3F. Organizational Level

Unlike other sections, Section 3F of the Body of Knowledge is not organized by theme, but source. The weird information hierarchy is reflected on this webpage so hopefully cross-referencing is easier.

Table of Contents

  1. Organizational Implementation Strategy
  2. Maturity Models
  3. Source: Body of Knowledge

Organizational Implementation Strategy

Source: WAI Recommendations

Memorizing

I am going to simply memorize all of the key parts here and develop mnemonics to do so. Notes on the actual content to follow after the memorizing stage.

Phase 1: Initiate

Mnemonic: SOLACE BC. Imagine many people fleeing the prairies and taking solace in Vancouver, BC. That requires some initiation!

Phase 2: Planning

Mnemonic: SPAM BREW. Imagine some witch planning to make her brew out of spam, and then deciding it's maybe not a good idea.

Phase 3: Implement

SIPPED

Phase 4: Sustain

Mnemonic: SMUTS

WAI Recommendations Mnemonic Deck on Quizlet

I've got to the point where I can cough it up pretty reliably. Let's move onto the actual content!

The Initiation Phase

The WAI separates the planning phase from the initiation phase, recognizing the awareness and broader buy-in/support is the number 1 reason for accessibility efforts to fail. Broadly, you should be generating two things in your initiating phase: Hype and Basic Education. If you're an organization newly pursuing an accessibility stage, this means a lot of outreach.

Within the basic education portion of the initiation phase, come to have at least a basic idea of what accessibility entails and what your objective might be. Ideally, it should be a SMART objective with a clear timeline. At this stage, use your preliminary learning efforts to develop a business case tailored to the scope of your work. If you are an individual, find your own motivation and 'case for accessibility' that can help sustain focus throughout the next three stages.

Now, to generate hype. Invite everyone to learn the basics and to feel connected to the business case. Across your organization, tailor the argument to what workers themselves can get from the endeavor (new skills, etc), and create opportunities to share knowledge and generate excitement. Some of these will be formal, but informal chats will be helpful too. Literally everyone at some level has some opportunity to contribute to accessibility, but some people will have a harder time seeing this.

With your motivation established, the ball is rolling. It's time to start actually planning to implement.

The Planning Phase

The planning phase centers around establishing the who, the what, the why, and the how.

What exactly are the activities the project pursues? Review the current state of the websites the project is concerned with and craft an accessibility policy with a defined scope and timeframe, all the while accounting for contingencies.

How will you execute this project? Determine the budget and the resources you are able to dedicate to this endeavor, considering also what kind of evaluations, training and tools may have to be secured. Decide on what sort of monitoring framework you will use to track progress once the implementation stage is formally underway; ensure some kind of standard reporting structure can regularly assess where progress is being made. Additionally, take a bird's eye view of this new policy within the greater context of your organization. What activities and norms will reinforce the project? Where might there be some conflict? How much training will you and your staff need?

This takes us to the 'who' of it all. Who is doing what? Identify the accessibility responsibilities of each role within the organization and assign responsibilities as needed. Identify those key actors that will require additional training.

In ensuring these logistical aspects are worked out, don't lose sight of building your momentum. Engage your stakeholders and continue the hype train, bring them on board if you haven't done so already. This includes internal and external stakeholders: supplies, advocates, the broader public. Engaging the public now can increase internal morale and sense of responsibility. Ensure there are clear lines of communication to management, and ensure they too have bought in.

The Implementation Phase

Finally, we can concentrate all of our engineered hype and prep into action. Start by building capacity through training targeted at different roles. Maintain momentum by directing energy towards low-hanging fruit at first before tackling increasingly difficult issues. Start evaluating your approach early on, and use those evaluations to revisit your accessibility policy to ensure that your objectives are still properly reflected in your plan.

Ensure everyone knows what they are expected to do and are equipped for success.

Include testing with Disabled users if feasible. Record progress and share early wins. Ensure the knowledge gained in training embeds itself into the fabric of the organization by facilitating regular knowledge sharing and progress reports. Accessibility is an everyone project, so making progress visible is very important.

When the bulk of the main project is complete, you can transition into the final phase.

The Sustain Phase

Continue to monitor the situation to ensure new habits stick. Engage stakeholders and solicit user feedback: do people internally and externally still feel on board? Do internal stakeholders feel any impact from the accessibility endeavor leaking into other aspects of daily activities?

Additionally, you will need to adapt to new changes in technology and regulations to ensure your efforts don't stagnate in a frequently changing world. It is best to anticipate this and have a process already in place for what to do when changes occur, and when new user feedback is received.

Source: EU Agency for Inclusive Ed Recommendations

The Body of Knowledge shows that we should not be so concerned with the guidelines themselves, than with the recommendations that the agency suggests for the implementation of these guidelines.

Memorizing

There are seven core recommendations for implementation, and I've drawn a small representation of the seven of them below.

Diagram showing seven phases in implementation arranged in a clockwise circle with arrows pointing to each subsequent phase. Small doodles accompany each phase's name, all is elaborated below.

My memorization strategy is to associate the information with the small doodles that I've drawn here. The first stage, Statement, is associated with a silhouetted figure speaking. Strategy is associated with a document and a light bulb to signify a guiding light. Responsibility is associated with a silhouette with a crown ordering four small silhouettes to take off into four different directions. Incremental implementation has two doodles: first the tortoise symbolizing the parable of the tortoise and the hare, second is a cardiogram that shows consistent heart beats. Production process is associated with two silhouetted figures at either end of a long table, hunched over their laptops with steam rising from their heads. Training is associated with a silhouette lifting a massive weight above their head. Finally, Outsourcing sees a dark silhouetted figure hand over a bag of cash to a light silhouetted figure.

Seven Recommendations

  1. Statement. "Include an accessibility statement in the organisation's long term strategy". For the authors of the implementation handbook, a public-facing accessibility statement will serve internally to drive and empower actors to get this work done. They acknowledge that the task of accessibility is one that is very easy to ignore and to write-off. Making a public statement has a positive impression on clients, but it also creates client expectations for you to now follow through with.
  2. Strategy. "Develop a strategy or plan for implementing accessible information." In order for a plan to even have a chance of working, it must meet the following criteria: It has buy-in from the top, someone responsible for carrying it out, and enough people and other resources for them to do so. The plan should be contextualized within a grander long-term vision and should be developed with consultation from stakeholders. In drafting this strategy, citing the UCRPD's article 9 alongside other standards (regional and international), building in quality assurance measures, and being very explicit about what training is required will all help to create a more robust plan. Consider implementing a pilot program; the agency has seen the effectiveness of pilot programs demonstrated repeatedly.
  3. Responsibility. "Make someone responsible for implementing the information accessibility plan and provide them with the required resources." This person or team must be empowered formally and equipped with the resources to accomplish the goal. They need not be in a leadership position, but their authority on the matter of accessibility ought to be established as they will serve as the focal point for the whole endeavor.
  4. Implement Incrementally. "Plan an incremental implementation – be ambitious and modest at the same time." Have an ambitious long term vision, but don't jump into the deep end right away. Starting with simple tasks such as text, images, and audio are a way to build momentum. Identify the difficulty of various accessibility tasks and always start with the easy ones. This stage can also be accomplished through a pilot project. Note that some tasks might be too complex for existing staff to complete, and you may have to seek professional help. Ensure regular reviews on progress are completed and small wins serve to move the project forward.
  5. Production Process. "Embed accessibility into your information production and dissemination processes." Make accessibility guidelines present at the point of production. Analyzing the workflow, identify where electronic templates and guidelines can be incorporated. This might not be the first thing you do (keep in mind incremental change), and it might start with a small group of stakeholders in a working group. Additionally, incorporate a mechanism that can provide a 'final accessibility check' prior to production. With all the training and prompting in the world, there will be times where it slips through the cracks.
  6. Training. "Provide information, education and training on accessibility for all staff." This is a daunting task. Consider segmenting the training; alongside basic training that everyone receives, other roles get targeted training based on accessibility-relevant responsibilities. All staff, new and old, need to stay-up-to-date. Another consideration is to ensure third party workers are also equipped with accessibility competencies.
  7. Outsourcing. "When outsourcing information production, make sure accessibility requirements are addressed and undergo a quality check." Develop a procurement policy that prioritizes accessibility, and a way to verify that accessible projects are actually delivered.

Organizational Implementation

The seven recommendations are slightly asynchronous and cannot be neatly organized in a timeline. In which case, the Agency suggests a three-phase model: Policy, Plan, Practice. This model might be especially practical to organizations who want a tiered timeline.

I'm going to break the category 'Practice' into two; one for training, and the other for production process. This is not how it is represented in the Body of Knowledge, but that's how it's reflected in the original source material. We're gonna go with more acronyms.

Policy

LPP: Long-term, Public statement, Procurement

Like the Liberian People's Party!

Plan

DARPAR: Detailed, Ambitious, Realistic, and Person with Authority and Resources

A funny sitcom catch-phrase.

Practice(1)

PGSM: Pilot, General training, Specialized training, Materials

Like BDSM, but with a different plosive.

Practice(2)

UUTT: Update, Use the material, Third-party compliance, Test before release.

Maybe a sound made when your toe is stubbed?

Maturity Models

Source: Body of Knowledge

The recommended study task here is to "Understand the utility of accessibility maturity models." The BoK defines an accessibility maturity model as a tool organizations can use to measure their progress and improvements in integrating accessibility into policy and practice. The Body of Knowledge then goes on to note that while we are encouraged to take a look at the two maturity models presented within the BoK itself, many other accessibility maturity models exist that may be more appropriate to the task at hand.

Source: Business Disability Forum, Accessibility Maturity Model

The Business Disability Forum developed the Accessible Technology Charter. When an organization signs onto the charter, they make 10 commitments, each of which has been designed to lead sequentially into creating a robust culture of innovative accessibility within the organization that completes all ten. Think of it like a 10-step program, except all the steps can be completed somewhat concurrently.

It likely isn't necessary to straight-up memorize the ten commitments, but their structure is quite fascinating.

  1. Commitment
  2. Disability Awareness
  3. Consultation
  4. Built-in Accessibility
  5. Workplace adjustments
  6. Accessibility knowhow
  7. Benchmarking
  8. Development lifecycle
  9. Procurement and supply partners
  10. Continuous improvement

In itself, this is another theory of organizational implementation. I am fascinated by the framing of 'ten commitments.' With the WAI implementation and the Accessible Inclusive Ed Recommendations, they proposed 3-4 phases of implementation. The 10 commitments offer the flexibility of starting from anywhere and going to anywhere, though they do lead naturally to phases like the whole 'Initiate. Plan. Implementation. Sustain,' there is more flexibility.

The Maturity Model further emphasizes the non-linearity of the model, because each time you assess across all ten of these benchmarks and are given actionable steps for each commitment that meet you where you are at.

This is a score out of 50. Each commitment or 'charter point' is assessed on a scale of 1-5.

  1. Informal (1 point) indicates no documentation or process in place
  2. Defined (2 points) indicates documented but no actioned or completed just once
  3. Repeatable (3 points) indicates a process is established and actioned consistently
  4. Managed (4 points) indicates the process is monitored and improved and engrained in the culture
  5. Best practice (5 points) shows an innovative level where constant improvement is occurring and being shared

The AMM is kinda designed to be hella hard to get 50 points on. You would have to be very very proactive to get that kind of score.

The AMM is designed to be done over and over again. You input your previous score, and then self-assess. Doing this, one can immediately identify whether progression or regression has occurred. You are meant to document the justification for assigning yourself that grade (you're also encouraged to not 'play up' your score) and then set a goal for where you want to be next time. Half points are permitted in the assessment.

Source: Carnegie Mellon University

Hah! This PDF is literally 479 pages long. And it tells you that in order to understand it, you first need to read the actual maturity model itself, which is another PDF that is 82 pages long.

The Capability Maturity Model 1.1 is genuinely quite legible though, so I'll briefly summarize the first two chapters of it which cover the fundamental concepts underpinning the endeavor, and the five graduated levels that the CMM defines. The document does seem to be rather dated; it's from 1993. At the time of writing, it basically argues that no software community has yet reached the pinnacle Level 5, and very few have reached Level 4. Things have changed since then, so if you're genuinely considering different maturity models to use as a framework, it might be worth looking into more recent models. Also, this model isn't specialized for accessibility (though the BoK adapts it), it was made for a software development context.

Fundamentals

According to Carnegie Mellon, software development organizations can be categorized as 'mature' or 'immature.' Where an immature organization is driven largely by the acts of disconnected software practitioners and managed reactionarily as issues pop up, mature organizations have mandated and consistent processes that allow accurate budgets and time estimates, enhanced QA and overall quality, and get more consistent and effective over time. The authors suggest that 'unfilled promises' of the software industry have led to heaps of organizations staying immature. They question, what are the ingredients necessary for an immature organization to become mature?

The answer to this is complicated, but it comes down to taking a very long-term view to things at hand, commiting to improvement, being very deliberate with strategy, and to having enough capacity to not just be fighting fires all the time.

Three metrics will be helpful for us along this journey: "software process capability" which is Shrodinger's many anticipated potential outputs of a given software process, "software process performance" which is the actual output that ends up happening, and "software process maturity" which is the extent to which the process is defined, managed, measured, controlled, and effective.

In other words: "software process capability" is the dream, "software process performance" is the reality, and "software process maturity" is how much control you have over making the dream and reality one and the same.

The Five Levels

At the time of the writing of this document, levels four and five were practically hypothetical. The role of the maturity levels also functions slightly differently than in the ones set by the Business Disability Forum. The maturity levels are descriptive, rather than prescriptive, and they are characterized by patterns of behaviour such as 'to what extent is the process visible to management,' and 'to what extent does the project meet budget estimates' and other things of that nature.

Here are the five maturity levels:

  1. The Initial Level. Ad-hoc planning, unpredictable. Performance depends on the capabilities of individuals and really only succeeds when exceptional talent is present. Unstable.
  2. The Repeatable Level. Stable. Processes are in place, estimates are realistic. Earlier successes can be repeated.
  3. The Defined Level. Processes are standardized across the organization, training is implemented. There is organizational understanding about what good processes are and how to develop them.
  4. The Managed Level. All of the above, but add more quality control and processes regarding quality control.
  5. The Optimizing Level. All of the above but add intense safeguarding against any defects in a way that spurs innovation.

Compare my description with the one the IAAP gives in its adaptation of the Capability Maturity Model.

  1. Initial. Capability is ad hoc and unpredictable. The organization typically does not provide a stable environment for developing and maintaining accessible products, service, and information.
  2. Repeatable. Policies are in place for managing projects and procedures for ICT accessibility. Processes can be characterized as:, Practiced, Documented, Enforced, Trained, Measured, Able to improve
  3. Defined. Standard processes for developing and maintaining ICT accessibility across the organization are documented, and these processes are integrated into a coherent whole. Processes are used, and changed as appropriate, to help the staff perform more effectively.
  4. Managed. The organization sets quantitative quality goals for products and processes. Processes include well-defined and consistent measurements.
  5. Optimizing. The entire organization is focused on continuous process improvement. The organization identifies weaknesses and strengthens the process proactively, with the goal of preventing the occurrence of defects. Innovations that exploit best practices are identified and transferred throughout the organization.

To be frank, the rest of this very large PDF seems highly unrelated to the scope of the exam, so I'm going to skip it and move on.

Source: Body of Knowledge

Internally-Oriented Accessibility Activities

Building up Accessibility Champions

Appoint them as role models throughout the organization and help them guide a larger organization-wide culture-changing initiative. These are the ones that should guide the adoption of a maturity model.

Hiring for Accessibility

There are two ideas here: hiring for people who have accessibility skills, and hiring Disabled people. Why not hire Disabled people with accessibility skills?

When hiring Disabled folks, be proactive about ensuring your postings are accessible, your facilities are accessible, that your posting is viewable in disability-focused job boards. Also do internal education on the benefits of bringing Disabled people in and ensure non-Disabled employees know how to not be ableist assholes.

Useful skills that you might ask of an accessibility professional include (depending on the position) knowledge of CSS, HTML, JS, frameworks, automated evaluation tools, manual testing practices, screen readers, WCAG, PDF/UA, and document remediation practices.

Evaluating for Accessibility

Evaluate formatively, summatively, and continuously, and include Disabled users in your testing, and don't feel afraid to reach out for outside help if you need it. Use manual and automated tools.

Catch flaws early by creating accessible templates and prioritizing accessibility in the design phase.

Externally-Oriented Accessibility Activities

Public Communications

Ensure all your communications are accessible. Make a style guide or standard to ensure the product is accessible and the content isn't ableist. Caption your videos. Also build internal understanding of why it is important to do this.

Managing Legal Risk

Make sure you know what laws apply to you and develop an ICT accessibility plan to meet those responsibilities. Small orgs might want to reach out to a lawyer.

Procurement

Set accessibility requirements and verify that the vendor's accessibility expertise and capacity and strategy can support their claims.