The Workplace Blog

This is an interesting article talking about the impact that web 2.0 is having on our enterprise technology architectures. Web 2.0 means a lot of different things, but one of the key things it means is really helping the technology to work harder for the end user. The older models that expect contributors to learn difficult complex content management and intranet tools are gone. The key is for us to enable the ability for the end user’s to contribute, tag, create content and collaborate. Gone are the days of a rigid taxonomy where we expect everyone to think about things in the form of one agreed upon taxonomy.

As technology architects, this means we need to figure out a way to get out of the user’s way and let them structure the content, instead of telling the user that their content has to fit within how we built the relational database model. Look at the internals of a tool like Mediawiki. It’s one big database table. Of course that strikes fear in the hearts of every DBA, but that’s the flexibility our end users need. This quote from the article sums up the premise that a lot of web 2.0 technologies are based on, “the outcome doesn’t have to be chaos. It can be more like an ant colony.” .

An article of mine titled “A Web 2.0 Tour of the Enterprise” was just published on Boxes & Arrows. A couple of folks have also posted some interesting comments in response to the article. Boxes & Arrows is an online publication for user experience professionals.

There is a visceral emergence subtly growing above the rapid pace of technological advancements. Listen for any length of time and you might feel like you’re in front of a virtual smorgasbord enticing your appetites. New oppportunities abound for the enterprise, and the counsel to implement is quite ubiquitous (also here). The clamor and promise for “new and improved” methods of communication, collaboration and innovation is real, but nevertheless contingent.

This “visceral emergence” started with a hushed reticence to embrace something just because it’s new; it continued as skeptics inform us of the hype and the failures of yester-year. Soon afterwards, we’ve probably accumulated enough mistakes to learn from the past ourselves (see this article for what web 2.0 is not).

One of the lessons from this “visceral emergence” is that overlying strategic considerations need to inform our decisions for the unknown future. Competitive advantage from technology is contingent upon the context of the enterprise.

Being “wiki-capable” is hardly going to become a differentiation factor for your firm’s strategic advantage. However, to capture that strategic makeup of your organization and to frame it anew with the technological capabilities available may amplify strategic advantages for tomorrow. Moreover, technologies have the potential to help explore new areas within the enterprise and uncover discoveries that may deepen or expand the existing strategic advantage.

Managerial judgment and decision analysis will, of course, be required to predict future consequences of the increase in scale/scope due to technological advances within the enterprise. The Intranet Maturity wiki might provide the framework needed to assess the status of your existing enterprise intranet.

Gartner’s Hype Cycle for emerging technologies is aptly summarized in this article from Out-Law.com and this article from CNET.

As a consulting firm, we are always advising clients. In doing so, we leverage best practices, experiences from other accounts and industry research that can help us give our clients more informed advice. But sometimes there is nothing healthier or simpler to learn by practicing what we preach.

With that in mind, we would like to announce that the previously launched intranet best practices report is being made available as a “working document” in a wiki format. Just go to www.intranetmaturity.com to view the report, comment on a page, add a trend or even edit a page. Depending upon the responses and bearing in mind the risks of vandalism, we may need to limit the editing function at some point down the road.

We believe in wikis. Our own intranet is a wiki to which everyone contributes content and comments on it. We also believe that the more people who collaborate on a document or an idea, the stronger it becomes. That’s why we have launched the best practice report as a wiki. You can still download the polished version if you prefer. The downloadable version is better for sharing with co-workers.

Feedback on the Corporate Intranet Best Practices Report continues to pour in. Most recently, the report was featured on the Intranet Journal, Usable Markets, Podcasting News, Mass High Tech and in Newsday. The maturity framework appears to be resonating with intranet managers and consultants alike. Please send us your thoughts on how we can improve it further.

If you are interested in learning more about the themes discussed in the best practices report, consider attending the KM World & Intranets conference this fall. This year’s conference will be focusing on web 2.0 trends.

Feedback is starting to pour in about our recently launched Corporate Intranet Best Practices Report. The feedback has ranged from the extremely enthusiastic to the disinterested. Some practioners and intranet managers have emphasized that while they are excited about the consumer innovations, they see them being accepted into their organizations at a slightly slower pace than they’d like. The maturity framework has resonated quite strongly with US intranet managers.

A good example is Toby Ward over at Intranet Blog. He likes the maturity framework and the pieces covering social media. However, he is less enthusiastic about my perspective on ROI and the way I approach content. In the report I focus on content in the context of user needs and the user experience only. Please share with us your thoughts. They will help strengthen the thinking and will evolve the framework.

You can download the Corporate Intranets Best Practices report for free from the Enterprise Solutions page. If you like podcasts, we have also published podcast excerpts such as one that discusses trends to steal from the consumer world (MP3).

In the midst of rapid development in technological solutions within the enterprise, it is easy to forget strategic misalignment within managerial control systems. Technology does not solve these problems, nor does it create them. However, it does bring them to the surface often.

Collaborative technology is gaining momentum, and yet, the appropriateness of fit must still be central to its adoption within the enterprise. Here are two issues to consider: First, we must never confuse “collaboration” with “collaborative technology”. Just like the old joke about an 8 year-old in the doctor’s office after breaking his arm. The doctor comforted the boy by saying, “Don’t worry it’ll be just like new after your surgery”. The 8 year-old asked, “Will I be able to play the piano after the surgery?” The doctor replied, “Of course”. Delighted, the child responded, “Great! I never could before, but I’ve always wanted to play the piano!” Collaboration is a learned process that is nurtured over time within an environment that is conducive to it. We can’t assume collaboration will just happen by adopting the latest technology.

Second, we must consider the existing strategic dissonances within managerial control systems. In a recent article (fee based; abstract and preview are free) entitled “How Right Should the Customer be?” the authors uncovered distinctive cultures within sales force control systems of 50 companies from 38 countries. The study revealed that sales force management systems can be oriented along a spectrum towards behavioral control (BC) systems and outcome control (OC) systems. BC systems are oriented towards processes by which results are attained, whereas OC systems are oriented towards the delivery of results. Dissonances come when components of these systems, 8 of them altogether, are sending mixed signals within the organization. One common pattern of inconsistency is dubbed “The Black Hole”. This happens when a salesforce is mostly driven by results, or OC based for 7 out of 8 components; however, its evaluation criteria are not transparent, making it process driven, or BC oriented for this single component. As a result, even though in theory, employee performance was results driven, actual evaluation criteria were not consistent.

The solutions offered in this article pertaining to information systems are of particular relevance here. The differences between OC and BC systems affect how emerging technology should be adopted within the organization. An organization that is dependent upon BC systems must equip large numbers of power managers to design specific strategies particular to salespeople, territories and competition. Furthermore, salespeople within this system have a joint role in marketing and strategy. Therefore, an intranet wiki would fit in this collaborative context. However, in an OC system, salespeople must be given more autonomy, since there are multiple ways to close deals. A wiki used for the aforementioned purpose would create inconsistency. Rather, a wiki can be used in OC systems to empower salespeople by providing a great deal of information for their customers. To use the same technology in mismatched contexts is to create inconsistencies that will create more problems than solve.

The 2006 Corporate Best Practices Report is significant not because a fixed set of outcomes are guaranteed by applying a simplistic formula. Nor is this report absent of any quantitative guidelines. Rather, this guide provides a balanced qualitative-quantitative perspective on the use of intranets in the context of enterprise collaborations. Such an approach, being less of an absolute prognostication and more oriented towards dynamic future direction/expectation is consistent with findings of research over the past 10 years.

In a comprehensive review of research (Fee-based paper; abstract and article information available here) over the past decade on corporate strategic alliances and models of collaboration, authors Todeva and Knoke (2005) set out to 1) explain the formation, implementation and consequences of B2B collaborations, 2) review recent research in the context of globalization, 3) probe into the purposes and motives behind strategic alliances, 4) analyze processes and problems associated with implementation and, 5) provide consequences and future direction.

The overwhelming consensus of this large body of research (more than 90 papers were reviewed) reveals that dynamic interactions, attitudes and needs are not simply reduced merely to doing the right things, adopting the right strategy, and crunching the numbers. The “right answer” at the wrong time is still a wrong answer.

Moreover, “in a survey with high-tech firms, the most significant determinant of knowledge transferability was tacitness”, a knowledge that is deeply rooted and personal, not easily communicated or shared, and involvement based.

I guess a good Scots definition paraphrase of tacit knowledge would be “knowledge that’s ‘more felt than telt’”. The authors, time and time again, remind us that reviewing the research leaves us with “more questions than answers”. That’s not a bad thing, if we know what questions to ask. That’s probably where the 2006 Best Practices Report fits in. Perhaps this report can serve as a springboard for discoveries within the ranks.

John Seely Brown has been known for years to recognize the significance of transforming the enterprise workplace into a place where meaning is shared within “communities of practice”. Within this context, innovation is borne out of emergent communities of learning, improvisation and knowledge formation. At a managerial level, simultaneous reference points provide a sort of continuous triangulation navigation process in the sea of unknowns. Perhaps the 2006 Best Practices Report can help gather the bearings needed.

Knowledge Management is most certainly not just an information problem. It is a social issue covering people and processes as much as it covers information. In fact, it more a social issue than anything else. In a thought provoking paper, Thomas Erickson explains that as a social prolem it involves people, relationships and social factors like trust, obligation, commitment and accountability.

I couldn’t agree more. And it is no surprise that enterprise collaboration companies like Social Text and Traction that emphasize the social issues are succeeding the most these days.The most important question is whether organizations are ready to address the social issues. Most aren’t and instead expect the technology or the governance to solve their knowledge management questions. They also leave it to the technology departmernts to solve without getting the business units directly involved. No wonder the KM initiatives fail so often.

It’s official now that podcasting is gaining popularity in America. Nielsen//NetRatings announced today that 6.6 percent of the U.S adult online population or 9.2 million web users, have recently downloaded an audio podcast. 4.0% or 5.6 million web users have downloaded a video podcast. These figures show that podcasting is on par with those who publish blogs and online daters.

It’s obvious that podcasting is getting more attention. Just visit any major news outlet’s website to get a sense of that. The question is whether podcasting will get an enthusiastic reception within the enterprise or not. For many, it is just another fad - a nifty way to deliver corporate announcements and basic training information. Some employees also aren’t too excited about having to listen to their CEO speak while they drive into work each morning. Are these employees in the minority or the majority? You tell us.