Consistency without bureaucracy: article templates
· 1 min read
Knowledge articles need a shared shape, light enough that people still write, firm enough that readers can find the answer.
In brief
Some knowledge bases have no structure at all. Every article is a personal essay, and finding the answer means reading until you give up. Others go the opposite way, with twenty mandatory fields, three dropdowns and a form so heavy that the people who know the answer never write it down. That is the trap. No shape, and nobody can find anything. Too much shape, and nobody writes anything. This article argues that a useful article template is not a form for its own sake. It is a shared shape: enough headings that the next person knows where to look, and light enough that someone will fill them in today. Most articles need only a few parts: what it is for, who it is for, the steps to take, what usually goes wrong, and when to escalate. Required fields should be few and honest, and any field that never changes a decision should be dropped. One shape for how-to, one for known errors and one for FAQs is usually enough. The same organisation does not need twenty templates. It needs a small set people can remember. Consistency is for the reader. Bureaucracy is for the process. When the template serves the form instead of the person looking for an answer, rewrite it.
Some knowledge bases have no structure at all. Every article is a personal essay. Finding the answer means reading until you give up.
Others go the opposite way. Twenty mandatory fields. Three dropdowns. A form so heavy that the people who know the answer never write it down.
That is the trap. No shape, and nobody can find anything. Too much shape, and nobody writes anything.
A shared shape, not a form for its own sake
A useful article template is not a form for its own sake. It is a shared shape: enough headings that the next person knows where to look, light enough that someone will fill them in today.
Most articles need only a few parts:
- What is this for?
- Who is it for?
- What do you do, step by step?
- What usually goes wrong?
- When should you escalate?
Keep required fields few and honest. Ask only for what a reader or a reviewer will use. If a field never changes a decision, drop it.
A small set people can remember
One shape for how-to. One for known errors. One for FAQs. Different problems, different shapes. The same organisation does not need twenty templates. It needs a small set people can remember.
Consistency is for the reader. Bureaucracy is for the process. When the template serves the form instead of the person looking for an answer, rewrite the template.
Next step
Is your article shape helping people write, or stopping them? Join the conversation on ESM's Exchange: https://exchange.esm.institute
Tags: knowledge management, service management, self-service, ESM
Join the Exchange free
Join free to unlock the complete knowledge library.
Founder membership is free for life
More from Esm
How should the service desk handle a Microsoft 365 outage it cannot fix?
4 min read
Deploying AI is the easy part: who runs it once it goes live?
5 min read
How do I compare help desk tool pricing before rolling it out across several departments?
4 min read
Turning 'not helpful' into a fix
1 min read
When the author leaves, who owns the article?
2 min read
Test after every change, or find out from users
1 min read
Related articles
How should the service desk handle a Microsoft 365 outage it cannot fix?
Treat a supplier cloud outage as your own major incident: log it once, tell people early on a channel that still works, update on a rhythm and review your dependency afterwards.
Deploying AI is the easy part: who runs it once it goes live?
Only a third of large enterprises have met the business case for their main AI programme. New research points to a gap in who runs AI after launch, and what leaders can do.
How do I compare help desk tool pricing before rolling it out across several departments?
Compare help desk tools on a full year's cost for your real agents, approvers and requesters in every department, not on the headline monthly price.
Turning 'not helpful' into a fix
'Not helpful' is free, honest feedback, and most of it goes nowhere. Turn that click into a fix.
When the author leaves, who owns the article?
Articles keep being read after their authors move on. Make sure the care for them does not leave too.
Test after every change, or find out from users
Knowledge changes fail quietly. A short, repeatable test after every change finds the problem before your users do.