needs, you are set to then jump to connected and intelligent fairly quickly because your content is already well written, standardized, and appropriate for different audiences.

AP: So we’re right back to talking about the way you put content together, your content operations, and how you have to have these fundamental principles basically embedded in your processes to create that content that goes up all the way up to the hierarchy, the very top of the hierarchy of need pyramid. 

So then that begs the question, what is going to happen to your AI if you don’t have those fundamentals in place, if you aren’t all the way up that hierarchy of content needs? I’m afraid to tell you your AI is going to fail. And this is something that I’ve said often, but it bears repeating because it is clear. Unfortunately, a lot of people high up the corporate food chain do not understand this. 

Merely slapping AI on top of content that is fundamentally outdated and incorrect. Right now, it is not going to fix those problems. It is not magically going to fix them because what is AI going to do? It is going to regurgitate that bad information, acting like it’s knowing what it’s talking about until your end users very definitively that you need to do this to make this happen and it’s flat out wrong. And again, right now, AI is not going to be able to fix that right now. One day it may be able to, but right now, if your information, your content at the basic source level is wrong, your AI by extension, is going to be wrong. And that is the unglossy, unvarnished, hard truth that is still, I don’t think, seeping in like it should across the corporate world.

BS: It really does come back to the fact that, despite the world changing on a day-to-day basis, the fundamentals have not changed. Nothing is new.

AP: No, no. And if you have an AI initiative and you are part of the content world and your content operations aren’t up to snuff, this is a way to get funding to get your content operations up into the 21st century. And I don’t want to say that as and sound glib and dismissive, but by the same token, I know for a fact there are a lot of companies out there who are still serving up their content locked up in PDFs that may be online. That is not going to fly. That does not follow. It doesn’t go high up the hierarchy of content needs, if you want to look at it from that perspective. So it is time to break free of this idea of you present content in a particular way.

And you have to look at content as something that is basically, it’s a commodity, it’s data that AI is going to manipulate and do whatever to to meet the needs and the wants of the people who are using the chat bots and other agents that are accessing that large language model.

BS: And I think that’s a good place to leave it. Thanks, Alan.

AP: Thanks, Bill, short and sweet, but needed to be said.

Conclusion with ambient background music

CC: Thank you for listening to Content Operations by Scriptorium. For more information, visit Scriptorium.com or check the show notes for relevant links.

The post Good content = good AI: The fundamentals that never change appeared first on Scriptorium.

In this episode, Sarah O’Keefe and Alan Pringle explore how AI transforms content delivery from static documents into dynamic, consumer-driven experiences. However, the need for human-led governance is critical, and Sarah and Alan explore issues of accuracy, accountability, governance, and more. They challenge organizations to define AI success by its ability to deliver accurate, high-impact outcomes for the end user.

Sarah O’Keefe: The metrics that are being used to measure the success of AI are all wrong. We should be measuring the success of various AI efforts based on, “Are people getting what they need? Are they having a successful outcome with whatever it is that they’re trying to do?” The metric we actually seem to be using is, “What percentage of your workflow is using AI? How many people can we get rid of because we’re automating everything with AI?” It’s the wrong metric. The question is, how good are the outcomes?

Related links:

LinkedIn:

Transcript:

This is a machine-generated transcript with edits.

Introduction with ambient background music

Christine Cuellar: From Scriptorium, this is Content Operations, a show that delivers industry-leading insights for global organizations.

Bill Swallow: In the end, you have a unified experience so that people aren’t relearning how to engage with your content in every context you produce it.

Sarah O’Keefe: Change is perceived as being risky; you have to convince me that making the change is less risky than not making the change.

Alan Pringle: And at some point, you are going to have tools, technology, and processes that no longer support your needs, so if you think about that ahead of time, you’re going to be much better off.

End of introduction

Alan Pringle: Hey everybody, I’m Alan Pringle, and today I’m here with Sarah O’Keefe, and we want to do something I’ve kind of dreaded to be honest, to do a check-in on AI in the content space. I’m very ambivalent about this topic. There’s still even two, three years in, there’s still a lot of hype, but there’s also been some good things that have emerged.

We need to talk about it fairly realistically. So, Sarah, get ready. Let’s see if I can not curse during this. We’ll try. I’ll try my best not to be like that in this. Legitimately, there are some things that we need to talk about, and also about the challenges because I don’t think the content world is completely ready for a lot of what’s going on right now.

Sarah O’Keefe: You know that we have AI that can remove cursing from podcasts, so I feel like we’re good here.

AP: Well, also, it’s a challenge to me to behave in a PG-13 more family-friendly kind of way. So I’ll do my best. 

SO: I have no idea what you’re talking about.

AP: Yeah. So let’s start with the good and where things are right now with the positives. What is AI doing well right now? And let’s kind of get beyond the summarization. I think we can say objectively right now, in general, AI does a very good job of summarizing existing content. But I think it’s doing a lot more beyond that, and we should touch on those things instead.

SO: The first thing that I would say is that summarization, but specifically the use case of a chatbot or a large learning model, an LLM, so now we’re talking about Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT and all the rest of them, which has the ability to provide an end user with a way of accessing information, an information access point that is different than what we had previously.

In the olden days, you had a book, and you had to sort of flip it open and look at a table of contents or maybe an index and navigate to a page. Fine. Then along comes online content, and you can do full text search, or you can then go into an internet search, right? You type into the search bar, you get a bunch of results, you click, and you sort of, no, that’s not quite it. You modify your search string, you search again, and you sort of navigate your way to where you’re trying to go. With the interactivity of the, you know, ChatGPT class of tools. What happens is that I ask it a question and it gives me an answer. And then I say, that’s not quite what I wanted. And I can sort of zero in on exactly what I’m looking for and tell it, but actually make this easier. Or I don’t understand the words you’re using. Use simpler language. Give me more. Give me less. Give me a summary. Use this as a source. Do not use that as a source.

It’s a new way to access information. People love it. There is something psychologically helpful about a conversational search. Now, there’s obviously huge issues with this, particularly around people, you know, using chatbots as their therapists, which introduces all sorts of horrifying, horrifying ethical issues. 

AP: Personifying them as a person on the other end. Right.

SO: But in the big picture, used well, it allows you to get to the information you’re looking for and get at it in the way that you want. 

AP: There’s a control issue here. I don’t think the content consumer has ever had this level of control.

SO: Yeah, and as a content consumer, that speaks to me. That is helpful. We’re seeing increasing use of, I would say, guardrails. So, not just slam out the AI with a bunch of stuff, but rather we’ve put some guardrails around it, and there’s various kinds of technologies that you can employ there. And that has been very helpful. And then the third thing I would point to is when we talk about generative AI and generating content, there’s a lot you can do in that sort low fidelity bucket. And what I mean here is I need an image for a presentation, but the background is the wrong color, so I can just swap it out. Now, I can do that with Photoshop. Well, some people can do that with Photoshop.

AP: Well, I was about to say, don’t think you or I should be saying we can do the Photoshop because we kind of can’t.

SO: Right. Well, and that’s exactly it. So it’s lowered the bar, right? Because I can tell the AI to swap out the background, and it will. And it applies a mid-level Photoshop capability to this image. And now I have the image that I need with a dark background so that the white text shows up in my presentation, that kind of thing. 

AP: Right. Yeah.

SO: We can do low-stakes synthetic audio if this podcast, which for the record we are recording with actual human beings, but let’s say that Alan curses extensively and we need to swap it out well, we could pretty easily generate some synthetic audio that sounds like him and that PG of eyes the original wording into something that is You know cleaner it would be way funnier to just bleep it. So I don’t know why we would do this but…

AP: Correct. Well, and it may come to that. The bottom line is what you’re talking about here is things that have very low risk. This is more fun stuff, the thought of doing some of what we’re talking about and stuff that describes how to use a medical device, for example. Not sure I want to go there with that. But for something low stakes like some one-off presentation that you’re giving, maybe some humor is involved, I totally think that’s an acceptable use because there’s no risk there.

SO: That’s really the key point because let’s say you’re writing content for a new medical device. Now you probably have a version one of said medical device, and you’re doing a version two. So, okay, fine. We take the version one content and we sort of, you know, say add color because that’s what we added, you know, in version two, and update all this stuff automatically.

But it then becomes very important to actually read that, look at that information, look at all the images, make sure that everything is correct. And by the time you do that super carefully, you may have given back all the time that you saved on the back end when you basically made a copy and said generate the new version. There’s some, you have to be really careful with that, especially depending on what your stakes are in terms of regulating regulatory or compliance stuff. 

You can, of course, get away with using AI, as you said, for low-stakes stuff. Now, the big risk you run there, and we’re seeing this in my favorite example of low-stakes content, which is video games, the video game industry has seen huge amounts of pushback against AI-generated game content, because it’s not fun. It’s not creative. It feels flat. It’s not art, and it’s not fun to play. And so it just becomes a slog. Again, same thing. Did you use it for maybe some backgrounds here and there? Okay. Did you use it to drive the story that you’re trying to establish or set up? You know, the enemies that you’re hypothetically fighting, and then they all have a certain sameness, or they all, you know, you’re sort of stealthing your way around the map. And it turns out that the AI-generated things are really dumb in that once they turn their back, you can do literally anything and they won’t notice because it was poorly designed.

AP: Right, yeah. And that’s true even in the film entertainment industry. There’s been a tremendous amount of pushback for the very reason I read a review recently talking about a series of clips about history on, I believe it’s on YouTube, by a fairly well-known director I will not name.

SO: Mm-hmm.

AP: And some of the AI is frankly not done well. And one reviewer basically said that a lot of the people, when you look at the back of these AI-generated, like an AI-generated King George, the back of his head looks like a melted candle. This is not what we want here. If you’re so focused on that sort of thing, you’re not paying attention to the message. But again, this is low-stakes content.

We have started getting into kind of more the content creator point of view. We’ve talked about the consumer and how AI gives them much more control, flexibility in how they receive information. But let’s talk about what that means more for the people that have to create the information because it’s a huge shift on multiple levels and this idea of creating, especially in the product content world, these lovely design page-based PDFs and whatever else, and even webpages, hate to say it, those days are gone, or should be at this point.

SO: Yeah, again, you know, we step back to books, and you write the content, it goes through like a manuscript process of some sort, and then it gets poured into a book. It gets printed on paper, which is about the least flexible thing you can imagine, right? Because I, as the book publisher, get to decide what font is on the page and what size.

And if you don’t like that font, well, maybe you can get your hands on a large print edition. Maybe you can get your hands on a braille edition. Maybe. But the form factor of the content was determined by the publisher of the content, or technically, the printer. But, you know, that physical book production process. PDF, not that different in the sense that the content is bound into the PDF and it’s fixed. Now.

You get a little bit more control because you can zoom in. There’s some things you can do in PDF, but ultimately it’s more or less still a page factor determined by the author/publisher/gatekeeper.

So now we talk about the web and HTML. This is all pre-AI, right? HTML goes out there, and there’s actually a decent bit you can do in your browser. You can override the default font. You can override the default font size. You can say, I’m using dark mode or light mode or those kinds of things. 

AP: Light mode, exactly.

SO: If you have an e-book reader, you can override the default font or font size.

AP: I need that font size jacked up, please. Thank you. 

SO: We weren’t going to use that example. Right. Yeah. So you get a little bit more control, right? You have a little bit more control over the presentation. Now, let’s talk about what AI does to this, and particularly the large language models. Now, I, as the author, create a whole bunch of content, and I put it somewhere. And the content consumer says…

AP: I’ll use it.

SO: Tell me about this concept or tell me about this thing or give me information about whatever. And they get a response to that prompt, which is a paragraph or two of, you know, here’s what you need to know. And then they say, make it easier, make it simpler, write this at a fourth grade level, write this at an eighth grade level. I’m a PhD in microbiology. Give me more detail. Right. You can change the writing level. You can say make the font bigger, make the font smaller, give it to me in a PDF, show it to me in a spreadsheet.

AP: I’ve even seen someone create a podcast of this document and have two people talking about it, which was freaky, but you can do that.

SO: Right. So as the author and the content creator and the backend people, right, the content people, we’re accustomed to taking our content and packaging it in certain ways. Like, here’s a topic for you, or here’s a PDF, or here’s a book, or here’s a deliverable, right, a package of content. And although with structured authoring, when that came in, we let go of this idea that we, as the author, got to control the page presentation. That got automated into the system. So the person controlling the page presentation was the person who designed the publishing pipelines. But the publishing pipelines were designed on the backend by the authoring people. Now all of a sudden, we have no control over that end product. Just because I thought it should be a PDF or an HTML page, you can turn around and say, like you said, give it to me in a podcast, make me a video, show it to me in French, and the LLMs will do it.

AP: The publishing pipeline got moved over the fence basically to more of the content consumer side and they get to do what they want more or less. That’s where things are headed.

SO: So pre-AI, we talked about content as a service, right? We load up all the content in a database somewhere, and then you, as the end user of that content or another machine, can reach over and say, give me some content out of there. But it was still a pretty discreet, like, show me that topic or show me that string. And what is fundamentally different about AI and large language models processing that content is the degree to which you can mix and match and rework, reformat, translate, and transform that content to be presented to you, the end user, in the manner of your choice.

So as an author, I kind of hate this, right? Hey, you took my stuff and you mangled it and you presented it in Comic Sans, and how dare you? And that’s where we are. That authors get to create information, but they don’t get to control the manner and means of distribution or presentation or formatting or language of that information.

AP: On the flip side of that, and here I am going to look on the sunnier side of things, which never happens. This may be a pod person version of me. If you, as a content creator, are no longer on the hook for thinking about the publishing pipelines and all of that sort of thing, theoretically, that should free you up to create better content on the back end because you don’t have to think about all those things. Allegedly. I don’t know if it’s happening, but…

SO: It’s very hard as an author to let go of that end product, the target that you’re headed for. But fundamentally, there’s a bigger problem, which is that even if I write the world’s greatest explanation of how to do something, that world’s greatest explanation of how to do something is not being presented to the end user as the thing I wrote. It’s being presented after being run through the transformer, the LLM, the processing that the AI can do when they ask for it. So I could literally write how to do X. And the end user says, hey, tell me how to do X. They are not going to get that chunk of information that I wrote. They’re going to get something reprocessed.

Of course, now we ask the fundamental question, which is, is the reprocessed version going to be better or worse than what I wrote? And the answer is, it kind of depends on whether I am an above average writer with an above average understanding of what that end user wants, or whether I’m a below average writer with a below average understanding of what that end user wants.

AP: To me, it’s almost irrelevant as a content creator. My version is better because if the person receiving the information via the chatbot or whatever thinks that what it’s getting or what they are getting is what they want, that’s all that really matters. That the person on the receiving end of that information gets what they want and fine-tunes it to what they want. If they’re happy with it, then the content creator’s opinion about that is, I hate to say it, immaterial at this point.

SO: Yeah, I kind of hate this timeline because, you know, where does my voice, you know, where does my voice go? And the answer is it’s gone. But you’re right, of course, the purpose of again, what is the purpose of technical and product information that we work on? The purpose is to enable people to use a product successfully. So if shoving it through an AI results in an outcome where that person uses the product successfully, then we’re good.

AP: I don’t disagree.

SO: That’s the purpose of the kind of thing that we produce. I think, though, that looking at this, and this is where I see some of the big challenges going forward. First of all, we have to acknowledge that an enormous percentage of the technical content that’s out there is really bad. Like, terrible. Really, really bad, and might be improved by a little trip through a chatbot that’s gonna render it into actually grammatically correct English. That’s a thing.

AP: Harsh but fair.

SO: Yeah, I think you’re not the only one that’s going to have some bleeping issues in this podcast. But the problem that I see right now is that the metrics that are being used to measure the success of AI are all wrong. We should be measuring the success of various AI layers and chatbots and things based on are people getting what they need?

AP: Yeah. Yeah.

SO: Are they having a successful outcome to whatever it is that they’re trying to do? Is the search or is the process of that conversational, whatever they’re doing, does it get them to the endpoint of, okay, I understand what I need to do and I’m good and I walk away? The metric we actually seem to be using is what percentage of your workflow is using AI? How many people can we get rid of? Because “we’re automating everything with AI” is the wrong metric. The question is, how good are the outcomes?

AP: To me the idea of how much AI versus human effort, there’s a lack of, shall we say, human intelligence being applied here because merely applying AI to something is fundamentally not going to make something that is incorrect, bad, whatever. It’s not going to magically fix it. That’s a huge disconnect for me when you’re talking about measuring outcomes.

Whatever you dump into your large language model, if it is fundamentally bad, as in outdated and incorrect, right now, I am pretty sure merely applying AI to it is not going to fix those two pretty gaping holes. And there’s, I don’t know what it is, people hear AI and they think there’s some magic involved. No, the underpinnings have to be good for that magic to be useful, basically.

SO: And I think all of us have examples of asking the chatbot a question and getting answers that are just flat wrong. Or worse, they look plausible, like they’re in the form of a plausible answer, but then you read it and you read it carefully and you’re like, this doesn’t actually say anything. It’s just word salad. Which, since a chatbot effectively is the average of the database underlying it of content pretty much means that the underlying database of content doesn’t say anything useful on this topic. So I think the place that I kind of go with this is to the question of accountability. 

AP: Yes.

SO: Who is legally responsible for the outcomes? Now, pretty clearly, if I or an organization produces a user guide that covers a specific product and there is wrong information in that user guide, the organization is responsible. I mean, it’s your document, you’re responsible. Okay, if I, as an end user, query a public-facing LLM and get the wrong answer for something, and then I proceed to use that in my life, whose fault is that?

Who is at fault when, or, you we saw this with, when the first came out, people were following the map, right, the GPS map, and it would send them off a cliff or it would send them into a construction area and they would drive off the side. Okay, whose fault is that? And the answer was always, well, it’s your fault because look up from the map and don’t drive past the sign that says, not enter construction zone cliff ahead.

AP: Or one-way street. Right, yeah.

SO: But AI doesn’t come with, I mean, it comes with warning labels, right? But we don’t see them. We don’t process them. What we see is a conversation where we say, tell me more about that. And it tells you more about that. And it feels as though you’re talking to a human. And therefore, when you push on something and say, are you sure? And it says yes, because what’s the typical answer when somebody says, are you sure? It’s yes.

Is it actually sure? No, it’s not sentient. So if I query a public-facing LLM, it reprocesses a bunch of content and tells me how to do a thing that is in direct contradiction to what the official user documentation says, whose fault is that? I think it’s mine because I use the public-facing LLM. Now, what if the organization that makes the product puts up a chatbot and I query the organization’s chatbot? How do I do X? And especially if that chatbot is your frontline tech support, like you cannot get to a human. You have to go through the chatbot. I asked the chatbot a question, and it says, do it this way. And it happens to be wrong. Is the organization liable? I don’t know the answer, I think yes, but I’m not sure. And so fundamentally, yeah.

AP: The bottom line here, yeah, we’re talking about governance here. The bottom line is governance and there is, there has to be some human AI interaction here. There has to be these guardrails that you mentioned earlier and that’s where humans have to be involved.

SO: And the better the AI gets, if it’s accurate half the time, then my hackles are up. I know it’s gonna be wrong. It’s wrong all the time. If it’s accurate 80% of the time, I sort of trend it like psychologically, I just assume it’s accurate all the time. So the better they get, the worse the errors are because we don’t expect them.

AP: That’s also dangerous. Yeah, right. Yeah.

SO: I see occasionally, very, very occasionally, I had directions to go somewhere. And the directions were literally, put this address into Google Maps, but don’t do A, B, and C because it’s wrong. Like, the directions to get to this location are incorrect. Do not follow them. Because these days, our assumption is that the mapping apps just work.

AP: And that’s it’s wrong most of the time, but I think part of this governance angle is we have to realize that AI is going to be wrong. 

SO: Pretty much just do.

AP: And there are lots of reasons we won’t get into all the reasons that can be wrong. So what are you going to do when it is wrong? How are you going to make sure it’s not wrong? Again, there’s this whole process, this whole governance process that has to be in place. And again, I think this is where human intervention is going to be necessary because I don’t think AI at this point has any business correcting itself in these matters. That seems sort of suboptimal to me.

SO: Hmm. Yeah, I mean, hypothetically, you can tell it to check itself. And certainly there’s some people doing that type of work. I think for me, fundamentally, the takeaways are that, like any other tool, there’s some really useful productivity enhancements that we can and should be taking advantage of. To your point, there’s some really important governance work that needs to be done to ensure that your QA is appropriately scaled to the level of risk of your product. Medical device, very high. Silly gaming app, pretty low. Don’t really care. And we need to think about guardrails and what it means to inject the right kind of content and the various kinds of enablement tools that you can use to do that. 

And finally, this issue of AI as a content customer, I think is really, really tricky because it’s a new, from our point as content creators, it is a delivery mechanism, right? Just like a PDF or a piece of HTML or anything else like that. and it’s a delivery mechanism that allows the end user to control how they access the content, which means we have to do way more work around the guardrails of what that means when they query the content and shape it to their own requirements.

AP: Yeah, so things have progressed in the past two years, most definitely, especially in the content space. We’ve seen a lot of improvements. But there are still some big picture things we have to work out. And I think it’s gonna be interesting in the next year or two to see what happens. You briefly mentioned there are some companies who are setting up systems that can do a decent job of checking up on itself. That’s not where everything is right now, but I think the better these systems get, the better the guardrails that get in place, they can start to find out, this is wrong, I need to fix it, or I need to update this with the latest information, let me go get it. So that is starting to happen more and more. I think it will become more part of the LLM to chatbot process, but I don’t think we’re quite there yet. And I’m interested to see what happens next with that sort of scenario.

SO: It’s definitely gonna be interesting. That much I’m sure about.

AP: Yeah, I agree. So we managed to get through this without cursing. So that’s good. I think it turned out to be a more realistic conversation, and we kind of tuned out the hype because that’s what just makes me grit my teeth and sometimes yell at LinkedIn when I see certain promoted posts on LinkedIn that I think are full of you-know-what. So anyways, I think we’ll wrap it up there. Sarah, do you have any final points you would like to sign off with?

SO: I think at the end of the day, when you try and contextualize, like, what is this AI thing and what does it mean for us fundamentally, we can look at some of the other sort of big picture shifts that we’ve made. I’ve been known to pretty dismissively compare it to a spell checker, you know? You can use it and it’ll fix some stuff, but you better check because it doesn’t know the difference between affect and effect, although some of the grammar checkers now maybe they do.

So there’s that, but I think at the end of the day, if you are looking at content strategy, content operations and enterprise level, you really do have to say, okay, where does AI fit into my strategy and how can we employ it productively to do what we need to do inside this organization to produce, manage, deliver the content that we’re working on.

AP: And I think we’re going to wrap up on that very good point. Thank you very much.

SO: Thank you.

Conclusion with ambient background music

CC: Thank you for listening to Content Operations by Scriptorium. For more information, visit Scriptorium.com or check the show notes for relevant links.

The post Check in on AI: The true measure of success for AI initiatives appeared first on Scriptorium.

As AI adoption accelerates, accountability and transparency issues are accumulating quickly. What should organizations be looking for, and what tools keep AI transparent? In this episode, Sarah O’Keefe sits down with Nathan Gilmour, the Chief Technical Officer of Writemore AI, to discuss a new approach to AI and accountability.

Sarah O’Keefe: Okay. I’m not going to ask you why this is the only AI tool I’ve heard about that has this type of audit trail, because it seems like a fairly important thing to do.

Nathan Gilmour: It is very important because there are information security policies. AI is this brand-new, shiny, incredibly powerful tool. But in the grand scheme of things, these large language models, the OpenAIs, the Claudes, the Geminis, they’re largely black boxes. We want to bring clarity to these black boxes and make them transparent, because organizations do want to implement AI tools to offer efficiencies or optimizations within their organizations. However, information security policies may not allow it.

Related links:

LinkedIn:

Transcript:

Introduction with ambient background music

Christine Cuellar: From Scriptorium, this is Content Operations, a show that delivers industry-leading insights for global organizations.

Bill Swallow: In the end, you have a unified experience so that people aren’t relearning how to engage with your content in every context you produce it.

Sarah O’Keefe: Change is perceived as being risky; you have to convince me that making the change is less risky than not making the change.

Alan Pringle: And at some point, you are going to have tools, technology, and processes that no longer support your needs, so if you think about that ahead of time, you’re going to be much better off.

End of introduction

Sarah O’Keefe: Hey everyone. I’m Sarah O’Keefe. Welcome to another episode. I am here today with Nathan Gilmour, who’s the Chief Technical Officer of Writemore AI. Nathan, welcome.

Nathan Gilmour: Thanks, Sarah. Happy to be here.

SO: Welcome aboard. So tell us a little bit about what you’re doing over there. You’ve got a new company and a new product that’s, what, a year old?

NG: Give or take, yep.

SO: Yep. So what are you up to over there? Is it AI-related?

NG: It is actually AI-related, but not AI-related in the traditional sense. Right now, we’ve built a product or tool that helps technical authoring teams convert from traditional Word or PDF formats, which would make up the bulk of much of the technical documentation ecosystem and help convert it to structured authoring. Meaning that they can get all of the benefits of reuse, easier publishing, high compatibility with various content management systems. And can do it in minutes where traditional conversions could take hours. So it really helps authoring teams get their content out to the world at large in a much more efficient and regulated fashion.

SO: So I pick up a corpus of 10 or 20 or 50,000 pages of stuff, and you’re going to take that, and you’re going to shove it into a magic black box, and out comes, you said, structured content, DITA?

NG: Correct.

SO: Out comes DITA. Okay. What does this actually … Give us the … That’s the 30,000-foot view. So what’s the parachute level view?

NG: Perfect. Underneath the hood, it’s actually a very deterministic pipeline. Deterministic pipeline means that there is a lot more code supporting it. It’s not an AI inferring what it should do. There’s actual code that guides a conversion process first. So going from, let’s say, Word to DITA, there are tools within the DITA Open Toolkit that allow and facilitate that much more mechanically, rather than trusting an AI to do it. We know that AI does struggle with structure, especially as context windows expand. It becomes more and more inaccurate. So if we feed these models with far more mechanically created content, they become much more accurate. You’re not trusting them to do much more, more of the nuanced parts of the process. So there’s a big difference between determinism and probabilism. Where determinism is the mechanical conversion of something, probabilism is allowing the AI to infer a process. So that’s where we differ is our process is much more deterministic versus allowing the AI to do everything on its own.

SO: So is it fair to say that you combined the … And for deterministic, I’m going to say scripting. But is it fair to say that you combined the DITA OT scripting processing with additional AI around that to improve the results?

NG: Correct. It also expedites the results so that instead of having a human do much of the semantic understanding of the document, we allow the AI to do it in a far more focused task. Machines can read faster.

SO: Okay. And so for most of us, when we start talking about AI, most people think large language model and specifically ChatGPT, but that’s not what this is. This is not like a front-end go play with it as a consumer. This is a tool for authors.

NG: Correct. And even further to that, it’s a partner tool for authors. It allows them to continue authoring in a format that they’re familiar with. Well, let’s take Microsoft Word, for example. Sometimes the shift from Word to structured authoring could be considered an enormous upheaval. Allowing authors to continue authoring in a format that they’re good at and they’re familiar with, and then have a partner tool that allows them to expedite the conversion process to structured authoring so that they can maintain a single source of truth, makes things a little bit better, more manageable, and more reliable in the long run. So instead of having to effectively cause a riot with the authoring teams, we can empower them to continue doing what they’re good at.

SO: Okay. So we drop the Word file in and magically DITA comes out. What if it’s not quite right? What if our AI doesn’t get it exactly right? I mean, how do I know that it’s not producing something that looks good, but is actually wrong?

NG: Great question. And that’s where, prior to doing anything further, there is a review period for the human authors. So in the event that the AI does make a mistake, it is not only completely transparent, so the output, the payload, as we describe it, comes with a full audit report. So every determination that the AI makes is traced and tracked and explained. And then further to that, the humans are even able to take that payload out anyway, open it up in an XML editor. So at this point in time, the content is converted, it is ready to go into the CCMS.

Prior to doing that, it can go into a subject matter expert who is familiar with structured authoring to do a final validation of the content to make sure that it is accurate. The biggest differentiator, though, is the tool never creates content. The humans need to create content because they are the subject matter experts within their field. They create the first draft. The tool takes it, converts it, but doesn’t change anything. It only works with the material as it stands. And then once that is complete, it goes back into another human-centered review so that there are audit trails, it is traceable. And there is a final touchpoint by a human prior to the final migration into their content management system.

SO: So you’re saying that basically you can diff this. I mean, you can look at the before and the after and see where all the changes are coming in.

NG: Correct.

SO: Okay. I’m not going to ask you why this is the only AI tool I’ve heard about that has this type of audit trail, because it seems like a fairly important thing to do.

NG: It is very important because there are information security policies. AI is this brand-new, shiny, incredibly powerful tool. But in the grand scheme of things, these large language models, the OpenAIs, the Claudes, the Geminis, they’re largely black boxes. Where we want to come in is to bring clarity to these black boxes. Make them transparent, I guess you can say. Because organizations do want to implement AI tools to offer efficiencies or optimizations within their organizations. However, information security policies may not allow it.

One of the added benefits that we have baked into the tool from a backend perspective is its ability to be completely internet-unaware. Meaning if an organization has the capital and the infrastructure to host a model, this can be plugged directly into their existing AI infrastructure and use its brain. Which, realistically, is what the language model is. It’s just a brain. So if companies have invested the time, invested the capital in order to build out this infrastructure, the Writemore tool can plug right into it and follow those preexisting information security policies. Without having to worry about something going out to the worldwide web.

SO: So the implication is that I can put this inside my very large organization with very strict information security policies and not be suddenly feeding my entire intellectual property corpus to a public-facing AI.

NG: That is entirely correct.

SO: We are not doing that. Okay. So I want to step back a tiny bit and think about what it means, because it seems like the thing that we’re circling around is accountability, right? What does it mean to use AI and still have accountability? And so, based on your experience of what you’ve been working on and building, what are some of the things that you’ve uncovered in terms of what we should be looking for generally as we’re building out AI-based things? What should we be looking for in terms of accountability of AI?

NG: The major accountability of AI is what could it look like if a business model changes? Let’s kind of focus on the large players in the market right now. There will always be risk with using these large language models that are publicly facing right now. A terms of service change could mean that all of the information that organizations use in order to leverage these tools could become part of a training data set later on down the road. It’s hard to determine what will happen in the future.

So the ability to use online and offline models encourages the development of very transparent tools. So even if the Writemore tool is using a cloud model, I still hold the model almost accountable to report its determinations. It’s not just making things up, so to speak. So there’s a lot that goes into it. There’s a lot that we don’t know about these tools, to be totally honest. We’re still trying to determine what it looks like in a broader picture, in a broader use case. Because the industry is evolving so quickly that, quite simply, we don’t know what’s coming up.

SO: Sounds to me as though you’re trying to put some guardrails around this so that if I’m operating this tool, then I can look at the before and after and say, “Don’t think so.” I mean, presumably it learns from that, and then my results get better down the road. Where do you think this is going? I mean, where do you see the biggest potential and where do you see the biggest risks or opportunities or … I’ll leave it to you as to whether this is a positive or a negative tilted question.

NG: There’s a lot of potential in order to incorporate into organizations that can’t use these tools. Like we had mentioned earlier, organizations are looking into this. Municipalities are looking into AI. But with the state of the more open models right now, it’s very hard to say. So I know I keep circling back around the ability to use smaller language models. They are not only much more efficient to operate, they’re also cheaper, quite simply, to operate. We know that the large language models require enormous computing power. But if provided focused tasks in order to either assist in the classification of topics or fulfill requests in order to pull files, in that regard, you can get away with using smaller levels of compute. And in today’s day and age of computing, the price relativistically is coming down in terms of density is going up. So it’s cheaper to run a model at higher capacities than it ever has been. And it’s only going to improve over time.

So empowering organizations to be able to incorporate these tools in order to streamline their own workflows is going to be very important to them. And on top of that, being able to abide or follow their information security policies only makes the ideas much more compelling. And on top of that, being able to encourage organizations to take full control of their documentation and not necessarily need it to go out of house allows organizations to keep internal costs down while still maintaining the security policies of making sure their content doesn’t leave their organization. There’s always going to be room for partner organizations to come in and help with their content strategy. But the conversion itself can be done in-house using their tools, using their content, using their teams. Which really helps keep costs down, they drive the priority lists, they can do everything that they need to do in order to maintain that control.

SO: Now, we’ve touched largely … Or we’ve talked largely about migration and format conversion. But there’s a second layer in here, right? Which we haven’t mentioned yet.

NG: There is. There’s the ability also during the conversion phase, it’s to have an AI model do light edits. So being able to feed it a style guide to abide by means the churn that we see with these technical teams isn’t as nearly impactful. You can have technical authors still write their content. But if a new person joins the team, they can still author the material just as normally. But then the tool can take over in order to ensure that it’s meeting the corporate style guide, the corporate language, so on, in order to expedite that process. So onboarding time for new team members shrinks as well. So like I said, it’s a very much it’s a partner tool in order to expedite the processing of content, authoring, conversion, migration, getting into a new CCMS and the real empowerment behind it.

SO: And the style guide conformance. So I think we’re assuming that the organization has a corporate style guide?

NG: Assuming, yes.

SO: Okay. Just checking.

NG: But then again, that’s…

SO: Asking for a friend.

NG: Of course.

SO: So if they don’t have one, where’s the corporate style guide come from?

NG: And that could be something that an organization can either generate internally or, as mentioned, work with an external vendor who specializes in these kinds of things in order to build a style guide so that all of their documentation follows the same voice and tone. The better the documentation, the better the trust of the content overall.

SO: So, can we use the AI to generate the corporate style guide?

NG: Probably. Yes. Short answer, yes. Longer answer, not without very close attention to it.

SO: And doesn’t that also assume that we have a corpus of correctly styled content so that we can extract the style guide rules?

NG: There’s a lot more. Yeah.

SO: So I mean, what I’m working my way around to is if we have content chaos, if you have an organization that doesn’t have a style guide, doesn’t have consistency, doesn’t have all these things, can you separate out what is the work that the humans have to do? And what is the work that the machine can do to get to structured, consistent, correct, voice and tone and all the rest of it? How do you get from the primordial soup of content goo to structured content in a CCMS?

NG: Great question. Typically, that starts with education. We work with the teams in order to identify these gaps first. We don’t just throw in a tool and say, “Good luck, hope for the best.” Because we see it time and time again, even in manual conversion processes where that simply doesn’t work. But in taking the time to work with teams, providing them with the skills and the knowledge in order to be successful serves a much longer term positive outcome than ever before. If we educate these teams on what any tool realistically needs, it means the accuracy of the tool goes up in the longer run. So you’re seeing multiple benefits on multiple sides.

So to your point about primordial soup, well, working with teams in order to identify these gaps, these issues, working to identify the standards that should go into the content prior to anything sets not only them up for success in the long run, but also for any tools that they want to implement down the road. It all starts with strong content going in because, as the adage goes, garbage in, garbage out. So if we can clean up the mess prior or work with the teams prior in order to establish these standards, then the quality of output only goes up.

SO: Yeah. And I mean, I think to me, that’s the big takeaway, right? We have these tools, we can do interesting things with them, but at the end of the day, we have to also augment them with the hard-won knowledge of the people. You mentioned subject matter experts, the domain experts, the people inside the organization that understand the regulatory framework or the corporate style guide, or all of those guardrails that make up what is it to create content in this organization that reflects this organization’s priorities and culture and all the rest of it.

NG: And taking the time to educate users is a far less invasive process than exporting bulk material, converting it manually, and handing it back. Because realistically, if we take that avenue or that road, we’re not educating the users, we’re not empowering them to be successful in the long run. All we’ll end up doing is all the hard work, but then in one, two, five years, we run into the same issue where we’re back to primordial soup of content, and it’s another mess. So if we start with the education and the empowerment and then work towards the implementation of tools, the longer-term success will be realized.

SO: Well, I think, I mean, that seems like a good place to leave it. So Nathan, thank you so much. This was interesting and I look forward to seeing where this goes and how it evolves over the next … Well, we’re operating in dog years now, so over the next month, I guess.

NG: So true. And thanks, Sarah, for having me on.

SO: Thanks, and we’ll see you soon.

Conclusion with ambient background music

CC: Thank you for listening to Content Operations by Scriptorium. For more information, visit Scriptorium.com or check the show notes for relevant links.

The post From black box to business tool: Making AI transparent and accountable appeared first on Scriptorium.

What happens when AI accelerates faster than your content can keep up? In this podcast, host Sarah O’Keefe and guest Michael Iantosca break down the current state of AI in content operations and what it means for documentation teams and executives. Together, they offer a forward-thinking look at how professionals can respond, adapt, and lead in a rapidly shifting landscape.

Sarah O’Keefe: How do you talk to executives about this? How do you find that balance between the promise of what these new tool sets can do for us, what automation looks like, and the risk that is introduced by the limitations of the technology? What’s the roadmap for somebody that’s trying to navigate this with people that are all-in on just getting the AI to do it?

Michael Iantosca: We need to remind them that the current state of AI still carries with it a probabilistic nature. And no matter what we do, unless we add more deterministic structural methods to guardrail it, things are going to be wrong even when all the input is right.

Related links:

LinkedIn:

Transcript:

Introduction with ambient background music

Christine Cuellar: From Scriptorium, this is Content Operations, a show that delivers industry-leading insights for global organizations.

Bill Swallow: In the end, you have a unified experience so that people aren’t relearning how to engage with your content in every context you produce it.

SO: Change is perceived as being risky; you have to convince me that making the change is less risky than not making the change.

Alan Pringle: And at some point, you are going to have tools, technology, and processes that no longer support your needs, so if you think about that ahead of time, you’re going to be much better off.

End of introduction

Sarah O’Keefe: Hey everyone, I’m Sarah O’Keefe. In this episode, I’m delighted to welcome Michael Iantosca to the show. Michael is the Senior Director of Content Platforms and Content Engineering at Avalara and one of the leading voices both in content ops and understanding the importance of AI and technical content. He’s had a longish career in this space. And so today we wanted to talk about AI and content. The context for this is that a few weeks ago, Michael published an article entitled The coming collapse of corporate knowledge: How AI is eating its own brain. So perhaps that gives us the theme for the show today. Michael, welcome.

Michael Iantosca: Thank you. I’m very honored to be here. Thank you for the opportunity.

SO: Well, I appreciate you being here. I would not describe you as anti-technology, and you’ve built out a lot of complex systems, and you’re doing a lot of interesting stuff with AI components. But you have this article out here that’s basically kind of apocalyptic. So what are your concerns with AI? What’s keeping you up at night here? 

MI: That’s a loaded question, but we’ll do the best we can to address it. I’m a consummate information developer as we used to call ourselves. I just started my 45th year in the profession. I’ve been fortunate that not only have I been mentored by some of the best people in the industry over the decades, but I was very fortunate to begin with AI in the early 90s when it was called expert systems. And then through the evolution of Watson and when generative AI really hit the mainstream, those of us that had been involved for a long time were… there was no surprise, we were already pretty well-versed. What we didn’t expect was the acceleration of it at this speed. So what I’d like to say sometimes is the thing that is changing fastest is the rate at which the rate of change is changing. And that couldn’t be more true than today. But content and knowledge is not a snapshot in time. It is a living, moving organism, ever evolving. And if you think about it, the large language models, they spent a fortune on chips and systems to train the big large language models on everything that they can possibly get their hands and fingers into. And they did that originally several years ago. And the assumption is that, especially for critical knowledge, is that that knowledge is static. Now they do rescan the sources on the web, but that’s no guarantee that those sources have been updated. Or, you know, the new content conflicts or confuses with the old content. How do they tell the difference between a version of IBM database 2 of its 13 different versions, and how you do different tasks across 13 versions? And can you imagine, especially when it comes to software where most of us, a lot of us work, the thousands and thousands of changes that are made to those programs in the user interfaces and the functionality?

MI: And unless that content is kept up-to-date and not only the large language models, reconsume it, but the local vector databases on which a lot of chatbots and agenda workflows are being based. You’re basically dealing with out-of-date and incorrect content, especially in many doc shops. The resources are just not there to keep up with that volume and frequency of change. So we have a pending crisis, in my opinion. And the last thing we need to do is reduce the people that are the knowledge workers to update, not only create new content, but deal with the technical debt, so that we don’t collapse on this, I think, is a house of cards.

SO: Yeah, it’s interesting. And as you’re saying that, I’m thinking we’ve talked a lot about content debt and issues of automation. But for the first time, it occurs to me to think about this more in terms of pollution. It’s an ongoing battle to scrub the air, to take out all the gunk that is being introduced that has to, on an ongoing basis, be taken out. Plus, you have this issue that information decays, right? In the sense that when, I published it a month ago, it was up to date. And then a year later, it’s wrong. Like it evolved, entropy happened, the product changed. And now there’s this delta or this gap between the way it was documented versus the way it is. And it seems like that’s what you’re talking about is that gap of not keeping up with the rate of change.

MI: Mm-hmm. Yeah. I think it’s even more immediate than that. I think you’re right. But now we need to remember that development cycles have greatly accelerated. Now, when you bring AI for product development into the equation, we’re now looking at 30 and 60-day product cycles. When I started, a product cycle was five years. Now it’s a month or two. And if we start using AI to draft new content, for example, just brand new content, forget about the old content or update the old content. And we’re using AI to do that in the prototyping phase. We’re moving that more left upfront. We know that between then and CodeFreeze that there’s going to be a numerous number of changes to the product, to the function, to the code, to the UI. It’s always been difficult to keep up with it in the first place, but now we’re compressed even more. So we now need to start looking at AI to how does it help us even do that piece of it, let alone what might be a corpus that is years and years old, that’s not ever had enough technical writers to keep up with all the changes. So now we have a dual problem, including new content with this compressed development cycle.

SO: So the, I mean, the AI hype says we essentially, we don’t need people anymore and the AI will do everything from coding the thing to documenting the thing to, I guess, buying the thing via some sort of an agentic workflow. But what, I mean, you’re deeper into this than nearly anybody else. What is the promise of the AI hype, and what’s the reality of what it can actually do?

MI: That’s just the question of the day. Because those of us that are working in shops that have engineering resources, I have direct engineers that work for me and an extended engineering team. So does the likes of Amazon, other serious, not serious, but sizable shops with resources. We have a lot of shops that are smaller. They don’t have access to either their own dedicated content systems engineers or even their IT team to help them. First, I want to recognize that we’ve got a continuum out there, and the commercial providers are not providing anything to help us at this point. So it’s either you build it yourself today, and that’s happening. People are developing individual tools using AI where the more advanced shops are looking at developing entire agentic workflows. 

And what we’re doing is looking at ways to accelerate that compressed timeframe for the content creators. And I want to use content creators a little more loosely because as we move the process left, and we involve our engineers, our programmers in the early, earlier in the phase, like they used to be, by the way, they used to write big specifications in my day. Boy, I want to go into a Gregorian chant. “Oh, in my day!” you know, but, but they don’t do that anymore. And basically the, the role of the content professional today is that of an investigative journalist. And you know what we do, right? We, we scrape and we claw. We test, we use, we interview, we use all of the capabilities of learning, of association, assimilation, synthesis, and of course, communication. And turns out that writing’s only 15% roughly of what the typical writer does in an information developer or technical documentation professional role, which is why we have a lot of different roles, by the way, that if we’re gonna replace or accelerate with people with AI, have to handle all those capabilities of all those roles. So, so where we are today is some of the more leading-edge shops are going ahead, and we’re looking at ways to ingest knowledge, new knowledge, and use that new knowledge with AI to draft new or updated content. But there are limitations to that. So, I want to be very clear. I am super bullish on AI. I think I use it every single day. I’m using it to help me write my novel. I’m using it to learn about astrophotography. I use it for so much. When the tasks are critical, when they’re regulatory, when they’re legal-related, when there’s liability involved, that’s the kind of content that we cannot afford to be wrong. We have to be right. We have to be 100% in many cases.

Whereas with other kinds of applications, we can very well be wrong. I always say AI and large language models are great on general knowledge that’s been around for years and evolves very slowly. But things that move quickly and change very quickly, in my business, it’s tax rates. There’s thousands and thousands of jurisdictions. Every tax rate is different and they change them. So you have to be 100% accurate or you’re going to pay a heck of a penalty financially if you’re wrong. So we are moving left. We are pulling knowledge from updated sources, things like videos that we could record and extract and capture, Figma designs, code even, to a limited degree that there’s assets in there that can be caught, and other collateral, and we’re able to build out and initial drafts. It’s pretty simple. Several companies are doing this right now, including my own team. And then the question comes, how good could it be initially? What can we do to improve that, make it as good as it can be? And then what is the downstream process for ensuring validity and quality of that content? What are the rubrics that we’re going to use to govern that? And therein is where most of the leading edge or bleeding edge or even hemorrhaging edge is right now.

SO: Yeah, and I mean, this is not really a new problem, and it’s not a problem specific to AI either, but we’ve had numerous projects where the delta between what, let’s say, the product design docs and the engineering content and the code, the as-designed documentation and the actual reality of the product walking out the door. So the as-built product, there was the resources, all that source material that you’re talking about, right, that we claw and scrape at. And I would like to also give a shout-out to the role of the anonymous source for the investigative journalists, because I feel like there’s some important stuff in there. But you go in there, you get all this as-designed stuff, right? Here’s the spec, here’s the code, here are the code comments, whatever. Or here’s the CAD for this hardware piece that we’re walking out the door. But the thing that actually comes down the factory assembly line or through the software compiler is different than what was documented in the designs because reality sets in and changes get made. And in many, many, many cases, the role of the technical writer was to ensure that the content that they were producing represented reality and not the artifacts that they started from. So there’s a gap. And there jobs to close that gap so that that document goes out and it’s accurate, right? And when we talk about these AI or automated or any sort of workflow, any sort of automation, any automation that does not take into account the gap between design and reality is going to run into problems. The level of problem depends on the accuracy of your source materials. Now, I wrote an article the other day and referred to the 100% accurate product specifications. I don’t know about you, I have seen one of those never in my life. 

MI: Hahaha that’s absolutely true. That’s really true. 

SO: The promise we have here is, AI is going to speed things up and it’s going to automate things and it’s going to make us more productive. And I think you and I both believe that that is true at a certain level. How do you talk to executives about this? How do you find that balance between the promise of what these new tool sets can do for us and what automation looks like and the risk that is introduced by the limitations of you know, of the technology itself? What does that conversation look like? What are the points that you try to make? What’s the roadmap for somebody that’s trying to, as you said, know, maybe in a smaller organization, navigate this with people that are, you know, all-in on “just get the AI to do it.”

MI: That’s a great question too, because we need to remind them that the current state of AI still carries with it a probabilistic nature. And no matter what we do, unless we add more deterministic structural methods to guardrail it, things are going to be wrong even when all the input is right. AI can still take a collection of collateral and get the order of the steps wrong. It can still include things or do too much. We’ve been trained to write as professional writers in a minimalistic capability. And we can control some of that through prompting. Some of that can be done with guardrails. But when you think about writing tech docs, some people might think, we document. we’re documenting APIs or documenting tasks and we, you know, we’ve always been heavily task-oriented, but you can extract all the correct steps and all the correct steps in the right order, but what doesn’t come along with it all too frequently and almost universally is the context behind it, the why part of it. I always say we can extract great things from code for APIs like endpoints or puts and, you know, gets and puts and things like that. That’s a great for creating reference documentation for programmers. 

But if you want to know, it doesn’t tell you the why, it doesn’t tell you the steps, the exact steps, the code doesn’t tell you that. Now maybe your Figma does. And if your Figma has been done really well, your design docs have been done really well and comprehensively. That can mitigate it tremendously. But what have we done in this business? We’ve actually let go more UX people than probably even writers, you know, which is, which is counterproductive. And then you’ve got things like the happy path and the alternate paths that could exist, for example, through the use of a product or the edge cases, right? The what-ifs that occur. You might be able to, and we should, we are able to do better with the happy path, but the happy path is not the only path. These are multifunction beasts that we built. When we built iPhone apps, we often didn’t need documentation because they did one thing and they did one thing really well. You take a piece of middleware, and it can be implemented a thousand different ways. And you’re going to you’re going to document it by example and maybe give some variance, you’re not going to pull that from Figma design. You’re not going to pull that from code. There’s too much of it there that the human fact-baking capability can look at it and say, this is important, this is less important, this is essential, this is non-essential, to actually deliver useful information to the end user. And we need to be able to show what we can produce, continue to iterate and try to make it better and better, because someday we may actually get pretty darn close with support articles and completed support case payloads, we were able to develop an AI workflow that very often was 70% to 100% accurate and ready for publish. 

But when you talk about user guides and complex applications, it’s another story because somebody builds a feature for a product and that feature boils down into not a single article, but into an entire collection of articles that are typed into the kind of breakdown that we do for disclosure, such as concepts, tasks, references, Q&A. So AI has got to be able to do something much more complex, which is to look at content and classify it and apply structure to separate those concerns. Because we know that when we deliver content in the electronic world, we’re no longer delivering PDF. Well, of us are hopefully not delivering PDF books made up of long chapters that intersperse all of these different content types because of the type of consumption, certainly not for AI and AI bots. Then when we, so we need to document, maybe the bottom line here is we need to show what we can do. We need to show where the risks are. We need to document the risks, and then we need the owners, the business decision makers, to see those risks, understand those risks, and sign off on those risks. And if they sign off on the risks, then me, as a technology developer and an information developer, I can sleep at night because I was clear on what it can do today. And that is not a statement that says it’s not going to be able to do that tomorrow. It’s only a today statement so that we can set expectations. And that’s the bottom line. How do we set expectations when there’s an easy button that Staples put in our face, and that’s the mentality of what AI is. It’s press a button and it’s automatic.

SO: Yeah, and I did want to briefly touch on, you know, the knowledge base articles are really, really interesting problem because in many cases you have knowledge base articles that are essentially bug fixes or edge cases when I, you know, hold my finger just so and push the button over here, you know, it blue screens.

MI: Mm-hmm.

SO: And that article can be very context-specific in the sense of you’re only going to see it if you have these five things installed on your system. And/or it can be temporal or time-limited in the sense that, while we fixed the bug, it’s no longer an issue. Okay. Well, so you have this knowledge-based article and you feed it into your LLM as an information source going forward, but we fixed the bug. So how do we pull it back out again?

MI: I love that question. 

SO: I don’t!

MI: I love it. No, I’ve been, actually working for a couple of years on this very particular problem. The first problem we have, Sarah, is we’ve been so resource constrained that when doc shops built an operations model, the last thing they invested in is the operations and the operations automation. So when I’m in a conference and I have a big room of 300 professional technical doc folks. I love asking the simple question, how do you track your content? And inevitably, I get, yeah, well, we do it on Excel spreadsheets. To actually have a digital system of record, I get a few hands. And then I ask the question, well, does that digital system of record that you have for every piece of documentation you’ve ever published, does that span just the product doc or does that actually span more than product doc like your developer, your partner, your learning, your support, all these different things. Cause the customer doesn’t look at us as those different functions. They look at us as one company, one product. And inevitably, I’m lucky if I get one hand in the audience that says, yeah, we actually are doing that. So the first thing they don’t have is they don’t have a contemporary system of record that is digital that we can say, we know and can automate notifications as to when a piece of documentation should either be re-reviewed and revalidated or retired and taken out.

The other problem we have is that all of these AI implementations and companies, almost universally, not completely, but most of them, were based on building these vector databases. And what they did, was often to the completely ignoring the doc team, was just go out to the different sources they had available, Confluence, SharePoint. If you had a CCMS, they’d ask you for access to your CCMS or your content delivery platform, and they suck it in. They may date-stamp it, which is okay, but pretty rudimentary. And they may even have methods for rereading those sources every once in a while, but they’re not, unless they’re rebuilding the entire vector database, and then what did they do when they ingested the content? They shredded it up into a million different pieces, right? Because the context windows for large language models have limitations for token numbers and things like that. Maybe they’re bigger today, but they’re still limited. So how would they even replace a fragment of what used to be whole topics and whole collection of topics? And this is why we wrote the paper and did the implementation and share with the world what we call the document object model knowledge graph because we needed a way outside of the vector database to say go look over here and you can retrieve the original entire topic or collection of topics or related topics in their entirety to deliver to the user. And again, we’re still unless we update that content and it’s don’t treat it like a frozen snapshot in time, we’ll still have those content debt problems. But it’s becoming a bigger, bigger, a much bigger problem now. It wasn’t as big a problem when we put out chatbots. And the chatbots we’ve been building, what, for three, you know, two, three, four years now. And, you know, everybody celebrated, they popped the corks, you know, we can deflect X amount percentage of support cases. They can self-service. And I always talk about the precision paradox that once you reach a certain ceiling, it gets really hard to increment and get above that 70%, 80%, 85%, 90% window. And as you get closer and better, the tolerance for being wrong goes down like a rock. And you now have a real big problem.

So how do we do these guardrails to be more deterministic, to mitigate the probabilistic risk that we have and reality that we have? The problem is that people are still looking for fast and quick, not right. When I say right, I mean the building out of things like ontologies and leveraging our taxonomies that we labored over with all of that metadata that never even gets into the vector database because they strip it all away in addition to shredding it up. So if we don’t start building those things like knowledge graphs and retaining all of that knowledge, it’s even… now we’re compounding the problem. Now we have debt, and we have no way to fix the debt. And now when we get into the new world of agentic workflows, which is the true bleeding edge right now, when you have sequences of both agentic and agentive, and the difference between those two, by the way, is agentic is autonomous. There’s no human doing that task. It’s just doing it. And then agentive, which is a human in the loop, which is helping there. When you’ve got a mix of agentive and agentic processes in a business workflow, now you’ve got to worry about what happens if I get something wrong early in the chain of sequence in that workflow. And this doesn’t apply to just documentation, by the way. We’ll be seeing companies taking very complex workflows in finance and in marketing and in business planning and reporting and mapping out this is the workflow our humans do. And there’s hundreds, if not more steps and many roles involved in those workflows. And as we map those out and say, where can we inject AI, not as just individual tools, like just separately using a large language model or separately using a single agent, but stringing them together to automate a complex business workflow with dependencies upstream and downstream. How are we going to survive and make this work? And I think that’s why you saw the MIT study had come out where they said, you know, roughly only 5% or so of AI projects are succeeding. And I think that’s because we did the easy stuff first. We did the chatbots and they could be lossy in terms of accuracy. But when you now, when you get to these agenda workflows that we’re building, literally coding as we speak, now you’re facing a whole different experience and ballgame where precision and currency really matters.

SO: Yeah, and I think I mean, we’ve really only scraped the surface of this. Both of the articles that you’ve mentioned, the one that I started with and the one that you mentioned in this context, we’ll make sure we get those into the show notes. I believe they are on your is it Medium? On your website. So we’ll get those links in there. Any final parting words in the last? I don’t know. Fifteen seconds or so.

MI: No, that’s good. I want to give, I want to tell you the good news and the bad news for tech doc professionals. What I’m seeing in the industry hurts me. I think there’s a lot of excuse right now, not just in the tech doc space, but in all jobs where we’re seeing AI being used as an excuse to make business decisions, to scale back. It may take some time until the impact of some poor business decisions that are being made will reflect themselves, but there’s going to be reality that hits. And the question is, is how do we navigate the interim? I’m confident that we will. I’m confident that those of us that are building the AI, I feel like I’m evil and a savior at the same time. I’m evil because I’m building automation that can speed up and make people much more productive, meaning you need less people potentially. At the same time, I feel like we’re in a position when we do it, rather than an engineer that doesn’t even know the documentation space, we’re getting to redefine our space ourselves and not leave it to the whims of people that don’t understand the incredible intricacy and dependencies of creating what we know as high-quality content. So we’re in this tumult right now, I think we’re going to come out of it. I can’t tell you what that window looks like. There will be challenges through doing that, but I would rather see this community define their own, redefine their own future in this transformation that is unavoidable. It’s not going away. It’s going to accelerate and get more serious. But if we don’t define ourselves, others will. And I think that’s the message I want our community to take away. So when we go to conferences and we show what we’re doing and we’re open and we’re sharing all the stuff that we’re doing, that’s not, hi, look at us. That’s you come back to the next conference and the next webinar and show us what you took from us and made better and helped shape and mold that transformative industry that we know as knowledge and content. And I’m excited because I want to celebrate every single advance that I see as we share. And I think it’s incumbent upon us to share and be vocal. And I think when I write my articles, they’re aimed at not only our own community, they’re aimed at the executives and technologists themselves to educate them, so that if we don’t do it, who will? And it does fall on all of us to do that.

SO: I think I’m going to leave it there with a call for the executives to pay attention to what you are saying, and some of the rest of this community, many of the rest of this community are saying. So, Michael, thank you very much for taking the time. I look forward to seeing you at the next conference and seeing what more you’ve come up with. And we will see you soon.

MI: Thank you very much.

SO: Thank you.

Conclusion with ambient background music

CC: Thank you for listening to Content Operations by Scriptorium. For more information, visit Scriptorium.com or check the show notes for relevant links.

The post Futureproof your content ops for the coming knowledge collapse appeared first on Scriptorium.

Your organization’s content debt costs more than you think. In this podcast, host Sarah O’Keefe and guest Dipo Ajose-Coker unpack the five stages of content debt from denial to action. Sarah and Dipo share how to navigate each stage to position your content—and your AI—for accuracy, scalability, and global growth.

The blame stage: “It’s the tools. It’s the process. It’s the people.” Technical writers hear, “We’re going to put you into this department, and we’ll get this person to manage you with this new agile process,” or, “We’ll make you do things this way.” The finger-pointing begins. Tech teams blame the authors. Authors blame the CMS. Leadership questions the ROI of the entire content operations team. This is often where organizations say, “We’ve got to start making a change.” They’re either going to double down and continue building content debt, or they start looking for a scalable solution.

— Dipo Ajose-Coker

Related links:

LinkedIn:

Transcript:

Introduction with ambient background music

Christine Cuellar: From Scriptorium, this is Content Operations, a show that delivers industry-leading insights for global organizations.

Bill Swallow: In the end, you have a unified experience so that people aren’t relearning how to engage with your content in every context you produce it.

SO: Change is perceived as being risky; you have to convince me that making the change is less risky than not making the change.

Alan Pringle: And at some point, you are going to have tools, technology, and processes that no longer support your needs, so if you think about that ahead of time, you’re going to be much better off.

End of introduction

Sarah O’Keefe: Hey, everyone. I’m Sarah O’Keefe and I’m here today with Dipo Ajose-Coker. He is a Solutions Architect and Strategy at RWS and based in France. His strategy work is focused on content technology. Hey, Dipo.

Dipo Ajose-Coker: Hey there, Sarah. Thanks for having me on.

SO: Yeah, how are you doing?

DA-C: Hanging in there. It’s a sunny, cold day, but the wind’s blowing.

SO: So in this episode, we wanted to talk about moving forward with your content and how you can make improvements to it and address some of the gaps that you have in terms of development and delivery and all the rest of it. And Dipo’s come up with a way of looking at this that is a framework that I think is actually extremely helpful. So Dipo, tell us about how you look at content debt.

DA-C: Okay, thanks. First of all, I think before I go into my little thing that I put up, what is content debt? I think it’d be great to talk about that. It’s kind of like technical debt. It refers to that future work that you keep storing up because you’ve been taking shortcuts to try and deliver on time. You’ve let quality slip. You’ve had consultants come in and out every three months, and they’ve just been putting… I mean writing consultants.

SO: These consultants.

DA-C: And they’ve been basically doing stuff in a rush to try and get your product out on time. And over time, those sort of little errors, those sort of shortcuts will build up and you end up with missing metadata or inconsistent styles. The content is okay for now, but as you go forward, you find you’re building up a big debt of all these little fixes. And these little fixes will eventually add up and then end up as a big debt to pay.

SO: And I saw an interesting post just a couple of days ago where somebody said that tech debt or content debt, you could think of it as having principle and interest and the interest accumulates over time. So the less work you do to pay down your content debt, the bigger and bigger and bigger it gets, right? It just keeps snowballing and eventually you find yourself with an enormous problem. So as you were looking at this idea of content debt, you came up with a framework for looking at this that is at once shiny and new and also very familiar. So what was it?

DA-C: Yeah, really familiar. I think everyone’s heard of the five stages of grief, and I thought, “Well, how about applying that to content debt?” And so I came up with the five stages of content debt. So let’s go into it.

I’m not going to keep referring to the grief part of it. You can all look it up, but the first stage is denial. “Our content is fine. We just need a better search engine. We can actually put it into this shiny new content delivery platform and it’s got this type of search,” and so on and so forth. Basically what you’re doing is you’re ignoring the growing mess. You’re duplicating content. You’ve got outdated docs. You’re building silos, and then you’re ignoring that these silos are actually getting even further and further apart. No one wants to admit that the CMS or whatever system, bespoke system that you’ve put into place, is just a patchwork of workarounds.

This quietly builds your content debt until, actually the longer denial lasts, the more expensive that cleanup is. As we said in that first bit, you want to pay off the capital of your debt as quickly as possible. Anyone with a mortgage knows that. You come into a little bit of money, pay off as much capital as you can so that you stop accruing that debt, the interest on the debt.

SO: And that is where when we talk about AI-based workflows, I feel like that is firmly situated in denial. Basically, “Yeah, we’ve got some issues, but the AI will fix it. The AI will make it all better.” Now, we painfully know that that’s probably not true, so we move ourselves out of denial. And then what?

DA-C: There we go into anger.

SO: Of course.

DA-C: “Why can’t we find anything? Why does every update take two weeks?” And that was a question we used to get regularly where I used to work at a global medical device manufacturer. We had to change one short sentence because a spec change and it took weeks to do that. Authors are wasting time looking for reusable content if they don’t have an efficient CCMS. Your review cycles drag through because all you’re doing is giving the entire 600-page PDF to the reviewer without highlighting what’s in there. Your translation costs balloon and your project managers or leadership gets angry because, “Well, we only changed one word. Can’t you just use Google Translate? It should only cost like five cents.” Compliance teams then start raising flags. And if you’re in a regulated industry, you don’t want the compliance teams on your back, and especially you don’t want to start having defects out in the field. So eventually, productivity drops, your teams feel like they’re stuck. And the cracks are now starting to show across other departments and you’re putting a bad name on your doc team.

SO: Yeah. And a lot of this, what you’ve got here, is the anger that’s focused inward to a certain extent. It’s the authors that are angry at everybody. I’ve also seen this play out as management saying, “Where are our docs? We have this team, we’re spending all this money, and updates take six months.” Or people submit update requests, tickets, something, the content doesn’t get into the docs, the docs don’t get updated. There’s a six-month lag. Now the SOP, the standard operating procedure, is out of sync with what people are actually doing on the factory floor, which it turns out, again, if you’re in medical devices, is extremely bad and will lead to your factory getting shut down, which is not what you want generally.

DA-C: Yeah, it’s not a good position to be in.

SO: And then there’s anger.

DA-C: Yeah.

SO: “Why aren’t they doing their job?” And yet you’ve got this group that’s doing the best that they can within their constraints, which are, as you said, in a lot of cases, very inefficient workflows, the wrong tool sets, not a lot of support, etc. Okay, so everybody’s mad. And then what?

DA-C: Everyone’s mad, and eventually, actually this is a closed little loop because all you then do is say, “Okay, well, we’re going to take a shortcut,” and you’ve just added to your content debt. So this stage is actually one of the most dangerous of the parts of it because all you end up trying to do without actually solving the problem is just add to the debt. “Let’s take a shortcut here, let’s do this.”

The next stage is now the blame stage. “It’s the tools. It’s the process. It’s the people.” These here and then you get calls of technical writers or, “Well, we’re going to put you into this department and we’ll get this person to rule you with this new agile process,” or, “We’ll get you to be doing it in this way.” The finger-pointing begins. Tech teams will blame the authors. Authors will blame the CMS. Leadership questions the ROI of the entire content operations team. This is often where organizations see that we’ve got to start making a change. They’re either going to double down and continue building that content debt or they start looking for a scalable solution.

SO: Right. And this is the point at which people look at it and say, “Why can’t we just use AI to fix all of this?”

DA-C: Yep, and we all know what happens when you point AI at garbage in. We’ve got the saying, and this saying has been true from the beginning of computing, garbage in, garbage out, GIGO.

SO: Time.

DA-C: Yeah. I changed that to computing.

SO: Yeah. It’s really interesting though because the blame that goes around, I’ve talked to a lot of executives who, and we’re right back to anger too, it is sort of like, “We’ve never had to invest in this before. Why are you telling us that this organization, this group, this tech writers, content ops,” whatever you want to call it, “that they are going to need enterprise tools just like everybody else?” And they are just halfway astounded and halfway offended that these worker bees that were running around doing their thing…

DA-C: Glorified secretaries.

SO: Yeah, that whole thing, like, “How dare they?” And it can be helpful, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t, to say, “Well, you’ve invested in tools for your developers. You wouldn’t dream of writing software without source control, I assume,” although let’s not go down the rabbit hole of vibe coding.

DA-C: Let’s not go down that one.

SO: And the fact that there are already people with the job title of vibe coding remediation specialist.

DA-C: Nice.

SO: Yeah. So that’s going to be a growth industry.

DA-C: That’s what, if you can get it.

SO: But this blame thing is we are saying, “This is an asset. You need to invest in it. You need to manage it. You need to depreciate it just like anything else. And if you don’t invest properly, you’re going to have some big problems.” And to your-

DA-C: A lot of that-

SO: Yeah, they don’t want to do it. They’re horrified.

DA-C: Yeah. A lot of that comes to looking at docs departments as cost centers. They’re costing us money. We’re paying all these people to produce this stuff that people don’t read. The users don’t want to. But if you look at it properly, deeply, the documentation department can be classed as a revenue generator. What are your sales teams pointing prospects at? They’re pointing at docs. Where are they getting the information about how things work? They’re pointing at the docs. What are you using? Especially if you’re having people looking through trying to find a solution?

I know I do this. I go and look at the user manuals. And first thing that I want to see in there that is properly written, if I see something that does not describe the gadget or whatever I’m trying to buy properly, then I’m like, “Well, if you’ve taken shortcuts there, you’ve probably done the same with the actual thing that I’m going to buy.” So I’m going to walk away.

Reducing costs for online centers. If your customers can find the information very quickly that describes the exact problem that they’re trying to solve, then you’ve got fewer calls to your online help center. And then while escalating onto the next person, because the level, I don’t know how this goes, level three, two, one, let’s say the level three is the lowest level, if that person can not find the information that is true, clear, one source of truth, then they’re going to escalate it onto that person who you’re paying a lot more, is at that level two, that person can’t find it, moved on. So it’s basically costing you a lot of money not to have good documentation. It’s a revenue generator.

SO: So my experience has been that the blame phase is perhaps the longest of all the phases.

DA-C: Yeah.

SO: And some organizations just get stuck there forever and they blame different people every year. I’ve also, I’m sure you’ve seen this as well, we were talking about reorganizing. “Well, okay, the tech writers are all in one group. Let’s burst them out and put them all on the product team.”

DA-C: Yes.

SO: “So you go on product team A and you go on product team B and you go on product team C.” And I talk to people about this and they say, “This is terrible and I don’t want to do it.” I’m like, “It’s fine, just wait two years.”

DA-C: Yeah.

SO: Because it won’t work, and then they’ll put them all back together. Ultimately, I’m not sure it matters whether they’re together or apart because we fall into this sort of weird intermediate thing. What matters is that somebody somewhere understands the value, to your point, and isn’t making the investment. I don’t care if you do that in a single group or in a cross-functional matrix, blah, blah, but here we are. All right. So eventually, hopefully, we exit blame.

DA-C: And then we move into acceptance.

SO: Do we?

DA-C: “Okay, we need a better way to manage that.” And this is like when people start contacting you, Sarah, it’s like, “I’ve heard there’s a better way to manage this. Somebody’s talked to me about there’s something called the component content management system or the structured content,” and all of this.

So teams start to acknowledge, one, that they’ve got debt and that debt is growing. Then they start auditing that content and then really seeing that, “Oh, well, yes, things are really going bad. We’ve got 15 versions of this same document living in different spaces in different countries. The translations always cost us a bomb.” So leadership then starts budgeting for a transformation.

This is where they then start doing their research to find structured content, competent reuse, they enter the conversation. If they look at their software departments, software departments reuse stuff. You’ve got libraries of objects. Variables is the simplest form of that reuse. And they’ve been using this for years. And so, “Well, why aren’t we doing this? Oh, there’s DITA, there’s metadata. We can govern our content better. We can collaborate using this tool.” So there is a better way to do this. And then we know what to do.

SO: I feel like a lot of times the people that reach out to us are in stage four, they’ve reached acceptance, but their management is still back in anger and bargaining and denial and all the rest of that.

DA-C: They’re still blaming and trying to find a reason.

SO: Yeah, blaming and all of it, just, “How dare you?” All right, so we acknowledge that we have a problem, which I think is actually the first step in a different step process, but okay.

DA-C: Yeah.

SO: And then what?

DA-C: And then there’s action. Let’s start fixing this before it gets totally out of control, before it gets worse. Then they start investing in structured content authoring platforms like Tridion Docs, I work for RWS, I’ve got to mention it. They start speaking with experts, doing that research, listening to their documentation team leaders, speaking with content strategists to define what the content model is, first of all, and then where can we optimize efficiency by having a reuse strategy? A reuse without a strategy is just asking for trouble. You’re basically going to end up duplicating content.

And then you’ve got to govern how that is used. What rules have you got in place and what ways have you got to implement those rules? The old job of having an editor used to work in the good old days where you’d print something off and somebody would sign it off and so on and so forth. Now, we’re having to deliver content really quickly and we’re using a lot of technology to do that. And so, well, you need to use technology to govern how that content is being created.

Then your content becomes an asset. It’s no longer a liability. This is where that transformation happens, and then you start paying down your content debt. You’re able to scale the content that you’re creating a lot faster without raising the number of the headcount, without having to hire more people. And if you want to then really expand, let’s say, because you’ve got this really great operation now and you’re able to create that content that takes hours and not weeks, then you’re able to expand your market. You’re able to say, “Okay, well, now we’re going to tackle the Brazilian market. Now, we can move into China because they’ve got different regulations.”

Again, I speak a lot on the regulatory side of things. That’s where I passed most of my time as a technical writer. Having different content for different regulatory regimes and so on is just such a headache where you don’t have something that is helping you with that structure, applying structure to that content, applying rules to that content, making sure that your workflows are carried out in the way that you set it out six months ago and people have changed and so on and they’re not doing their own thing again. If your organization is stuck at stages one to three, as I just mentioned it, it’s basically time to move.

SO: Yeah, I think it’s interesting thinking about this in the larger context of when we talk about writers, the act of writing, right?

DA-C: Yes.

SO: Culturally, that word or that process is really loaded with this idea of a single human in an attic somewhere writing the great American or French or British novel, writing a great piece of literature or creating a piece of art on their own, by themselves, in solitude. And of course, we know that technical writing-

DA-C: Starting at A and going all the way to Z.

SO: And we know that technical writing is not that at all, but it does really feel as though when we describe what it means to be a writer or a content creator in a structured content environment, it is just the 180 degree opposite of what it means to be a writer. It’s not the same thing. You are a creator of these little components. They all get put together. We need consistent voice and tone. You have to kind of subordinate your own voice and your own style to the corporate style and to the regulatory and to all the rest of it. And so it’s just this sort of… I think we maybe sometimes underestimate the level of cultural push and pull that there is between what it is to be a writer and what it is to be a technical writer.

DA-C: Yes.

SO: Or a technical communicator or content creator, whatever you want to call that role. Okay, so we’ve talked about a lot of this and then we’ve not talked a lot about AI, but a big chunk of this is that when you move into an environment where you are using AI for end users to access your content, so they go through a chatbot to get to the content or they’re consulting ChatGPT or something like that, and asking, “Tell me about X.” All of the things that you’re describing in terms of content debt play into the AI not performing, the content not getting in there, not being delivered. So what does it look like? What are some of the specifics of good source content, of paying down the debt and moving into this environment where the content is getting better? What does that mean? What do I actually have to do? We’ve talked about tools.

DA-C: Yeah. So first, you’ve got to understand how AI accesses content and how large language models get trained. AI interprets patterns as meaning. If your content deviates from pattern predictability, then you’re going to get what we call hallucinations. And so asking the ChatGPT without having it plugged as an enterprise AI thing where you’ve really trained it on your own content, you get all sorts of hallucinations. Basically, they’ve taken two PDFs that have similar information, but two different conclusions. And so you’re looking for a conclusion in document A, but ChatGPT has given you the one in B. And it’s mixed and matched those because it does not know how one bit of information relates to the other.

So good source content needs to be accurate. Your facts are correct. They reflect the current state of the product or subject. It needs to be kept up to date. You need to have single copies of it, that’s what we talk about, a single source of truth. You can not have two sources of truth. It’s either black or it’s white. There are no gray zones with AI, it will hallucinate. You’ve got to have that consistency in style and tone.

How do you get that? Well, you’ve got the brand and the way we speak. In French, you would say, “Do you vouvoie or do you tutoie?” Do use the formal voice, formal tone, or do you speak like you’re speaking with your friends? How do you enforce some of that? Well, you can use controlled terminology. These are special terms that you’ve defined, a special voice. But the gold part of it is having that structured formatting and presentation. There’s always a logical structure and sequence to the way that you present that information. Your heading, subheading, steps, lists, are always displayed in the same way. You’ve defined an information architecture to then give that pattern. And the way AI then understands or creates relationships with those patterns is from the metadata that you’re adding onto it.

And so good source content is accurate, up to date, consistent in style and tone, uses control terminology, has structure in formatting. Forget the presentation because that you put on the end of things, in that what it looks like, how pretty it is. But the presentation in terms of I always start with a short description and then I follow up with the required tools. And then I describe any prerequisites, and that is the way every one of my writers are contributing towards this central repository of knowledge, this single repository of knowledge.

And you can do that as well if you’ve got a great CCMS by using templates, building templates into that CCMS so that it guides the author. And the author no longer has to think about, “Oh, how is this going to look? Should I be coloring my tables green, red, blue? Should they be this wide?” They’re basically filling in a template form. And some of the standards that we’ve developed like DITA allow you to do this, allow you to have a particular pattern for creating that information and the ability to put it into a template which is managed by your CCMS.

SO: Yeah, and that’s the roadmap, right? We talk about how as a human, if I’m looking at content and I notice that it’s formatted differently, like, “Oh, they bolded this word here but not there,” and I start thinking, “Well, was that meaningful?”

DA-C: Yeah.

SO: And at some point, I decide, “No, it was just sloppy and somebody screwed up and didn’t bold the thing.” But AI will infer meaning from pattern deviations.

DA-C: Yeah.

SO: And so the more consistent the information is in all the levels that you’ve described, the more likely it is that it will process it correctly and give you the right outcome. Okay, so that seems like maybe the place that we need to wrap this up and say, folks, you have content debt. Dipo is giving you a handy roadmap for how to understand your content debt and understand the process of coming to terms with your content debt, and then figuring out how and where to move forward. So any closing thoughts on that before we say good luck to everybody?

DA-C: Basically before, or, I mean, most enterprises today have already jumped on the AI bandwagon. They’re already trying to put it in, but at the same time, start taking a look at your content to ensure that it is structured and has semantic meaning to it. Because the day that you then start training your large language model on that, if you’ve not built those relationships into it, it’s like teaching a kid bad habits. They’re going to just continue doing it. It’s basically train your AI right the first time by having content that is structured and semantic, and you’ll find your AI outcomes are a lot more successful.

SO: So I’m hearing that AI is basically a toddler? Okay. Well, I think we’ll leave it there. Dipo, thanks, it’s great to see you as always.

DA-C: Thanks for having me.

SO: Everybody, thank you for joining us, and we’ll see you on the next one.

Conclusion with ambient background music

CC: Thank you for listening to Content Operations by Scriptorium. For more information, visit Scriptorium.com or check the show notes for relevant links.

The post The five stages of content debt appeared first on Scriptorium.

How can global brands use AI in localization without losing accuracy, cultural nuance, and brand integrity? In this podcast, host Bill Swallow and guest Steve Maule explore the opportunities, risks, and evolving roles that AI brings to the localization process.

The most common workflow shift in translation is to start with AI output, then have a human being review some or all of that output. It’s rare that enterprise-level companies want a fully human translation. However, one of the concerns that a lot of enterprises have about using AI is security and confidentiality. We have some customers where it’s written in our contract that we must not use AI as part of the translation process. Now, that could be for specific content types only, but they don’t want to risk personal data being leaked. In general, though, the default service now for what I’d call regular common translation is post editing or human review of AI content. The biggest change is that’s really become the norm.

—Steve Maule, VP of Global Sales at Acclaro

Related links:

LinkedIn:

Transcript:

Introduction with ambient background music

Christine Cuellar: From Scriptorium, this is Content Operations, a show that delivers industry-leading insights for global organizations.

Bill Swallow: In the end, you have a unified experience so that people aren’t relearning how to engage with your content in every context you produce it.

SO: Change is perceived as being risky; you have to convince me that making the change is less risky than not making the change.

Alan Pringle: And at some point, you are going to have tools, technology, and processes that no longer support your needs, so if you think about that ahead of time, you’re going to be much better off.

End of introduction

Bill Swallow: Hi, I’m Bill Swallow, and today I have with me Steve Maule from Acclaro. In this episode, we’ll talk about the benefits and pitfalls of AI in localization. Welcome, Steve.

Steve Maule: Thanks, Bill. Pleasure to be here. Thanks for inviting me.

BS: Absolutely. Can you tell us a little bit about yourself and your work with Acclaro?

SM: Yeah, sure, sure. So I’m Steve Maule, currently the VP of Global Sales at Acclaro, and Acclaro is a fast-growing language services provider. So I’m based in Manchester in the UK, in the northwest of England, and I’ve been now in this industry, and I say this industry, the language industry, the localization industry for about 16 years, always in various sales, business development, or leadership roles.

So like I say, we’re a language services provider. And I suppose the way we try and talk about ourselves is we try and be that trusted partner to some of the world’s biggest brands and the world’s fastest growing global companies. And we see it Bill as our mission to harness that powerful combination of human expertise with cutting edge technology, whether it be AI or other technology. And the mission is to put brands in the heads, hearts, and hands of people everywhere.

BS: Actually, that’s a good lead in because my first question to you is going to be where do you see AI and localization, especially with a focus of being kind of the trusted partner for human-to-human communication?

SM: My first answer to that would be it’s no longer the future. AI is the now. And I think whatever role people play in our industry, whether you’re like Acclaro, you’re a language services provider, offering services to those global brands, whether you are a technology provider, whether you run localization, localized content in an enterprise, or even if you’re what I’d call an individual contributor, maybe you’re a linguist or a language professional. I think AI is already changed what you do and how you go about your business. And I think that’s only going to continue and to develop. So I actually think we’re going to stop talking at some stage relatively soon about AI. It’s just going to be all pervasive and all invasive.

BS: It’ll be the norm. Yeah.

SM: Absolutely. We don’t talk any more about the internet in many, many industries, and we won’t talk about AI. It’ll just become the norm. And localization, I don’t think is unique in that respect. But I do think that if you think about the genesis of large language models and where they came from, I think localization is probably one of the primary and one of the first use cases for generative AI and for LLMs.

BS: Right. The industry started out decades ago with machine translation, which was really born out of pattern matching, and it’s just grown over time.

SM: Absolutely. And I remember when I joined the industry, what did I say? So 2009, it would’ve been when I joined the industry. And I had friends asking me, what do you mean people pay you for translation and pay for language services? I’ve just got this new thing on my phone, it’s called Google Translate. Why are we paying any companies for translation? So you’re absolutely right, and I think obviously machine translation had been around for decades before I joined the industry. So yeah, I think that question has come into focus a lot more with every sort of, I was going to say, every year that passes, quite honestly, it’s every three months.

BS: If that.

SM: Exactly, yeah. Why do companies like Acclaro still exist? And I think there are probably a lot of people in the industry who actually, if you think about the boom in Gen I over the last two, two and a half years, there’s a lot of people who see it as a very real existential threat. But more and more what I’m seeing amongst our client base and our competitors and other actors in the industry, the tech companies, is that there’s a lot more people who are seeing it as an opportunity actually for the language industry and for the localization industry.

BS: So about those opportunities, what are you seeing there?

SM: I think one of the biggest things, it doesn’t matter what role you play, whether you’re an individual linguist or whether you’re a company like ours, I think there’s a shift in roles and the traditional, I suppose most of what I dealt with 16 years ago was a human being doing translation, another human being doing some editing. There were obviously computers and tools involved, but it was a very human-led process. I think we’re seeing now a lot of those roles changing. Translators are becoming language strategists; they’re becoming quality guardians. Project managers are becoming sort of almost like solutions architects or data owners. So I think that there’s a real change.

And personally, I don’t think, and I guess this is what this podcast is all about. I don’t see the roles of a few things going away, but I do see those roles changing and developing. And in some cases, I think it’s going to be for the better. And I think what we’re seeing is a lot of, because there’s all this kind of doubt and uncertainty and sort of threat, people are wanting to be shown the way, and people are wanting companies like our company and other companies like it to sort of lead the way in terms of how people who manage localized content can kind of implement AI.

BS: Yeah. We’re seeing something similar in the content space as well. I know there was a big fear, certainly a couple of years ago, or even last year, that, oh, AI is going to take all the writing jobs because everyone saw what ChatGPT could do until they really started peeling back the layers and go, well, this is great. It spit out a bunch of words, it sounds great, but it really doesn’t say anything. It just kind of glosses over a lot of information and kind of presents you with the summary. But what we’re seeing now is that a lot of people, at least on the writing side, yeah, they’re using AI as a tool to automate away a lot of the mechanical bits of the work so that the writers can focus on quality.

SM: We’re seeing exactly the same thing. I had a customer say to me she wants AI to do the dishes while she concentrates on writing the poetry. So it is the mundane stuff, the stuff that has to be done, but it’s not that exciting. It’s mundane, it’s repetitive. Those have always been the tasks that have been first in line to be automated, first in line to be removed, first in line, to be improved. And I think that’s what we’re seeing with AI. 

BS: So on the plus side, you have AI potentially doing the dishes for you, while you’re writing poetry or learning to play the piano, what are some of the pitfalls that you’re seeing with regard to AI and translation?

SM: I think there’s a few, and I think it depends on whereabouts AI is used, Bill, in the workflow. I think the very active translation itself is a very, very common use now of AI. But I think there’s some kind of a, I’m going to call them translation adjacent tasks as well, like we’ve mentioned with the entire workflow. So I think the answer would depend on that. But I think one of the biggest pitfalls of AI, and it was the same again, 2009 when I joined the industry and friends of mine had this new thing in their pocket called Google Translate. One of the pitfalls was, well, it’s not always right. It’s not always accurate.

And even though the technology has come on leaps and bounds since then, and you had neural NT before large language models, it still isn’t always accurate. And I think you mentioned it before, it does almost always sound smooth and fluid and almost like it sounds like it’s very polished, and it sounds like it should be, right? I’m thinking, “I’m in sales myself. So it could be a metaphor for a salesperson, couldn’t it? Not always, right? But always sounds confident. But I think there’s a danger where in any type of translation, sometimes accuracy doesn’t actually matter. I mean, if the type of content we’re talking about is, I don’t know, some frequently asked questions on how I can get my speaker to work as a customer, you’re going to be very patient if it’s not perfect English or if you speaking to the language, if it’s not perfect, as long as it gets you to get your speaker to work, you’re not really going to mind. But there’s other content where accuracy is absolutely crucial. In some industries could even be life or death.

But I go back to my first year or two in the industry, and we had a customer that made really good digital cameras, and they had a huge problem because their camera was water resistant, and one of their previous translators had translated it as waterproof. And of course, the customer takes it scuba diving or whatever they were doing with the digital camera, and the camera stops working because it wasn’t waterproof, it was just water resistant.

So sometimes what would be a very kind of seemingly innocuous choice of term, it wasn’t life or death, but obviously it was the difference between a thousand-dollar camera working or not. So I think accuracy is really critical. And even though it sounds confident, it’s not always accurate. And I think that’s one of the biggest pitfalls. Language is subjective, and some things are sort of black and white or wrong, but other things are a lot more nuanced. And what we see is, especially because a lot of the large language models are trained in English and with English data, they don’t necessarily always get the cultural or the sort of linguistic specific nuances of different markets.

We’ve seen some examples, it could be any markets, but specifically Arabic requires careful handling because of the way certain language comes across. Japanese, the politeness Japanese and what do they say, 50 words for snow. Some things aren’t sort of black or white in terms of whether they’re right or wrong. So it’s very, very gray areas in language. And again, however confident the output sounds, sometimes it’s not always culturally balanced or culturally sensitive.

BS: You don’t want it to imply anything or have anyone kind of just take away the wrong message because it was unclear or whatnot.

SM: Absolutely, absolutely. And especially when you’re thinking of branded content. I mean, some of the companies we work with and some of the companies, I’m sure that people listen to the podcast, they’d spend millions on protecting building, first of all, but also protecting their brand in different markets and the wrong choice of language, the wrong translation can put that at risk.

BS: Yeah. With branding, I assume that there’s a tone shift that you need to watch for. There’s certainly what you can and can’t say in certain contexts regarding the brand.

SM: Well, I think with AI, when you are using GenAI to translate, the other thing is it’s because I think you mentioned before, the technology it is a pattern-based technology. The content could be quite inherently repetitive. And again, whilst they’ll be confident, whilst they’ll be polished, it doesn’t always take into account the creativity or the emotion. And it’s less and less now we’re seeing AI sort of properly trained on a specific brand’s content. The models are more, they’re too big really to be trained just on a brand-specific content. So sometimes the messaging can appear quite generic or not really in step with the identity that a brand wants to portray. I think most of our clients would be in agreement when it comes to brand. It can’t be left to the machines alone.

BS: And I would think that any use of AI or even machine translation in something with regard to branding, where you want to own that messaging and really tailor that messaging, you really don’t want to have other influences coming in from the wild. So I would imagine that with an AI model that’s trained to work in that environment, you really don’t want it to know that there’s an outside internet, there’s an outside world that it can harvest information from because you might be getting language from your competitors or what have you.

SM: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah, you’re sort of getting it from too many sources where it kind of needs to be beyond brand really. I think there’s other things as well that we see. I mean, there’s still quite common cases of bias and stereotyping because like you say, it, taking content if you like, or data from all sorts of sources. And if there’s bias in there, there’s misgendered language, especially with some target languages. I mean, you’ve got, in English, it’s kind of fine, really, but in Spanish and French and German, you’ve got to choose a gender for every noun, every adjective, in order to be accurate.

BS: Otherwise, it’s wrong.

SM: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. And it compounds because the models are built on such scale, it compounds over time. So again, without that sort of active monitoring and without that human oversight, what might be a problem today will compound, and it’d be even worse tomorrow in the months ahead.

BS: How about the way in which the translation process works? Have you seen AI really shifting a lot of those workflows?

SM: So the short answer is yes. So by far, the most common workflow, if you’re looking at translation by far, the most common workflow with our customers now is to start with AI output. And to have a human being review some or all of that output. It is very, very rare. Now, when we are working with the enterprise-level companies, it’s very, very rare that they’d want, well, actually I might hold that thought, but it’s very rare that they’d want, for most content, they would want a fully human translation. Except one of the pitfalls that we have seen is, or one of the concerns if you like, that a lot of enterprises have about using AI is security and confidentiality.

And in fact, we have some customers where it’s written in our contract that we must not use AI as part of the translation process. Now, that could be for some specific content types only, and a lot of the time it’s a factor of, if you like, the attitude to risk or the attitude to confidentiality that that particular customer might have. But a lot of people are still very, very paranoid about that. They don’t want to be risking personal data being effectively leaked or being used to train and being cross pollinated, like your previous example. But in general, the sort of default service now for what I’d call regular common translation is post editing or human review of AI content. So that, that’s probably the biggest change is that’s now really become the norm.

BS: Okay. We talked a lot about the pitfalls here, so let’s talk about some benefits that you get at of using AI and localization.

SM: Well, I think the first thing is scale. I think it just allows you to do so much more because it almost, well, it doesn’t remove, but it significantly reduces those budget and time constraints that the traditional translation process used to have. Yeah, you can translate content really, really fast, very, very affordably, and it’s huge volumes that you just couldn’t consider if that technology wasn’t there.

So you could argue you’ve always been able to do that since machine translation was available. But I think large language models, they do bring more fluency. They do bring more sort of contextual understanding than those sort of pattern-based machine translation models. They can, even though we’ve talked about how some of the challenges around nuance and tone, they can improve style and tone. So we’ve seen a lot of benefits and a good opportunity really in sort of pairing the two technologies, neural machine translation, large language models, and again, you can’t get away when they’re guided by the human expertise.

They can offer a really good balance of scale, but also quality that you weren’t able to achieve before. And this is what I would say to people who are sort of worried about the existential threat of, oh my gosh, I’m a translator, so AI is taking my job. Absolutely, it’s probably changing your job. But we see AI translation not replace human translation, but replacing no translation. So that mountain of content, the majority of content actually that was never translated before because of time and budget constraints can now be translated to a certain level of quality. And so we see the overall volume of content localize, exploding, and ideally a similar level of human involvement or even more, in some cases, human involvement than before, but as a proportion of the overall, it’s a lot less, if that makes sense.

BS: Yeah. So what about multimedia? So audio and video, I know those have been traditionally a more difficult format to handle in localization, particularly when you may need to change the visuals along the way.

SM: If you ask any project manager in our company, the most expensive, the most time-consuming type projects traditionally to deliver, and you’re absolutely right, you make a mistake with terminology and you’re doing a professional voiceover and the studio’s booked and the actor’s booked and you want to change three or four words or three or four terms. Okay, that’s fine. Rebook the studio, rebook the actor. Yeah. I mean, it was traditionally, and I say traditionally, we’re talking only three or four years ago, one of the most expensive forms of content to translate.

So I think what we see is it’s been revolutionized by AI, video localization, audio localization, and this is a great example of actually where it’s replacing no translation. I mean, we had customers who just wouldn’t, we don’t want to dub that video. We don’t want to localize their audio, we just can’t afford it. We haven’t got the time. And now with synthesized voice synthesized videos, the quality is sort of very natural, very expressive, and you can produce training videos and product demos and all those kind of marketing assets in various markets that used to cost you lots and lots of money for 10 times less the cost, and probably more than 10 times less the speed.

BS: Nice. Yeah. I know that one of the things that we saw, particularly with using machine translation is that there was a pretty good check for accuracy built into a lot of those systems, but they weren’t quite a hundred percent. How does AI compare with that because it does understand language a bit more. So with regard to QA, how is that being leveraged?

SM: Well, they can understand. It’s not just about accuracy and grammatical correctness and spelling errors and that sort of thing has always been around, like you say, with machine translation. But the LLMs now, they can evaluate that sort of fluency terminology, use adherence to brand guidelines, style guidelines, and they can do that. So what we see is that whereas before LLMs came around and you had neural machine translation, pretty much most of the machine, unless it was very low value output, and unless it was very invisible or less visible content, let’s say if it was something that the clients cared about, they would want a human review of every single segment or every single sentence effectively. Whereas now, LLMs can help you sort of hone in and identify that percentage of the content that might need looking at by a human. And actually, I mean, there’s no real pattern, but if an LLM as a first pass can look at a large volume of content and say, actually 70% of that is absolutely fine, it matches the instructions that we’ve given it.

Not only is it accurate, but also it adheres to fluency and terminology and so on. Why don’t you human beings focus on this 30%? I mean, that’s a huge benefit to a lot of companies, saves a lot of time, saves a lot of costs, and just again, allows them to localize a lot more of that content than they were ever able to do before. So it’s great as a first pass before an extra layer if you like, a technology-dead layer before any human involvement and focusing the humans on the work that matters and the work that’s going to have the most impact.

BS: Nice. So if someone is looking to adopt AI within their localization efforts, what are the first steps for building AI into a strategy that you would recommend?

SM: Just call me. No, I’m kidding. I think it is any new process bill or any new technology, I think, and it sounds kind of common sense, but I think when deciding on any new strategy, it’s kind of be clear about why you’re doing it. You asked earlier on how AI is changing the localization industry. I think one huge thing I see, I speak to enterprise buyers of localization services every day. That’s my job. That’s what me and my team do. And one of the things that they tell me is that all of a sudden the C-suite know who they are.

All of a sudden, the guys with the money, the people with the money, they know they exist. And oh, we’ve got a localization department because as we said, GenAI, one of the earliest adopters, one of the earliest use cases for this was localization and was translation. So now there’s a lot of pressure from people who previously didn’t even know you existed or sort of maybe just saw you as a cost of doing business. Now they’re putting pressure on you to use AI. How are you using GenAI in your workflow? What can we as a business learn from it? Where can we save costs? Where can we increase volume? How can we use it as a revenue driver? Those sort of things. So that being said, that’s a big opportunity, but where we see it not go right or where we see it go more wrong more often than not is where people are doing it just because of that pressure and they think, oh, I have to do it because I’m getting asked to do it. I’m getting asked to experiment.

Again, it sounds really obvious, but they don’t really know what they’re looking for. Are they looking for time to be saved? Are they looking for costs to be removed? Are they looking to increase efficiencies with in their overall workflow? So I think it’s like anything, isn’t it? Unless you know how you’re going to measure success, you probably won’t be successful. So I think that’s the first tip I’d give people. Be clear about what it is you’re looking for AI in localization to achieve. And again, one of the pitfalls is we see lots of people wanting to experiment and it’s good, and you want to encourage that. I suppose as a chief exec or even with our clients, we’d love to see experimentation, but when you see lots of people doing lots of different things just because it looks cool and they just want to experiment, unless it’s joined up and unless it’s with a purpose, it doesn’t always work well.

So I think what we see when people do it well is they have that purpose. They have it documented actually, they have that sort of agreed, if you like, with they have that executive buy-in, this is why we’re doing it, and this is what we’re hoping to see, not just because it’s cool because it might save us X dollars or it might save us X amount of time. And I think what we see well is when people do that and then they kind of embrace those small iterative tests. One of our solutions architects was on a call with me with a customer, just advise them not to boil the ocean. And again, I know this isn’t specific to AI, but just let’s not do everything all at once. Lots of localization workflows. They have legacy technology, they have legacy connectors to other content repositories, and you can’t just rip it out without a lot of pain and start again.

So you’ve got to decide where you’re going to have that impact. Start small, very small tests, iterate frequently, get the feedback. That’s one of the key things. And then it just becomes any other implementation of technology or implementation of a workflow. One of the things we did at Acclaro is actually publish a checklist to help companies answer that exact same question, but when you read it, there’s not going to be much there about specific AI technologies and this type of LLM is better for this, and that type of LLM is better for that. It’s not prescriptive. It’s just designed as a guide to actually say, okay, well don’t get ahead of yourselves. Just follow a really sensible process, prove that it works, and then choose the next experiment.

BS: Yeah, get people thinking about it.

SM: Absolutely,

BS: We hear a lot from people that, oh, it came down from the C-suite that we have to incorporate AI into our workflows in 2025, in 2026. And yeah, I mean that’s all the directive is usually. Usually there’s no foresight coming down from above saying, this is what we’re envisioning you doing with AI. So it really does come down to the people who are managing these processes to take a step back and say, okay, here’s where things are working, here’s where we could make improvements. Here are some potential footholds that we can start building with AI and see where it goes. But yeah, I think for a lot of people, the answer of how do I use AI? I think it’s going to be different for every company out there. I mean, it might be similar, but I think it might be very different and very unique from company to company as to what they’re actually doing.

SM: That’s what we see. Yeah, that’s what we see. And again, some of those pitfalls we’ve talked about, some companies have a different approach to information security and confidentiality. Some companies are just risk averse. Some company’s content is, they should be more sensitive about it than other company’s content. Some company’s content, think finance, life sciences, medical devices, there’s real-world problems. Let’s say if it’s not accurate, whereas other company’s contents, yeah, okay, it might take you an extra 30 seconds to get that speaker to work or it might not. But I think, yeah, that’s no surprise. One of our customers said to me, AI is like tea. You need to infuse it. You can’t just dump it. You need to infuse it. You need to let it breathe. You need to let it kind of circulate. You got to decide the strength. You’ve got to decide where you get it from. You’ve got to decide what the human being making it has to do to make a great cup. And it’s just going to be different for every single person.

BS: True.

SM: We have five in our house and we have five different types of tea, whoever’s making that tea has to know what everyone’s preferences are. And I think it’s the same with AI. And it’s the same with a lot of technologies, isn’t it?

BS: It is. So when let’s say someone running a localization department, their CEO says, “We need to incorporate AI. Here’s your mandate. Go run, figure it out, implement it.” Do you have any advice around how to report, I guess the results, the findings, the progress back up?

SM: Yeah. My first advice would be, if I was in that situation, to say to that person, listen, we’ve been doing this for 10 years. We just never used to call it AI. We used to call it neural machine translation or machine translation. But my second bit of advice is you’ve actually got to do that because whilst the opportunity is there for localization managers to really drive and shape how AI is implemented, if they don’t do that, or if you pretend it’s something different than it is obvious, if you pretend it’s going away or if you pretend it’s a fad that people are going to forget about, what’ll happen is that somebody else will be asked to implement AI and you won’t be. And it’s quite interesting. We’re seeing a lot now of the persona, if you like, of the people that we’re working with in those enterprise localization teams is getting wider, it’s getting more multidisciplinary.

It’s very, very rare that you’d have any decent sized company, a localization manager making decisions about partners, vendors, technology by themselves. It would always be now with a keen eye from the technology team, the IT team, because everyone’s laser-focused on getting this right. So that’d be my second piece of advice. But I think if you define the results that you’re looking for and you document those and you’re able to capture those, again, it is not rocket science. It’s really just basic project management then. And then try and report on those regularly and quickly in a way that you’re able to iterate. An AI pilot shouldn’t be a six-month project with results at the end of six months. I mean, you should be able to know if you’ve chosen the right size of pilots, you should be able to know within days or weeks whether it’s likely to bring the benefits you thought it would do.

BS: Very true. So you see the return on using it or the lack of return on using it much quicker?

SM: Yeah, well absolutely. Yeah. Again, I think from my own personal experience, we’ve done a lot of helping and guiding clients with pilots, with experiments. It’s not all great results. And again, we haven’t manufactured anything to make it not great results so we stay in a job and people still use the human service. But we have seen really good results. I’m thinking of one, it’s quite a specific use case to do with translation memories, but the client was using GenAI to improve the fuzzy match, if you’re familiar with that term, build a translation memory match, the fuzzy match enhancer, and they found that it improved about 80% of the segments in I think five languages.

So again, if I look at that one, they didn’t pick every single language that they had. They only picked five, probably picked five where they could get some quick feedbacks of five more commonly spoken languages. And they were able to measure in their tool, the post editing time and the accuracy. And yeah, they found it improved 80%. I mean, 20% didn’t improve, so not 100% success, but they were able to provide real data to the powers that be to decide whether to extend it to their other language sets or their other content types.

BS: Nice. Well, I think we’re at a point where we can wrap up here. Any closing thoughts on AI and localization? Good, bad, ugly, just do it.

SM: I think the biggest thing for me is that AI is today. It’s not the future. It’s here. I’m in the UK, like I say, and multi-billion dollar announcement in investments, all specifically to do with AI from companies like NVIDIA, from Microsoft. And AI is the now. So I think you don’t have a choice whether to adopt it, whether to adapt to it being here. It’s just about how you choose to do it really. That’s become our role as a language service provider. As a sort of trusted partner of brands, our role has become to help guide and give our opinions. It’ll continue to change and we’ll have new use cases. And you ask me those same questions, I think Bill, in six months or 12 months, I might give you some different answers because we’ll have found new experiments and new use cases.

BS: And that’s fair. Well, Steve, thank you very much.

SM: Thank you, Bill. I enjoyed the conversation.

Conclusion with ambient background music

CC: Thank you for listening to Content Operations by Scriptorium. For more information, visit Scriptorium.com or check the show notes for relevant links.

Want to learn more about AI, localization, and the future of content? Download our book, Content Transformation.

The post Balancing automation, accuracy, and authenticity: AI in localization appeared first on Scriptorium.

AI, self-paced courses, and shifting demand for instructor-led classes—what’s next for the future of training content? In this podcast, Sarah O’Keefe and Kevin Siegel unpack the challenges, opportunities, and what it takes to adapt.

There’s probably a training company out there that’d be happy to teach me how to use WordPress. I didn’t have the time, I didn’t have the resources, nothing. So I just did it on my own. That’s one example of how you can use AI to replace some training. And when I don’t know how to do something these days, I go right to YouTube and look for a video to teach me how to do it. But given that, there are some industries where you can’t get away with that. Healthcare is an example—you’re not going to learn how to do brain surgery that someone could rely on with AI or through a YouTube video.

— Kevin Siegel

Related links:

LinkedIn:

Transcript:

Introduction with ambient background music

Christine Cuellar: From Scriptorium, this is Content Operations, a show that delivers industry-leading insights for global organizations.

Bill Swallow: In the end, you have a unified experience so that people aren’t relearning how to engage with your content in every context you produce it.

SO: Change is perceived as being risky; you have to convince me that making the change is less risky than not making the change.

Alan Pringle: And at some point, you are going to have tools, technology, and processes that no longer support your needs, so if you think about that ahead of time, you’re going to be much better off.

End of introduction

SO: Hi, everyone, I’m Sarah O’Keefe. I’m here today with Kevin Siegel. Hey, Kevin.

KS: Hey, Sarah. Great to be here. Thanks for having me.

SO: Yeah, it’s great to see you. Kevin and I, for those of you that don’t know, go way back and have some epic stories about a conference in India that we went to together where we had some adventures in shopping and haggling and bartering in the middle of downtown Bangalore, as I recall.

KS: I can only tell you that if you want to go shopping in Bangalore, take Sarah. She’s far better at negotiating than I am. I’m absolutely horrible at it.

SO: And my advice is to take Alyssa Fox, who was the one that was really doing all the bartering.

KS: Really good. Yes, yes.

SO: So anyway, we are here today to talk about challenges in instructor-led training, and this came out of a LinkedIn post that Kevin put up a little while ago, which will include in the show notes. So Kevin, tell us a little bit about yourself and IconLogic, your company and what you do over there.

KS: So IconLogic, we’ve always considered ourselves to be a three-headed dragon, three-headed beast, where we do computer training, software training, so vendor-specific. We do e-learning development, and I write books for a living as well. So if you go to Amazon, you’ll find me well-represented there. Actually, one of the original micro-publishers on this new platform called Amazon with my very first book posted there called, “All This PageMaker, the Essentials.” Yeah, did I date myself for that reference? Which led to a book on QuarkXPress, which led to Microsoft Office books. But my bread and butter books on Amazon even today are books on Adobe Captivate, Articulate Storyline, and TechSmith Camtasia. I still keep those books updated. So publishing, training, and development. And the post you’re talking about, which got a lot of feedback, I really loved it, was about training and specifically what I see as the demise of our training portion of our business. And it’s pretty terrifying. I thought it was just us, but I spoke with other organizations similar to mine in training, and we’re not talking about a small fall-off of training. 15, 20% could be manageable. You’re talking 90% training fall off, which led me to think originally, “Is it me?” Because I hadn’t talked to the other training companies. “Is it us? I mean, we’re dinosaurs at this point. Is it the consumer? Is it the industry?”

But then I talked to a bunch of companies that are similar to mine and they’re all showing the same thing, 90% down. And just as an example of how horrifying that is, some of our classes, we’d expect a decent-sized class, 10, a large class, 15 to 18. Those were the glory days. Now we’re twos and threes, if anyone signs up at all. And what I saw as the demise of training for both training companies and trainers, if you’re a training company and you’re hiring a trainer, one or two people in the room isn’t going to pay the bills. Got to keep the lights on with your overhead running 50%, 60%, you know this as a business person, but you’ve got to have five or six minimum to pay those bills and pay your trainer any kind of a rate.

SO: So we’re talking specifically about live instructor-led, in-person or online?

KS: Both, but we went more virtual long before the pandemic. So we’ve been teaching more virtual than on-site for 30 years. Well, not virtual 30 years, virtual wasn’t really viable until about 20 years ago. So we’ve been teaching virtual for 20 years. The pandemic made it all the more important. But you would think that training would improve with the pandemic, it actually got even worse and it never recovered. So the pandemic was the genesis of that spiral down. AI has hastened the demise. But this is instructor-led training in both forms, virtual and on-site. I think even worse for on-site.

SO: So let’s start with pandemic. You’re already doing virtual classes, along comes COVID and lockdowns and everything goes virtual. And you would think you’d be well-positioned for that, in that you’re good to go. What happened with training during the pandemic era when that first hit?

KS: When that pandemic first hit, people panicked and went home and just hugged their families. They weren’t getting trained on anything. So it wasn’t a question of, were we well-positioned to offer training? Nobody wanted training, period. And this was, I think if you pull all training companies, well, there are certain markets where you need training no matter what. Healthcare as an example, they need training. Security, needed training. But for the day-to-day operations of a business, people went home and they didn’t work for a long time. They were just like, “The world is ending.” And then, oh, the world didn’t end. So now they’ve got to go back to work, but they didn’t go back to work for a long time. Eventually people got back to work. Now, are you on-site back to work or are you at home? That’s a whole nother thing to think about.

But just from a training perspective, when panic sets in, when the economy goes bad, training is one of the first things, you get rid of it. Go teach yourself. And the teaching yourself part is what has led to the further demise of training, because you realize I can teach myself on YouTube. At least I think I can. And I think when you start teaching yourself on your own and you think you can, it becomes, the training was good enough. So if you said, “Let’s focus on the pandemic.” That’s what started it, the downward spiral. But we even saw the downward spiral before the pandemic, and it was the vendors that started to offer the training that we were offering themselves.

SO: So instead of a third-party, certainly a third-party, mostly independent organization offering training on a specific software application, the vendors said, “We’re going to offer official training.”

KS: Correct. And it started with some of these vendors rolling out their training at conferences. And I attended these conferences as a speaker. I won’t name the software, I won’t name the vendor, but I would just tell you I would go there and I would say, “Well, what’s this certificate thing you’re running there?” It’s a certificate of participation. But as I saw people walking around, they would say, “I’m now certified.” And I go, “You’re not certified after a three-hour program. You now have some knowledge.” They thought they were certified and experts, but they wouldn’t know they weren’t qualified until told to do a job. And then they would find out, “I’m not qualified to do this job.” But that certificate course, which was just a couple of hours by this particular vendor, morphed into a full day certificate. They were charging now a lot of money for it, which morphed into a multi-day thing, which now has destroyed any opportunity for training that we have. And that’s when I started noticing a downward spiral. Tracking finances, it would be your investments going down, down, down, down this thing. It’s like a plane, head and nose down.

SO: And we’ve seen something similar. I mean, back in the day, and I do actually… So for those of you listening at home that are not in this generation, PageMaker was the sort of grandparent of InDesign. I am also familiar with PageMaker and I think my first work in computer stuff was in that space. So now we’ve all dated ourselves. But back in the day we did a decent amount of in-person training. We had a training classroom in one of our offices at one point.

Now, we were never as focused on it as you are and were, but we did a decent business of public-facing, scheduled two-day, three-day, “Come to our office and we’ll train you on the things.” And then over time, that kind of dropped off and we got away from doing training because it was so difficult. And this is longer ago than you’re talking about. So the pattern that you’re describing where instructor-led in-person training, a classroom training with everybody in the same room kind of got disrupted a while back. We made a decent living doing that for a long time and there was-

KS: Made a great living doing that. Oh, my God. That was the thing.

SO: But we got away from it, because it got harder and harder to put the right people in the right classes and get people to travel and come to us. So then there’s online training, which we kind of got rid of training. You sort of pivoted to online/ virtual. And then ultimately, the pandemic has made it such, from my point of view, that the vast majority of what we do in this space is custom. We’re doing a big implementation project. We do some custom training that might be in-person, on-site, but much more often it is online, live online instructor-led, but custom. Because all of the companies that we’re dealing with, even if people did return to office, very much they’re fragmented, right? It’s two people here and five people there, and four people there and one in every state. And so, bringing them all together into a classroom is not just bring the instructor in, but bring everybody in and it costs a fortune. And that’s before we get into the question of, can they get across the borders and can they travel?

There’s visa issues, there’s admin issues, people have caregiving responsibilities, they can’t travel. There’s a whole bunch of stuff that goes into actually relocating from point A to point B to do a class at point B. So fine. Okay. So along comes the pandemic that really pushes on the virtualization, right? The virtual stuff. And then you’re saying the vendors get into it and they are clawing back some of this revenue for themselves. They’re basically saying, “We’re going to do official vendor-approved stuff, which then makes it very difficult as a third-party, because you have to walk that line, and I’ve been there, you have to walk that line between, we are delivering training on this product which belongs to somebody else, and we can be maybe a little more forthright about the issues in the product because it’s not our product. So we’re just going to say, “Hey, there’s an issue over here. It doesn’t really work. Do it this other way.” Not toeing the official party line. Okay, so we have all of that going on and all of those challenges already. And now along comes AI. So what does AI do to this environment that you’re describing?

KS: It further destroys it. I’ll give you an example. My blog, Typepad, we received an email September 1st, 2025, and we’re recording this September 4th, 2025, okay? So three days ago I got an email saying, “Hello, we’re shutting down. Sorry.” And I’m like, “What? Yeah, you’ve got 30 days to get your stuff out of here.” Basically being kicked out of your apartment or your house. So I’m like, “All right, well, go to AI and I asked AI, what is the top blog software?” They said, “WordPress.” Love it or hate it, okay. So I went to WordPress. I had no idea how to use WordPress. I had no staff available to help me. So I had to get my stuff out of Typepad and on and on it went. I went to AI, ChatGPT specifically, and I said, “Teach me how to use WordPress,” and specifically how to get my crap out of TypePad. I say crap, my stuff out of TypePad. In a matter of what? Two days I had everything transferred over.

So, didn’t need training, otherwise I would’ve had to go to training to learn how to do that and I didn’t have to. So that’s an example of there’s probably a training company out there that’d be happy to teach me how to use WordPress. I didn’t have the time, I didn’t have the resources, nothing. So I just did it on my own. That’s one example of how you can use AI to replace the training. There’s other examples of training that is not just good enough, it’s fine. It’s good. It’s good. It’s not lacking. When I don’t know how to do something these days, I go right to YouTube and look for a video to teach me how to do it. So given that, some industries where you can’t get away with that. Healthcare as an example, you’re not going to learn how to do brain surgery that you could rely on with AI or video through YouTube.

SO: We hope.

KS: We hope. “Hey, relax. I know this is your first time, Sarah, I’m your surgeon. I watched a video yesterday, I feel pretty good about it as I grab that saw.” I don’t believe you’re going to be comfortable with that. So listen, it’s bad enough. And you mentioned the vendor that is now offering training. So vendor pullback, they want that for a revenue source. This particular vendor is using it as a revenue tool, but there’s also vendors out there that are actively stopping you from offering training classes, and on it goes.

SO: Yeah, I do want to talk about that one a little bit. I know nothing about the specifics of your situation, but this is a losing battle. Because you were just talking about YouTube, I was doing some research for a very, very, very large company that makes farm equipment and I went looking for their content. And they had content on their website, it was like type in your product name or product number and it would give you the official user manual, which was of course ugly and terrible. But I discovered that if you typed in something like, “How do I fix the breaks on my X, Y, Z product?” It would take you to YouTube. And it would take you to this YouTube channel that had a lot of subscribers and was in fact not at all the official company YouTube channel.

KS: It was a dude who was working on it?

SO: It was a dude in Warsaw, North Carolina, which is not the same as Warsaw, Poland. It is a tiny, tiny, tiny little place, mostly known for me as being halfway between where I am and the beach. It’s where we stop to get gas and summer peaches and corn from the farm stand and fried chicken on our way to the beach, because that’s the thing we do. That’s where Warsaw is. It has a population of, I don’t know, 3,000 maybe.

KS: Okay, yeah.

SO: I have no idea. But there’s some guy who works for the dealership there who’s making these videos explaining how to do maintenance on these, in this case tractors, and he has got the audience. Not the official website, which by the way does not have a YouTube channel that I’m aware of, or at least that I could find now. This was five, 10 years ago. It has been a while. But so, there’s all this third-party content out there and there’s this ecosystem of content because it’s digital. You can’t really control that unless, we were talking about this earlier, unless you’re doing something like nuclear weapons, intelligence work, or maybe brain surgery. You can probably control those things. That’s about it. Clearly things are changing and not for the better. If your revenue is built on instructor-led, whether in-person or online, it sounds as though things are changing and not for the better in that space specifically, unless we’re training on brain surgery, which most of us are not. So what’s the path forward?

KS: I’m thinking about it, actually.

SO: I am not signing up for you to do my brain surgery.

KS: I need someone to practice on. Sarah, let me know if you’re available.

SO: Oh, I’m so sorry, you’re breaking up. I can’t hear you. Okay, so what does the path forward look like? I mean, what does it mean to be inside this disruption and where do you go from here?

KS: Okay, so every training company that I have contacts in, they’re all down significantly. The ones that are surviving have government contracts.

SO: Mm-hmm.

KS: And that is to develop training in all of its guises, that primarily they’re seeing a call for virtual reality training. That’s really, really hot right now. But not the virtual reality training that you can create with the Captivates and the Storylines of the world. That’s too lowbrow. They’re talking about immersive, almost gamification, where you build a world. So if that’s your expertise, you can create training in that. That’s what people want. It looks like augmented reality and virtual reality.

I can’t see it. Maybe I’m of a certain age that I’m like, “I’m not putting goggles on to take my training.” But that is pretty popular with other generations. So you can’t ignore it, I think, embrace it. So government contracts, if you can get that, you’ll be okay in the training business. Several of my colleagues have actually done that. So that’s a leg up. The other is to embrace asynchronous training and put your materials out there that live now forever. So I ignored for years these providers of asynchronous training where you put your content there and they sell it for you. I’ve got five classes on Udemy now, and each of them sells pretty well.

Matter of fact, my Captivate Udemy is one of their bestsellers. That does not translate into offsetting the revenue lost from your training gigs when you were bringing in six, seven, $800 a person for a training class. Our prices were between $695 and $895 per person to take a public class, but it certainly does bring in some revenue. So if you have the ability to create the asynchronous training, the video training, and make it really, really good training, really impactful, then that’s going to help you stay in the game as long as you can. I also think embracing AI versus getting under the covers and just, “I don’t want to see it,” is not the way to go.

I now use AI as a tool. I don’t think it replaces me, I think that I have more to offer in guiding the course than AI, but it gives me a nice, “Get me started here.” Maybe you’ve got a little writer’s block, maybe just getting started. It’s a beautiful day out, I can’t get started. Have AI start, you’ve started up. But if you’re going to go that route and you have AI make suggestions, you better fact check it. And just as an example, I was just curious, I asked ChatGPT to create an exam for Articulate Storyline. That is a tool I know really well, I’ve written exams for Storyline and Captivate and Camtasia. I said, “Write an exam. I want to see what you come up with.” And some of the questions were actually worded better than what I had done. They were very similar questions. And I go, “I kind of like the way you, AI, did that.” Which was kind of a bummer. But I would say a good 30% of what I read, while it was well-written, was completely wrong.

SO: Yes, confidently wrong.

KS: Yes, it was confidently wrong. Asking questions, “When you do this on storyline, what is the correct thing? What do you do?” And Storyline doesn’t do that thing. They were talking about Rise as an example. I’m like, “You’ve gone and combined Rise with Storyline.” So if you’re going to use AI, it’s the way you ask the question, your prompts. So get some training on engineering your prompts and fact-checking what you get from those prompts. But I use AI every day in my writing to make sure I don’t have grammar issues. So I’ll tell AI, “Check this for clarity and grammar.” So it’s my words, but it now is saying, “Well, there’s a couple typos, I fix that. And a couple of dangling modifiers, I fix that.” So it makes me feel like I’m writing better. But do keep in mind, if you put your stuff into ChatGPT, it’s now part of this mass of stuff that other people are going to get access to.

So you can’t copyright anything that you put in AI. I wrote a book about copyright and training materials and things to think about, because we have a lot of people finding an image of a nice puppy on Google and using it in their training, and that puppy was copyrighted. So anything you do on AI, any photos that get created, any artwork, anything, any writing can’t be copyrighted because only a human can get a copyright. So that’s something to think about. If you have something really, really good, you really didn’t create that, so you can’t copyright it.

You’re going to have to adapt. You’re going to have to adapt or you’re going to fail in the training industry, again, unless it’s very specific niche markets, or as you mentioned, custom training. If you don’t adapt, you’re going to fail. And that adaptation is going to be, embrace AI asynchronous training to put your training out there, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week when you can’t do it. And that’ll offset getting these onesies and twosies in your class.

SO: And it removes the time-bound, I have to set aside these two hours or these four hours of this day to be in the classroom, whether virtual or not if it’s live. I do think that this idea that we’re going to see a split between things that go higher and higher end that people are willing to pay nearly anything for versus the low-end where the price is going… There’s going to be downward pressure on the price for all the low-end stuff, because the barrier to entry to producing asynchronous training is pretty minimal and it gets lower every single day because there’s so many people out there that can potentially do that.

KS: Anybody can hang out a shingle and say that they’re an expert. So I mean, it’s the credentials of the trainer too, I think. Who is the person that’s teaching this? Is it what we call it, Chuck with a truck? Is it Chuck with a truck? Or is it someone who has actually done this? I wouldn’t want to get trained on handling my content by someone who hadn’t done it. I’d want you to handle that, right? So a content strategy. “I mean, who came up with that strategy? Oh, Bob. Has Bob ever done it? No, but he feels good about it. No, I want to get a Sarah who’s done it for years and years and years.”

SO: Yeah, I mean that’s an interesting point though, because at the end of the day, if you commoditize/ productized training, you’re going to have a product as the asynchronous training that’s a package, and you get what you get. When it’s live with an instructor, you’re going to get that instructor on that day in that context. They’re feeling good, they’re feeling bad. The classroom dynamics are good or bad or weird. Every experience is going to be different. Whereas with async, it’s always going to be the same. I mean, barring internet connectivity or something, as the learner, you’re going to get a consistent experience. Now, it’s not going to be the best possible experience, right? Because the best possible experience is you’re in a group with some other people in a room with an amazing instructor.

KS: That is the best.

SO: That is the best.

KS: There’s good too-

SO: It costs the earth.

KS: Yeah, there’s good too, the asynchronous training, because it’s always the same, it’s going to be consistent. How many times have you read a live class and the attendees, one of the attendees just spoiled the sauce? And you’re reminding me now, a colleague of mine, they were doing their certification as a certified technical trainer, CTT, and back in those days, you actually had to record yourself teaching.

SO: Oh, yes, there was a VHS tape of me and kids. That is video, pre-digital video.

KS: That is correct. VHS tape. And I had to do the same thing, but I remember for this one colleague of mine, and the students in this classroom, fake classroom, were other trainers that were also getting the recording done. And I remember she was being recorded and it was over her shoulder looking at the students, because she had to show the students. And one of these students, she made a comment that she knew was correct, and the student shook her head, “Nope, nope. That’s not right. Nope.” And the trainer is now, “What are you doing? Why are you shaking your head no and contradicting one of us? How about just nod?” And so, at some point God had turned around where the students started shaking their head, but realize, “Oh my God, you’re defeating all of us in this room.”

So yes, that was to your point, that the training can vary wildly in a live class, whether it’s virtual or on-site, based on the attendees. Because listen, I’ve been teaching Captivate since it was called RoboDemo, so years and years and years and years, and no class has ever been the same. No two classes are the same and it’s all based on the dynamics of the students in my live class. And you get one person in there who is stuck, can’t move forward, file open is a mystery. Go to the file menu, choose open. How do you do that? Okay, mouse skills. All of that can either derail or can help your class. Funny moments, whatever they may be. But asynchronous training, if you do it right, is always consistently good. The problem is there’s no live interaction. So you can’t ask that instructor, “Well, what do you think about this? What do you think about that?”

So yeah, you made me laugh when you mentioned that, that the dynamics of your live class, you better be fast on your feet to be a live trainer. So I am not saying, if you’re going to teach virtually, you shouldn’t know how to do it. Because listen, I think you’ll agree, there is a vast difference between teaching a class live on-site versus live online, or God forbid, live online and live on-site, where you’re doing both at the same time. Or if you’re going to do blended learning, you’ve got to mix all three, you better know what you’re doing as a facilitator and a trainer to do that or you’ll fall flat on your feet.

You’ll hear all kinds of complaints that people who teach these live classes on-site that now incorporate virtual, and they ignore the virtual audience completely. So the virtual audience is not included in the training, they feel like they’re watching a recording. So you’ve got to know how to engage this audience. I’m actually really stunned, Sarah, that conferences still survive on-site. We mentioned a couple of times before we turned on this recording, why are those conferences live on-site? People are going there to network face-to-face. I guess that’s the big one, but not the content that you’re learning. That content could have been taught virtually.

SO: Yeah, I’ve had the position for a long time that the most important part of a conference is the hallway track, right? The conversations at lunch, in the hallway, and in the exhibit hall and everywhere else. There’s a couple that are doing online in addition to in-person, and typically the-

KS: ATD does that. Yeah, does a good job at that. Yeah.

SO: Yeah, LavaCon is doing that, they’re coming up. But yeah, they have an online track with a chat, a pretty lively chat, and then they also have the in-person version if you can get there in-person.

KS: Which is successful only if the facilitator addresses the online chat, if the facilitator addresses someone who’s virtual. Yeah.

SO: And fun fact, Phylise Banner has been running that for years and years and years and has done a fantastic job of exactly that, of making sure that the online people get into the conversation, even when there’s 200 people in the room and another couple hundred on the chat, and she’s making sure that they get their questions into the discussion. Okay, so that was cheerful, and that made me feel better, because the first half hour of this was super not encouraging. So I think I’m going to close us out there because I’m pretty sure we could go on forever, but let’s leave it there. Kevin, thank you for coming and for giving us the inside information on what’s happening in training land. And hopefully I’ll see you again somewhere in-person at a conference.

KS: Or virtual, with the camera is fine. So yeah, great working with you, Sarah. Thanks for having me.

SO: Great to see you. Bye. 

Conclusion with ambient background music

CC: Thank you for listening to Content Operations by Scriptorium. For more information, visit Scriptorium.com or check the show notes for relevant links.

"*" indicates required fields

The post From classrooms to clicks: the future of training content appeared first on Scriptorium.

What if you could escape copy-and-paste and build dynamic learning experiences at scale? In this podcast, host Sarah O’Keefe and guest Mike Buoy explore the benefits of structured learning content. They share how organizations can break down silos between techcomm and learning content, deliver content across channels, and support personalized learning experiences at scale.

The good thing about structured authoring is that you have a structure. If this is the concept that we need to talk about and discuss, here’s all the background information that goes with it. With that structure comes consistency, and with that consistency, you have more of your information and knowledge documented so that it can then be distributed and repackaged in different ways. If all you have is a PowerPoint, you can’t give somebody a PowerPoint in the middle of an oil change and say, “Here’s the bare minimum you need,” when I need to know, “Okay, what do I do if I’ve cross-threaded my oil drain bolt?” That’s probably not in the PowerPoint. That could be an instructor story that’s going to be told if you have a good instructor who’s been down that really rocky road, but again, a consistent structure is going to set you up so that you have robust base content.

— Mike Buoy

Related links:

LinkedIn:

Transcript:

Introduction with ambient background music

Christine Cuellar: From Scriptorium, this is Content Operations, a show that delivers industry-leading insights for global organizations.

Bill Swallow: In the end, you have a unified experience so that people aren’t relearning how to engage with your content in every context you produce it.

Sarah O’Keefe: Change is perceived as being risky; you have to convince me that making the change is less risky than not making the change.

Alan Pringle: And at some point, you are going to have tools, technology, and processes that no longer support your needs, so if you think about that ahead of time, you’re going to be much better off.

End of introduction

Sarah O’Keefe: Hi everyone, I’m Sarah O’Keefe. I’m here today with Mike Buoy. Hey, Mike.

Mike Buoy: Good morning, Sarah. How are you?

SO: I’m doing well, welcome. For those of you who don’t know, Mike Buoy is the Senior Solutions Consultant for AEM Guides at Adobe since the beginning of this year of 2025. And before that had a, we’ll say, long career in learning.

MB: Long is accurate, long is accurate. There may have been some gray hair grown along the way, in the about 20-plus years.

SO: There might have been. No video for us, no reason in particular. Mike, what else do we need to know about you before we get into today’s topic, which is the intersection of techcomm and learning?

MB: Oh gosh, so if I think just quickly about my career, my background’s in instructional design, consulting, instructor, all the things related to what you would consider a corporate L&D, moving into the software side of things into the learning content management space. And so what we call now component content management, we, when I say we, those are all the different organizations I’ve worked for throughout my career, have been focused in on how do you take content that is usually file-based and sitting in a SharePoint drive somewhere, and how do you bring it in, get it organized so it’s actually an asset as opposed to a bunch of files? And how do you take care of that? How do you maintain it? How do you get it out to the right people at the right time and the right combination, all the rights, all the right nows, that’s really the background of where I come from.

And that’s not just in learning content; at the end of the day, learning content is often the technical communication-type content with an experience wrapped around it. So it’s really a very fun retrospective when you look back on where both industries have been running in parallel and where they’re really starting to intersect now.

SO: Yeah, and I think that’s really the key here. When we start talking about learning content, structured authoring, techcomm, why is it that these things are running in parallel and sitting in different silos? What’s your take on that? Why haven’t they intersected more until maybe now we’re seeing some rumblings of maybe we should consider this, but until now it’s been straight up, we’re learning and your techcomm, or vice versa, and never the twain shall meet, so why?

MB: Yeah, and it’s interesting, when you look at most organizations, the two major silos that you’re seeing, one is going to be product. So whether it’s a software product, a hardware product, an insurance or financial product, whatever that product is, technical communication, what is it? How do you do it? What are all the standard operating procedures surrounding it? That all tends to fall under that product umbrella. And then you get to the other side of the other silo, and that’s the hey, we have customers, whether those customers are our customers or the internal customers, our own employees that we need to trade and bring up the speed on products and how to use them, or perhaps even partners that sit there. And so, typically, techcomm is living under the product umbrella, and L&D is either living under HR or customer success or customer service of some sort, depending on where they’re coming from.

Now in the learning space you, over the last probably decade or so, seeing where there’s a consolidation between internal and external L&D teams and having them get smarter about, what are we building, how are we building it, who are we delivering it to, and what are all those delivery channels? And then when I think about why are they running in parallel, well, they have different goals in mind, right? techcomm has to ship with the product and service and training ideally is doing that, but is often, there’s a little bit of a lag behind, “Okay, we ship the thing, how long is it before we start having all the educational frameworks around it to support the thing that was shipped?”

And so I think leadership-wise, very different philosophies, very different principles on that. techcomm, very much focused on the knowledge side of things. What is it? How do you do it? What are all the SOPs? And L&D leans more towards creating a learning experience around, “Okay, well here’s the knowledge, here’s the information, how do we create that arc going from I’m a complete novice to whatever the next level is?” Or even, I may be an expert and I need to learn how to apply this to get whatever new changes there are in my world and help me get knowledgeable and then skilled in that regard.

So I think those are kind the competing mindsets and philosophies as well as, I won’t say competing, but parallel business organization of why we don’t usually see those two. And if we think about from a workflow perspective, you have engineering or whoever’s building the product, handing over documentation of what they’re building to techcomm and techcomm is taking all of that and then building out their documentation, and then that documentation then gets handed to L&D for them to then say, “Well, how do we contextualize this and build all the best practices around it and recommendations and learning experiences?” So there is a little bit of a waterfall effect for how a product moves through the organization. I think those are the things that really contribute to it being siloed and running in parallel.

SO: Yeah. And I mean many, many organizations, the presence of engineering documentation or product design documentation is also a big question mark, but we’ll set that aside. And I think the key point here is that learning content, and you’ve said this twice already, learning content in general and delivery of learning content is about experience. What is the learning experience? How does the learner interact with this information and how do we bring them from, they don’t understand anything to they can capably do their job? The techcomm side of things is more of a point of need. You’re capable enough but you need some reference documentation or you need to know how to log into the system or various other things. But techcomm to your point, tends to be focused much less on experience and much more on efficiency. How do we get this out the door as fast as possible to ship it with the product? Because the product’s shipping and if you hold up the product because your documentation isn’t ready, very, very bad things will happen to you.

MB: Bad, bad, very bad.

SO: Not a good choice.

MB: It’s not a good look. It’s not a good look.

SO: Now, what’s interesting to me is, and this sort of ties into some of the conversations we have around pre-sales versus post-sales marketing versus techcomm kinds of things, as technical content has moved into a web experience, online environment, and all the rest of it, it has shifted more into pre-sales. People read technical documentation, they read that content to decide whether or not to buy, which means the experience matters more.

And conversely, the learning content has fractured into classroom learning and online instructor led and e-learning a bunch of things I’m not even going to get into, and so they have fractured into multi-channel. So they evolved from classroom into lots of different channels for learning where techcomm evolved from print into lots of different channels, but online and so the two are kind of converging where techcomm needs to be more interested in experience and learning content needs to be more interested in efficiency, which brings us then to, can we meet in the middle and what does it look like to apply some of the structured authoring principles to learning content? We’ve talked a lot about making techcomm better and improving the experience. So now let’s flip it around and talk about how do we bring learning content into structured authoring? Is that a sensible thing to do? I guess that’s the first question: is that a sensible thing to do?

MB: Yeah, and here’s the thing that I like to keep in mind when talking about structured authoring, the context for why in the world would we even consider it? And when I think of traditional L&D training courses, whether it’s butts in seats at an instructor-led training event, whether I’m actually in a physical classroom or I’m sitting virtually in a Zoom class for example, or it’s self-paced e-learning, so much great content is built and encapsulated in that experience and is not able to be extracted out.

My favorite example of talking about this is I’ve got a big truck sitting in my driveway, I need to change the oil on it, it’s time. If it’s the first time I’ve ever changed oil, absolutely, I want all the learning. I want the scaffolding. I want the best practices, how I’m going to set up my work environment, the types of tools. How I’m going to need to deal with all the fluids, what I need to purchase. I’m going to dive into all that. In the real world, university of YouTube, I’m going to go watch videos on this and there’s going to be some bad content, there’s going to be some gems, and I’m going to pay attention to the ones that are good.

Now as I go from a novice, I’m going to build that knowledge of how to do it, I’m going to apply that knowledge. I’m actually going to go do it, now I’m probably going to make a mess and make mistakes my first time through, but that’s also building experience. So I’m moving from novice to knowledgeable to building skills to as I do it more and more, I move into that realm of being experienced.

Now as you move further up that chain, you need less and less support to the point where I’m like, “Crap, which oil do I need to buy? What are the torque specs on my drain plug?” I really only need three or four data points to do the job now. So that’s where as I move from a novice to an expert, I need to be able to skim and find exactly what I need in the moment of need, the just enough information. And so I’ll take the oil changing experience and let’s take that to any product or service training your customers, the people who are consuming your content are going through the same thing.

So learning-wise, why structured? Once I get to the expert level of things, I am not going to log into the LMS and I’m not going to launch that e-learning course, and I’m not going to click next 5 to 10 to 20 times to get to the answer that has the specification tables of, here’s what I need and what I need to do in order to accomplish the task at hand. Everybody’s nodding their head. Every time I ask, “When was the last time you logged into the LMS to get an answer to a question?” The only time I’ve ever had somebody go, “Oh, me,” it was actually an LMS administrator.

So learning is great at creating that initial experience, but their content’s trapped. It is stuck inside that initial learning experience. So getting back to the question, why structured authoring? Well, if you move to a structured authoring where you’re taking your content and building it in chunks, yes, you can create that initial learning experience where you’ve assembled that very crafted, we’re taking you from novice, getting you the knowledge, giving you the opportunities to practice the skill in a safe environment and fail well and learn from that and get you to a place where you move from novice to skilled. And then over time, this is where a lot of the L&D in general, because their content’s trapped in that initial learning experience, they can’t easily extract that information out and provide the things people need to move from skilled to experienced and experienced to mastery.

So that’s where when I think about, “Well, what does techcomm do really well? Techcomm supports that, I’ve got enough skills to do the job and I need to reference the very specific information, or the SOP, I’m on step four, I forget what are the things I need to enter in to get through step four, I can hop over the documentation and find that. So techcomm has figured out the structured authoring part. You mentioned creating new varied experiences for getting to the technical communication. Multi-channel delivery, I want to hop on and hit my search or hit my AI chatbot and pull up the information and just get me just enough to get through the tasks that I’m doing.

Learning’s still often stuck, if we equate it to the tech communication side, they’re still stuck in the, “I’m hand building a Microsoft Word based 500 page user guide that to get anything out of that, it’s a lot of work to build it, it’s a lot of work to maintain it, and it’s not easy to extract that information out to use it for other things.”

So why structured authoring, feature proof your content, make it more flexible. You’ve invested so much time and energy creating great content, great experiences, why not make it so it’s modular so you can pull things out and create new and different ways of consuming that content and delivering it in different bite size bits and pieces along the way?

SO: And I guess we have to tackle the elephant in the room, which is PowerPoint. So much learning and training, in particular, especially classroom training, is identified with an instructor standing at the front, running through a bunch of slides. And we like to say that PowerPoint is the black hole of content, that’s where content goes to die, and once it goes in, you never get it back out. So what do we say to the people that come in and they’re like, “You will pry PowerPoint from my cold, dead hands.”

MB: Such a great question. I’ll jokingly refer to PowerPoint as “My precious.” Here’s the reality: PowerPoint is not the knowledge chunk. That knowledge is actually sitting in the head of the instructor, the PowerPoint is providing the framework for them to deliver and impart that knowledge and impart those best practices. It’s there to provide guardrails so that it’s done in a consistent fashion, and there’s a bare minimum amount of structure that… There’s a bullet point there, they’re going to talk about it. The degree to the quality of how they’re going to talk about it and present it is going to vary based on the person delivering the content. So if you’ve got a bunch of PowerPoint slides, you don’t necessarily have all of your training material well documented. Now, if you’ve got parallel instructor guides and student guides that talk about the details of what should be said behind those bullet points, you’re a lot closer to having that information.

So why structured authoring? Well, it’s kind of, again, the good thing about structured authoring is you have a structure. You have a, if this is the concept that we need to talk about and discuss, here’s all the background information that goes with it. So with that structure comes consistency, and with that consistency, that means that you have more of your information and knowledge documented so that it can then be distributed and repackaged in different ways. Because if all you have is a PowerPoint, you can’t give somebody a PowerPoint when they’re in the middle of an oil change and say, “Here’s the bare minimum you need.” When I need to know, “Okay, what do I do if I’ve cross-threaded my oil drain bolt?” That’s probably not in there. That may be an instructor story that’s going to be told if you have a good instructor who’s been down that really rocky road. But again, structure and being consistent about it is going to set you up so that you have robust base content. 

We’ve got Legos in the house, I got two boys. Gosh, I’ve stepped on so many Legos in my life, it’s ridiculous. But the Lego metaphor works because you have a more robust batch of Legos that you can create new creations from, rather than a limited set if you’re only doing PowerPoint.

SO: And because you’re nice, and I’m not, I’ll say this, we can produce PowerPoint out of structured content, that is a thing we can do. I’m not saying it’s going to be award-winning, every page is a special snowflake PowerPoint, but we can generate PowerPoint out of structured content. And if you’re using it as a little bit of an instructor support in the context of a classroom or live training, that’s fine.

A lot of the PowerPoint that we see that people say, “This is what I want, and if you don’t allow me to do this,” and there’s this rainbow unicorn traipsing across the side of the page kind of thing, and no, we can’t do one-off slides, we can’t do crazy every slide is different stuff, but the vast majority of the content that I see that is PowerPoint based and kind of all over the place is not actually effective. So it’s like, this is not good. We have the same issue with InDesign. We see these InDesign pages that are highly, highly laid out, and it’s like, “We need this.” Well, why? It’s terrible. I mean, it’s awful. What are you doing here? No, we can give you a framework.

MB: Now, you’re telling somebody that their baby’s ugly when you say that, that’s somebody’s baby.

SO: I would never tell somebody that their baby is ugly, but I have seen a lot of really bad PowerPoint. Babies are wonderful.

MB: Yes.

SO: It’s so bad. So why does the PowerPoint exist, and how do we work around that? And also, are you delivering in multiple languages? Because if so, we need a way to localize this efficiently, and we’re right back to the structured content piece.

MB: And as soon as you’re talking about with PowerPoint, it is the poster child of pixel-perfect placement. As soon as I take a perfectly placed pixel product and have to translate it from English to let’s just say French, just the growth of the text alone, now I’ve got what was a perfectly placed pixel layout, my beautiful slide is now a jumbled mess. So just because you can doesn’t mean you should. And the thing is, PowerPoint and Microsoft Excel are the duct tape that runs business. Everybody has it. Everybody uses it. That’s the reality.

Now, the thing is, does everything have to be structured? I don’t believe it has to be. They are absolutely the one-off snowflake instances where, you know what? PowerPoint is the exact right tool for the job. Maybe it’s the one-off presentation that really is not going to see any reuse, it’s expendable, it’s disposable. We need to get the information communicated quickly. I’m going to fire it PowerPoint. I’m going to use it as my, I’m going to do air quotes, “My throwaway content” because it’s something that is short, sweet, and needs to be communicated, absolutely. I’m not, and I don’t think you are either, saying that PowerPoint has to go away, it’s the when is it appropriate and when is it not?

SO: I mean, I am the queen of the one-off can never be reused content being developed in, now I refuse to use PowerPoint, but in slideware for a short presentation, so the next one of you that’s listening to this and walks up to me at a conference and says, “Oh, is your presentation structured content?” No, it is not. Thank you for asking. Why isn’t it structured? Because I don’t reuse it at scale. Because in fact, every presentation at every conference is a special snowflake and has been lovingly handcrafted by me to deliver the message that I need, the context that I need, potentially the language, but to your point, even if I’m not localizing the presentation itself, the cultural context matters. So if my audience is largely English-speaking or primarily English, or… I mean, we’re going to Atlanta for LavaCon, that is going to be mostly a US-based audience, and maybe we get some Canadians, eh. And other than that… But mostly US and a US context. Will I be using excessive amounts of images from the Georgia Aquarium? Yes, I will.

Now, when I go to conferences elsewhere, so let’s take tcworld in Germany in November, that audience is, we’re delivering content in English, and the audience ranges from perfect English speakers to sort of barely hanging on. And so my practice at a conference like that is to include more text on my slides because if I include some additional text, it gives the people that are not quite as comfortable in English, a little bit more scaffolding to hang onto as they’re trying to follow my ridiculous analogies and insane references to cultural things. I also do try to pay attention to the kinds of words that I’m using and the kinds of idioms that I’m using so that they’re just not completely lost in space or things are not coming from left field or whatever. So the context matters, and no, my presentations are not structured.

But pulling this back, let’s talk about the potential. So when we look at learning content and you think about saying, okay, we’re going to structure our learning content or we’re going to structure some of our learning content, what does that mean in terms of what gets enabled? What are the possibilities? What are the things that you can do with structured learning content that you cannot do in unstructured, by which I mean PowerPoint, but unstructured, locked-in content? If we break this stuff into components and we deliver on structured learning content, what are the ideas there? What are the possibilities?

MB: Well, as you’re explaining the PowerPoint point of view, a word that came up a few times was scale. I’m not having to do it at scale. Effectively, it is a one-off. Yes, I’m going to personalize it for the audience, and the degree of personalization and customization that you’re doing per conference, per audience, per default language that they’re speaking, you’re able to scale that to the degree that you need to. There’s no need for you to put your content in data and localize it and do all the things that you need to do. So it’s really that word at scale, that, I think, is the key word.

It’s when you hit that tipping point where the desktop tools that you’re using today, and we can say this with tech communications as well, I was using Word and Excel and copy and pasting and keeping things in sync, it works until you get to a tipping point where the scale no longer is sustainable. That same exact problem exists in training. So when you’re looking at things like, I have my training content that when I deliver it in California, I have to put my Prop 65 note in everything because Lord forbid, as soon as I step across the state line into California, everything that’s around me is going to give me cancer. Prop 65 is the default thing that you see plastered everywhere.

So do I need to customize my content for delivering in California? Perhaps. Maybe different states have different regional laws or policies that apply to only that audience. That’s where that mass customization and mass personalization are really hard to scale because now you don’t have just one course, you have potentially 50 courses, if I’m just talking about the US, 50 states, 50 courses, and I have to have 50 different variations, which means that not if something changes, but when something changes, now I have to open up and change 50 different courses, and it’s not, did I miss anything? It’s, “What did I miss?” That’s the thing that you wake up in the morning in a cold sweat of, “Oh my God, what did I miss?”

So why structured for learning? Largely when you get to that tipping point where you’re copy/pasting, and I call it the copy/paste published treadmill, when you are on that hamster wheel of copy/paste/publish, copy/paste/publish, and that is the majority of what you’re doing, and you’re looking at a pie chart of how much time is spent maintaining your courses or taking a base course and creating all the variations, that precious PowerPoint that is the handcrafted bespoke one-off, you can’t do that anymore. That’s the equivalent of, you look at a Lamborghini, how many do they make a year? They can afford to make a very small number per year because they’re really expensive to make. When you look at a Ford Mustang, which probably gives you 80% of the performance at a fraction of the cost and exponentially scales well beyond, it’s because they’ve taken that structured approach of, every frame’s the same, every hood’s the same, very few handcrafted things, and the things that are going to be handcrafted, that’s when I go order the special edition Shelby Cobra that has some handcrafted components put onto the basic structure. That’s that same metaphor applied.

So why structured content? Because I want to have modular content that can be reassembled really quickly, that I may have chunks that are reused so that when I need to slip in my Prop 65 disclaimers, I can do that at scale and have 50 variations of a course, but when it comes time to update it, I’m literally updating one or two things and it’s automatically updating all 50 courses and of course all the efficiencies of publishing things out in a structured format.

So that pixel-perfect placement, I’m going to give that up to stay sane so I can get home and have dinner with my family, because the amount of time that I’ve spent in my life doing pixel-perfect placement and updating things, God, I wish I could hit the way back machine and reclaim all that time in my life. How many… Guilty as charged. Show of hands of anybody who’s listening, how many times have you sat there and fiddled with the slide or a text box in InDesign then design to get it just right, that two days later, something changes and you’re back there spending 10, 15 minutes doing it to fiddle it in just right. So, as I affectionately like to say, I’m a recovered FrameMaker, InDesign, PowerPoint, and Word user because I want to author it in a structured format so that I am giving up the responsibility of layout and look and feel.

SO: I like to tell people, “I’m not lazy, I’m efficient.” The fact that I don’t want to do it is just a bonus; I can get out of doing all this work.

MB: That’s right, that’s right.

SO: Because we are not allowed to leave any podcast without covering this topic, what does it look like to have AI in this context?

MB: There are two sides of the AI coin from a content perspective, I think, and it’s the, “How can AI help me do my job better to create content?” Some things that when we’re looking at duplication of content, things that AI can do really well that, working smart, not hard, help me find things that already exist in my repository of structured content that look like this, that are really close. The human in the loop, so helping me deduplicate or help me not create new unnecessary variations of content. I think that’s one area of AI-based assistance for content creation that people may not be necessarily thinking about. Because right now, the easy one is like, “Hey, ChatGPT, help me write an introduction or an overview for the following,” it spits that out. That’s great, but that overview and that content may have already been written by somebody else, and so what ends up happening is you start generating content drift where it’s almost exactly the same but just slightly different. And in reality, yes, I could have used the one that was already there.

So I think that’s one of the areas where AI from a content authoring perspective is one that I’m really excited about. Because at the end of the day, and this leads us into the second part of AI, AI is only as good as what you feed it, and if you feed it junk food, you’re going to get junk results. So it’s that whole thing of do you eat healthy food or are you going to eat Cheetos? If you’re pointing your AI at a SharePoint repository and saying, “Hey, read all of this,” and all the content shifts and variations and content drift and out-of-date and perhaps out-of-context content that exists inside of that repository, your results are not going to be as accurate as they need to be. So, how do you ensure that AI is providing good results? Well, you feed good content.

And so within an organization, I think the two silos that we started our conversation with, technical communications and L&D, tend to have some of the most highly vetted, highly accurate, up-to-date content in an organization. And so this is my encouragement to everybody who’s in this space, you are the owners of what is good, highly nutritious food that you can feed your AI. So taking it back to the structured content perspective, if I’m authoring in the structured content, publishing it out in a format that is AI ready, all of your tags, all of your enrichments, all of your, here’s the California version of the content versus the Georgia or Florida’s version of the content, all of that context and enrichment and tagging that’s gone on, you’re now feeding AI all of that context so that AI can provide the proper answer. So that’s my short, it’s sweet for the AI side. We could talk for probably days on all sorts of other variations, but right now, that’s where I’m seeing the biggest impact that it’s going to have on techcomm and L&D.

SO: I think that’s a great place to wrap it up. And I want to say thank you for being here and for a great conversation around all of these issues, and we will reconvene at a future conference somewhere to cause some more trouble and talk some more about all of these things. So Mike, thank you.

MB: You are welcome. And yeah, I think the next conference we’re going to see each other is going to be LavaCon, so I’ll be talking in and around the convergence of L&D and techcomm and what life can look like with that. So certainly a deeper dive and continuation of what we started here, and super excited to sit on your session as well.

SO: Yep, super. I will see you there. I’m pretty sure I’m doing one on the same topic, but it will be more complaining and less positive, so that seems to be my role. Okay, with that, thank you everybody, and we’ll see you on the next one. 

Conclusion with ambient background music

CC: Thank you for listening to Content Operations by Scriptorium. For more information, visit Scriptorium.com or check the show notes for relevant links.

"*" indicates required fields

The post From PowerPoint to possibilities: Scaling with structured learning content appeared first on Scriptorium.