We moved to another location.
please check out: http://www.kbex.eu
Mittwoch, 12. November 2008
Freitag, 24. Oktober 2008
Applied collaboration - Share files
It's ridiculous, but true: It's still a problem in the enterprise to share files. Emails get blocked because of attachment-sizes and extensions, network drives are not available for everybody and the administrators are unknown. And even if you managed to put the file on a place where everybody can access it, you still have to tell people where it is. And there is no control – once it's open, you can hardly exclude anybody, you don't see who already downloaded it, and if you have a new version of your file, the trouble starts all over again.
Applied collaboration should allow you to store files, manage access rights, get statistics, control versions – and, most important: tell people where and how they can find it.
If there is then some realtime editing mode and more stuff that allows “true” collaboration on one file – that's a nice add on. even though I think that this perception of collaboration does not focus on it's biggest benefits. Concentrate on information, opportunities and status. Collaboration doesn't mean that others will do your work.
Applied collaboration should allow you to store files, manage access rights, get statistics, control versions – and, most important: tell people where and how they can find it.
If there is then some realtime editing mode and more stuff that allows “true” collaboration on one file – that's a nice add on. even though I think that this perception of collaboration does not focus on it's biggest benefits. Concentrate on information, opportunities and status. Collaboration doesn't mean that others will do your work.
Applied collaboration - Get in touch
You don't go there and ask people what they are doing, not in the enterprise environment.
But if they write it down – you may be highly interested...
You can do some research without being intrusive, you can talk to people without having to hide your findings, you don't have to feel like a stalker.
And you can present yourself as an expert, you can tell everything you want and you don't have to talk louder than anybody else. You don't even have to care whom you are talking to – of course you should think about your target group, but if your audience today does not understand a thing – maybe your audience tomorrow is perfect.
So an applied collaboration network could be the place to give you information about new people, colleagues you've met for the first time. And it is the place for you to set the tone: How do you want people to perceive you, how do you want to position yourself. - It becomes an important tool to shape and steer your career – more transparent and flexible than MBOs, Performance Contracts or Review Meetings, more tailored to your needs, and more under your control.
It's not only the content that matters, but also the mere activity: do you do something, do you want to achieve something? As an opposite, you can also use networks to hide: If you're not in there, nobody will find you. Whatever that tells about your company...
But if they write it down – you may be highly interested...
You can do some research without being intrusive, you can talk to people without having to hide your findings, you don't have to feel like a stalker.
And you can present yourself as an expert, you can tell everything you want and you don't have to talk louder than anybody else. You don't even have to care whom you are talking to – of course you should think about your target group, but if your audience today does not understand a thing – maybe your audience tomorrow is perfect.
So an applied collaboration network could be the place to give you information about new people, colleagues you've met for the first time. And it is the place for you to set the tone: How do you want people to perceive you, how do you want to position yourself. - It becomes an important tool to shape and steer your career – more transparent and flexible than MBOs, Performance Contracts or Review Meetings, more tailored to your needs, and more under your control.
It's not only the content that matters, but also the mere activity: do you do something, do you want to achieve something? As an opposite, you can also use networks to hide: If you're not in there, nobody will find you. Whatever that tells about your company...
Applied collaboration - The collaborative value of doing nothing
Applied collaboration is extremely valuable, if you're doing nothing. Well, maybe not literally nothing, but not what somebody expects you to do.
As an example: I'm waiting for Patrick to send out meeting minutes, coordinate a workshop and give me more information on the innovation project he's working on. I haven't heard anything for the whole week. So how should I know? Call him? Wait for an email? Or just wait?
Or should I send him an email, asking what he's actually doing, when he will send the meeting minutes and if there is anything new with the innovation stuff? - You know how likely emails are to sound rude, and how easily rumors are spread: Is the innovation project dead? Am I telling Patrick that he does not do his work?
A collaboration network with minimal status-notes could tell me that Patrick was very busy with the innovation project, did not have any time for the meeting minutes, and is dealing with our partner agency to schedule our workshop.
As an example: I'm waiting for Patrick to send out meeting minutes, coordinate a workshop and give me more information on the innovation project he's working on. I haven't heard anything for the whole week. So how should I know? Call him? Wait for an email? Or just wait?
Or should I send him an email, asking what he's actually doing, when he will send the meeting minutes and if there is anything new with the innovation stuff? - You know how likely emails are to sound rude, and how easily rumors are spread: Is the innovation project dead? Am I telling Patrick that he does not do his work?
A collaboration network with minimal status-notes could tell me that Patrick was very busy with the innovation project, did not have any time for the meeting minutes, and is dealing with our partner agency to schedule our workshop.
Applied Collaboration
To agree on the fact, that collaboration is a key feature of new media, is nothing extraordinary.
But what is the use in it?Why should we do it? And how does it related to our specific business?
I use the term applied collaboration as a summary for collaboration, online-socialising and networking in the enterprise.
You can not not collaborate – it' just communication, seen from another perspective. You can only choose between good and bad, productive and not so productive ways to collaborate.
The other choice you have: Your collaboration or anyti-collaboration can be transparent or hidden – but actually that shouldn't bne your choice. You should not have the possibility to hide the fact that you are putting obstacles in someone's way by doing nothing or by spreading rumours – and there should be no need to emphasize all the good things you do.
Social networks, versioning tools, easy ways to join and consult or ask colleagues deliver a solution for you. You don't have to send 20 unrequested status mails per day (“I'm sorry I didn't work on your request yet, but I'm really busy with...”), to request 20 undelivered status mails, or to ask ten people if they know anything about LDAP or FX Swaps in non-EU-CEE-countries.
The network does that for you. A good collaboration network delivers a consistent overview about who people are, what they are doing generally, what they are doing right now, what there experiences are, and where they will be.
Applied collaboration has to deal with
* cooperation
* communication
* information
* planning
* sharing
* hiding
That's pretty obvious? Can you give me some examples, some that really touch real enterprise life? I'll think of some...
But what is the use in it?Why should we do it? And how does it related to our specific business?
I use the term applied collaboration as a summary for collaboration, online-socialising and networking in the enterprise.
You can not not collaborate – it' just communication, seen from another perspective. You can only choose between good and bad, productive and not so productive ways to collaborate.
The other choice you have: Your collaboration or anyti-collaboration can be transparent or hidden – but actually that shouldn't bne your choice. You should not have the possibility to hide the fact that you are putting obstacles in someone's way by doing nothing or by spreading rumours – and there should be no need to emphasize all the good things you do.
Social networks, versioning tools, easy ways to join and consult or ask colleagues deliver a solution for you. You don't have to send 20 unrequested status mails per day (“I'm sorry I didn't work on your request yet, but I'm really busy with...”), to request 20 undelivered status mails, or to ask ten people if they know anything about LDAP or FX Swaps in non-EU-CEE-countries.
The network does that for you. A good collaboration network delivers a consistent overview about who people are, what they are doing generally, what they are doing right now, what there experiences are, and where they will be.
Applied collaboration has to deal with
* cooperation
* communication
* information
* planning
* sharing
* hiding
That's pretty obvious? Can you give me some examples, some that really touch real enterprise life? I'll think of some...
Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2008
User Experience. One of my favorites
User experience is a thing with a whole lot of facets.
Designer Niko Nyman presented some great ideas in his Web2Expo-speech
* You can add good user experience to software and use that to sell it to your customers.
* You can add good user experience in the experience between the user and the screen.
* You can add good user experience in the processes and interactions you design.
The latter is probably the most intensive, but also the must productive way of using good experience, good vibrations. It takes a lot of creativity and a lot of power to shape these interactions, connect them to the user's offline needs, add that kind of value that allows you to address and solve the most important problems, and to become an important part of the user's life.
Sounds great.
But I think there is even more: In my eyes, the biggest benefit would come from a chain the keeps all three steps together and allows you to have full control.
* Build software (or have developers) that follow(s) the rules of user experience
* Work with designers, who follow, develop and use the rules and elements of user experience.
* Have these two steps prepared in a way so that
* you can reuse them
* you can draw a line from the software to the output and explain how it helps the experience
* you can draw a line back from the interface to the software and explain how it helps to handle that issue easily
* you can prove that your software and your designs follow consistent ideas – and those ideas are based on common problems in the real world.
I like this idea, because
* I like new thoughts and productive ideas
* ideas should be connected to solutions; at least as a guess – visions are not enough
* that shapes a product, that can be offered, discussed and sold
An important prerequisite is, that you can measure user experience. This is where we need new and reliable criteria. What do people consider as a good experience?
* It may be very simple things – even if they are not good for anything
* it may be something very important – even if it's very complicated to achieve
* or it may be something in the middle.
That doesn't answer a lot, but I understand it as a hint: We should probably look for pairs to describe what it's about. Very simple and very important would be great, very simple and a little important would be as good as very important and not so simple or quite simple and quite important.
That requires some more thoughts.
Designer Niko Nyman presented some great ideas in his Web2Expo-speech
* You can add good user experience to software and use that to sell it to your customers.
* You can add good user experience in the experience between the user and the screen.
* You can add good user experience in the processes and interactions you design.
The latter is probably the most intensive, but also the must productive way of using good experience, good vibrations. It takes a lot of creativity and a lot of power to shape these interactions, connect them to the user's offline needs, add that kind of value that allows you to address and solve the most important problems, and to become an important part of the user's life.
Sounds great.
But I think there is even more: In my eyes, the biggest benefit would come from a chain the keeps all three steps together and allows you to have full control.
* Build software (or have developers) that follow(s) the rules of user experience
* Work with designers, who follow, develop and use the rules and elements of user experience.
* Have these two steps prepared in a way so that
* you can reuse them
* you can draw a line from the software to the output and explain how it helps the experience
* you can draw a line back from the interface to the software and explain how it helps to handle that issue easily
* you can prove that your software and your designs follow consistent ideas – and those ideas are based on common problems in the real world.
I like this idea, because
* I like new thoughts and productive ideas
* ideas should be connected to solutions; at least as a guess – visions are not enough
* that shapes a product, that can be offered, discussed and sold
An important prerequisite is, that you can measure user experience. This is where we need new and reliable criteria. What do people consider as a good experience?
* It may be very simple things – even if they are not good for anything
* it may be something very important – even if it's very complicated to achieve
* or it may be something in the middle.
That doesn't answer a lot, but I understand it as a hint: We should probably look for pairs to describe what it's about. Very simple and very important would be great, very simple and a little important would be as good as very important and not so simple or quite simple and quite important.
That requires some more thoughts.
Interaction Audit – test your page and create an objective diagnosis
Josh Williams from Hot Studio had a great speech at Web2Expo on reshaping ebay.
The two outstanding feature were:
he gave a definition of “feel” in “look & feel”
he introduced a well shaped method called Interaction Audit
The feel is an interaction groove - “It can be click-click-click oder clickp-hover-type or click-scroll-type – it does not matter, as long as you don't start to turn a telephone in an airplane cockpit.”
The target of controlling feel is not only to attract the user, but also to make him feel comfortable, so that he can reserve bigger parts of his mental bandwidth for the content of a site instead of it's technology.
In the interaction audit (which aims to check and harmonize the feel), they started with
* defining some example workflows: what do users do, what tasks do they perform on the way.
* that led to a task-activities matrix to find out similar activities in different tasks.
* Detailed descriptions of both were collected in a database
* The number and the number of variations in the interactions are now a criteria o quality (links, tabs, forms, mouseovers etc. - 16 different types of reactions/behaviours after you click on a link, 5 different types of forms ertc.)
* in addition to interaction inconsistencies, also task inconsistencies were analysed
* object inconsistencies as well.
This was a base that could be used to define targets, go through the enterprise universe and clean up.
What makes this so great?
It's all about structuring – shaping and describing a problem is maybe not solving it, but it's a good start to avoid it in the future.
There is no common taxonomy or reusable usecase for that – it's up to us to create the best practices and to find innovative ways and solutions.
As long as you don't forget your goals, there are never to many details – all those small pieces (if kept in a clear structure) will help you understand new problems that will keep arising every day.
The two outstanding feature were:
he gave a definition of “feel” in “look & feel”
he introduced a well shaped method called Interaction Audit
The feel is an interaction groove - “It can be click-click-click oder clickp-hover-type or click-scroll-type – it does not matter, as long as you don't start to turn a telephone in an airplane cockpit.”
The target of controlling feel is not only to attract the user, but also to make him feel comfortable, so that he can reserve bigger parts of his mental bandwidth for the content of a site instead of it's technology.
In the interaction audit (which aims to check and harmonize the feel), they started with
* defining some example workflows: what do users do, what tasks do they perform on the way.
* that led to a task-activities matrix to find out similar activities in different tasks.
* Detailed descriptions of both were collected in a database
* The number and the number of variations in the interactions are now a criteria o quality (links, tabs, forms, mouseovers etc. - 16 different types of reactions/behaviours after you click on a link, 5 different types of forms ertc.)
* in addition to interaction inconsistencies, also task inconsistencies were analysed
* object inconsistencies as well.
This was a base that could be used to define targets, go through the enterprise universe and clean up.
What makes this so great?
It's all about structuring – shaping and describing a problem is maybe not solving it, but it's a good start to avoid it in the future.
There is no common taxonomy or reusable usecase for that – it's up to us to create the best practices and to find innovative ways and solutions.
As long as you don't forget your goals, there are never to many details – all those small pieces (if kept in a clear structure) will help you understand new problems that will keep arising every day.
Multilingual Sites
Andreas Ravn from namics.com just gave an interesting speech at Web2Expo in Berlin.
Some points that are remarkable to me: abbreviations, tag clouds, words without context are specific issues in multilingual environments. It's an additional challenge to actually identify the language.
Good or bad translation affects the author's credibility – that can be your own, if you are centrally talking to an international audience. Or it can be your partner's (and your author is your partner – or maybe even your customer) credibility; that means high responsibility.
It's not only about credibility, it's also about confidence, like and dislike, authority and reputation and respect – especially if you are an international enterprise talking to it's multilingual employees.
I should try to draw a model capturing and illustrating these complexities.
Several approaches to deal with the multilingual challenge are:
* laissez faire: contributors choose their language according to whom they want to talk. That's only feasible if you're working in a very decentralized environment and can afford to loos control.
* common ground: pick one language (eg english, or russian or spanish) and stick to it – the common thing then will be, that it's strange for everybody. It makes a big difference in this concept, if you have native speakers in the community or not; that also makes a big difference between the US and Europe.
One point I want to add, especially from the intranet point of view: Intranets are nowadays always user generated content.
That needs to be respected
* in creating the CMS and other means to create, deliver and manage content
* in talking to the authors and other contributors
* in considering language issues
That adds up to a multidimensional model of influences and dependencies:
who created the content (“professional” author, part-time contributor; headquarter representative, local employee; manager, expert...)
whom does the content address (local – international clientel; mandatory or optional information)
references: other contents (are they translated?), applications; what is the desired output (eg. prepare customer letters – use the correct wording in the local language)
communication clouds: who is talking how about this topic? where do you need a common language (application users and helpdesk, retail sales and customers, sales and controlling etc.) - sometimes translation can be an obstacle in understanding... (what does “preferences” mean in ukrainian? or romanian?’
The main question is actually: What is it we should translate?
Then you can answer the question how to translate, how to handle this process.
Some points that are remarkable to me: abbreviations, tag clouds, words without context are specific issues in multilingual environments. It's an additional challenge to actually identify the language.
Good or bad translation affects the author's credibility – that can be your own, if you are centrally talking to an international audience. Or it can be your partner's (and your author is your partner – or maybe even your customer) credibility; that means high responsibility.
It's not only about credibility, it's also about confidence, like and dislike, authority and reputation and respect – especially if you are an international enterprise talking to it's multilingual employees.
I should try to draw a model capturing and illustrating these complexities.
Several approaches to deal with the multilingual challenge are:
* laissez faire: contributors choose their language according to whom they want to talk. That's only feasible if you're working in a very decentralized environment and can afford to loos control.
* common ground: pick one language (eg english, or russian or spanish) and stick to it – the common thing then will be, that it's strange for everybody. It makes a big difference in this concept, if you have native speakers in the community or not; that also makes a big difference between the US and Europe.
One point I want to add, especially from the intranet point of view: Intranets are nowadays always user generated content.
That needs to be respected
* in creating the CMS and other means to create, deliver and manage content
* in talking to the authors and other contributors
* in considering language issues
That adds up to a multidimensional model of influences and dependencies:
who created the content (“professional” author, part-time contributor; headquarter representative, local employee; manager, expert...)
whom does the content address (local – international clientel; mandatory or optional information)
references: other contents (are they translated?), applications; what is the desired output (eg. prepare customer letters – use the correct wording in the local language)
communication clouds: who is talking how about this topic? where do you need a common language (application users and helpdesk, retail sales and customers, sales and controlling etc.) - sometimes translation can be an obstacle in understanding... (what does “preferences” mean in ukrainian? or romanian?’
The main question is actually: What is it we should translate?
Then you can answer the question how to translate, how to handle this process.
Donnerstag, 16. Oktober 2008
Shaping a poor man's portal
Developing internal media for the banking industry is no fun at the moment, not at all. Medium term investements, even if their benefits are obvious, are cancelled if there is no plainly positive business case for the first year.
That's a common problem for now; so should we get used to it or should we try to wait for better times? One big problem, I guess, is that most of us did probably already wait for a few months or even a year: things have been slowing down before, thorough planning and 100% budget compliant planning were some of the biggest slowdown factors up to now.
So now I'm about to plan a redesign of a ten year old intranet that should not produce any costs, should not require too many emergency workarounds, should be manageable for average-skilled editors and should attempt to satisfy those need, that we identified as the drivers for a 1 Mio € project.
Sounded disgusting in the beginning. Now I think it sounds interesting. There is no other choice anyway.
That's a common problem for now; so should we get used to it or should we try to wait for better times? One big problem, I guess, is that most of us did probably already wait for a few months or even a year: things have been slowing down before, thorough planning and 100% budget compliant planning were some of the biggest slowdown factors up to now.
So now I'm about to plan a redesign of a ten year old intranet that should not produce any costs, should not require too many emergency workarounds, should be manageable for average-skilled editors and should attempt to satisfy those need, that we identified as the drivers for a 1 Mio € project.
Sounded disgusting in the beginning. Now I think it sounds interesting. There is no other choice anyway.
Early adopters – that's not us
Some ten to fifteen years ago when tech- and ebusiness-journalism evolved also in Austria we were frantically writing about new eras, great technologies and killer applications.
Well, the beginning was more moderated; the main topics were curiosity, content and communication.
As business pressure started to rise and advertising customers wanted to sell something (I still believe that they did not know what they wanted to sell, but they tried anyway), we also had to sell something in our stories.
In 1997 Bertelsmann started a digital tv project – we hyped interactive tv, ecommerce merged with soap operas and a revolution on the living room sofas. Nothing happened; just some boring technical tests. In 1999, the 3G-umts-licenses were auctioned in Europe. Telco companies paid tremendous money, we wrote stories on location based services, mobile tv, mobile commerce, mobile dating services and video conferencing. Nothing at all happened. In 2000, Telekom Austria and ORF closed a deal that did not mean anything – just some vague cooperation. And againg, nothing at all happened.
We were doing some more stories, were heavy users of some pilot applications (I especially enjoyed the mobile public toilet finder for London and Paris) and then got bored and went to something new.
Yesterday my wife who does not care at all about technology, told me that she will buy a new n-Generation 3G mobile phone, because she wants to use the gps navigation tool, use the phone as a mobile video camera and because she wants to use the mobile shopping guide features: “It doesnt matter in which city I am, it can always tell me the address of the next drugstore and show me a way with some satellite-pictures.”
I had not spent a thought on these services for years. I'm a heavy user of mobile email, sometimes I'm quickly browsing the mobile web for exchange rates, travel schedules or footballl results, but I don't spend any money in the mobile world.
I've just been making up my story. And it seems to be up to others to live it. - No problem; Im always finding new stories. We just should not forget that what seems like looking back may be a great outlook in the future: Ok, we invented the stuff, we've been there, done that. But others live it. And they tell us, if it works, if what we've made up makes sense.
And it's been a while since she has been asking for the ip-based tv-service of Telekom Austria, which finally had come out in 2006 (without much ORF-participation). Fortunately, it still does not work outside of big cities.
Well, the beginning was more moderated; the main topics were curiosity, content and communication.
As business pressure started to rise and advertising customers wanted to sell something (I still believe that they did not know what they wanted to sell, but they tried anyway), we also had to sell something in our stories.
In 1997 Bertelsmann started a digital tv project – we hyped interactive tv, ecommerce merged with soap operas and a revolution on the living room sofas. Nothing happened; just some boring technical tests. In 1999, the 3G-umts-licenses were auctioned in Europe. Telco companies paid tremendous money, we wrote stories on location based services, mobile tv, mobile commerce, mobile dating services and video conferencing. Nothing at all happened. In 2000, Telekom Austria and ORF closed a deal that did not mean anything – just some vague cooperation. And againg, nothing at all happened.
We were doing some more stories, were heavy users of some pilot applications (I especially enjoyed the mobile public toilet finder for London and Paris) and then got bored and went to something new.
Yesterday my wife who does not care at all about technology, told me that she will buy a new n-Generation 3G mobile phone, because she wants to use the gps navigation tool, use the phone as a mobile video camera and because she wants to use the mobile shopping guide features: “It doesnt matter in which city I am, it can always tell me the address of the next drugstore and show me a way with some satellite-pictures.”
I had not spent a thought on these services for years. I'm a heavy user of mobile email, sometimes I'm quickly browsing the mobile web for exchange rates, travel schedules or footballl results, but I don't spend any money in the mobile world.
I've just been making up my story. And it seems to be up to others to live it. - No problem; Im always finding new stories. We just should not forget that what seems like looking back may be a great outlook in the future: Ok, we invented the stuff, we've been there, done that. But others live it. And they tell us, if it works, if what we've made up makes sense.
And it's been a while since she has been asking for the ip-based tv-service of Telekom Austria, which finally had come out in 2006 (without much ORF-participation). Fortunately, it still does not work outside of big cities.
Dienstag, 9. September 2008
Centralized vs. Decentralized Intranets
The challenge I have to face currently, is to convince senior management (board level) that their own ideas are right. They are in fact: They want to harmonize their current intranets and replace these homegrown 10 year old solutions through a new state of the art platform.
Sounds simple: replace ten times operating and development costs through one, harmonize ten scattered editorial processes into one, gain efficiency, control, power, quality and security.
Maybe too simple: Nobody dares to really decide this issue. We are spending weeks and months in discussions, considerations, alternatives, business cases and evaluations.
There are tons of measurable advantages for intranets, ROI calculation is not an issue. But business cases for online media are never a matter of figures only – they are also a matter of belief. I never saw a business case that could not be torn into pieces using quite the same facts, but different assumptions.
How to measure efficiency in terms of fast and straight ahead publication, how to make sure that all relevant facts are considered, how to exclude known excuses?
That are just the common problems in creating business cases, but I feel that they are extremely annoying and especially their solution is becoming actually counter-productive if it deals with so obvious issues such as centralized vs. decentralized intranets?
Or can somebody please tell me something else?
Sounds simple: replace ten times operating and development costs through one, harmonize ten scattered editorial processes into one, gain efficiency, control, power, quality and security.
Maybe too simple: Nobody dares to really decide this issue. We are spending weeks and months in discussions, considerations, alternatives, business cases and evaluations.
There are tons of measurable advantages for intranets, ROI calculation is not an issue. But business cases for online media are never a matter of figures only – they are also a matter of belief. I never saw a business case that could not be torn into pieces using quite the same facts, but different assumptions.
How to measure efficiency in terms of fast and straight ahead publication, how to make sure that all relevant facts are considered, how to exclude known excuses?
That are just the common problems in creating business cases, but I feel that they are extremely annoying and especially their solution is becoming actually counter-productive if it deals with so obvious issues such as centralized vs. decentralized intranets?
Or can somebody please tell me something else?
Donnerstag, 4. September 2008
How to evaluate content managementsystems for the intranet
What are the most important topics in an intranet architecture, what are the most important features for Content Managementsystems to be used in an Intranet?
I just sent out a Request for Proposal to a longlist of vendors and I am now about to prioritize all the defined requirements. What I came up with as a proposal for further discussion is
- basic technology first (if its supposed to be java it shouldnt be .net)
- compatibility, scalability, integration features (content, applications and users as well as import and export)
- support (slas, guarantees, personal skills and qualities, regional distance/availability)
- basic business requirements (multitenant, multilingual, if required)
- workflows, roles and permissions
- roadmap, strategy, partnering models with vendors
- licensing models, licensing costs
- other commercial issues
- additional business requirements
It may be a little strange that the commercial criteria are so low in the ranking. In my opinion, the licensing costs really hardly matter. Vendors will offer you discounts that they almost pay you for buying their system, they will always be cheaper than their competitor. Id they are not and there is really a difference – then you should be alarmed.
The real costs will come up with additional tools and integration efforts – thats why integration features are my number 2, and support is # 3. Support and the personal relationship determin, how fast your developers will work – this will depend on how good documentation and support are, but also on how much they like the system and its consultants.
Business requirements and workflows are # 4 and 5 because they are important, but you can still fix things that are not ok – as long as # 2 and 3 are granted.
The roadmap is nice to know – you should make sure that you and your partner are going in the same direction.
You will have to pay for it, yes. But once youve paid, its over. Thats whz licensing costs are only # 6. And if # 3, 4, 5 and 6 are ok, you will be happy to pay.
So dont worry too much about prices, dont look at the big players only, listen to your developers and do care about personal relationships on all levels. If you get along with developers, project managers and CEOs, the project will be smooth and great.
What are intranets actually good for? ( they are your identity)
What is an intranet actually good for? - Well besides the fact that it is an invaluable tool, often the only or the most reliable source of information and a very cheap and efficient media, what – this is a very fashionable question, what problems does it solve for the enterprise?
- It is cheap and fast
- it provides many possibilities for control (if you really want to act out on that):who may see what when, who has read what when, when will what informationbe spread etc.
- its your voice – and if its done smart, it is the company voice – nobody else can talk to that wide range of employees.
The whole thing influences the image, the idea your employees have of your company – its not only the content, its rather the processes, the roles- and permission-management, the authoring policies that shape your employees perception.
so its not only a business tool (actually most intranets are not – they are just heading there), but it is the best communication media to deliver your vision and mission, your internal brand, the real company identity you have in your mind
I dont think these topics are important to determine whether you should have an intranet or not (does anybody seriously want to ask that question?). But it may help to keep them in mind, if youre considering how to do your intranet, how to address certain issues.
You cant tell people that your company is open minded and visionary, if your intranet is centrally run, publishes strictly business information only and spreads the look and feel and the usability on an early 1990s prototype.
You cant asko people to relate the fancy ads you are running to their everyday work life, if their daily work environment is so not fancy at all.
And you cant expect people to participate in anythoing, if you dont build your intranet for openness, communication, interactivity. This has to be done very dilitgently – you really need to know what you are doing and you need to invest a lot of thought in the processes in order to create a good experience for your people.
Get some experts, listen to their recommendations and let them go ahead. Dont try to follow the Ive read there something approach – your intranet is too valuable for that. It is your identity.
Freitag, 29. August 2008
Prediction Markets on the Intranet
I had a long discussion on prediction markets today. I'm convinced that internal markets are a great tool for intranets: Test products, test ideas brought up through innovation management, give employees a sense of participation, gambling and of a chance to get in the spotlight ( - "I was right").
Mandatory prerequisites are:
The preprocess - how to find the right questions to treat on the markets - is even trickier to me than the market itself (especially regarding innovation management, bringing up, evaluating and trading ideas). I'm still looking for great examples in that area.
Mandatory prerequisites are:
- a decent usermanagement that does not add any hurdles
- an integrative intranet-environment
- a media landscape that offers more participation opportunies (wikis to start, discuss and sharpen ideas, polls to get through the first steps of idea-casting, posting and commenting-opportunities)
- an open and supportive company culture
- some sense for competition
- a moderator/admin who can get things going
The preprocess - how to find the right questions to treat on the markets - is even trickier to me than the market itself (especially regarding innovation management, bringing up, evaluating and trading ideas). I'm still looking for great examples in that area.
Donnerstag, 28. August 2008
Scopes, Layers, Points of View - in my next life, I want to be a consultant
It's so easy to recommend strategies, suggest plans, coordinate and organise. But only as long until the consequences for everybody become obvious.
I spent more than a day - starting yesterday evening - in discussions about topics I discussed at least five times. with three different groups of people. That makes 15 times. Everything was clear, everybody agreed - and then it started over again. Within minutes - it just took one email - a well defines and nicely setup project was turned into some indefinable mist lacking strategy, management and any plan.
It took me five pages of emails, almost an hour of talking and a sleepless night to
clarify the scope of the project and the scope of the discussions
develop a clear layered model to illustrate what my project touched and what it would not touch
stay cool, calm, nice, friendly - but very sharp and distinct
get people talking and thinking and clarifying their own ideas and coming to the decision that they probably meant something else or were adressing only a small scope - and not the project in total
I feel I should get some prize for it or be a famous, well booked and well paid expert in my business, who could just add another overwhelming success to his track record.
But since I'm still here to live up with the consequences, it will probably just start over again next week.
I spent more than a day - starting yesterday evening - in discussions about topics I discussed at least five times. with three different groups of people. That makes 15 times. Everything was clear, everybody agreed - and then it started over again. Within minutes - it just took one email - a well defines and nicely setup project was turned into some indefinable mist lacking strategy, management and any plan.
It took me five pages of emails, almost an hour of talking and a sleepless night to
clarify the scope of the project and the scope of the discussions
develop a clear layered model to illustrate what my project touched and what it would not touch
stay cool, calm, nice, friendly - but very sharp and distinct
get people talking and thinking and clarifying their own ideas and coming to the decision that they probably meant something else or were adressing only a small scope - and not the project in total
I feel I should get some prize for it or be a famous, well booked and well paid expert in my business, who could just add another overwhelming success to his track record.
But since I'm still here to live up with the consequences, it will probably just start over again next week.
Identify Project Drivers
Online projects are still very often process-, technology- and it-driven. No wonder: everything is new and exciting, still, new technologies emerging at least every half year. Compared to this dynamic environment, the business perspective is boring: it' still abou selling, publishing, informing - the targets remain the same they have always been for a brick and mortart company. Opposed to both these perspective, i like the approach you tend to incorporate when you deal a lot with design and usability-issues: don't care about processes and business targets either, but just focus on the user experience:
Sacrifying the user experience to the beauty of an architecture diagram or the simplicity of a process is a bad habit. Maybe it will make your system run smoothly and save some work for the 5 or 10 people who are maintaining it. But did you ever compare that to then pain of several dozens of business users or the frustration of several thousand end users?I like the user experience driven approach to projects, but be warned: it will make you look stupid in the beginning when you are starting your discussion with IT.
- Tell the user a story, give him a reason to be on your pages.
- Imagine (or better research) what the users want to do in order to live this story.
- Make sure the story fits to your business targets.
- Design processes that satisfy your and your users' needs.
- Design a system that supports these processes.
Sacrifying the user experience to the beauty of an architecture diagram or the simplicity of a process is a bad habit. Maybe it will make your system run smoothly and save some work for the 5 or 10 people who are maintaining it. But did you ever compare that to then pain of several dozens of business users or the frustration of several thousand end users?I like the user experience driven approach to projects, but be warned: it will make you look stupid in the beginning when you are starting your discussion with IT.
Dienstag, 26. August 2008
Design
I tried to present some designs for the new intranet in a project I'm currently working on to the boss of the communication department. I just wanted to get some feedback on colours, use of logos, the general look and feel and maybe some discussion on the top level menu.
Not even the first sentence was finished as we were in the middle of a discussion on content details, wether to put tables of content on the top or on the bottom of a page, on how to remodel the voluminous pieces of content that made up large parts of the intranet and on about which new interaction schemes should be designed and how that would influence the organisation.
As regarding the look and feel, she just made an ugly face at the beginning, but at the end of our discussion she said something like "Well, the longer, I look at it, the better I like it, somehow."
We think we're focused clear and precise when we go into a presentation. "I want to discuss our new designs with you, just to give you an overall impression of what it could feel like." - But even artifical terms like design allow such a wide variety of understanding.
Two me, we need two things to cope with that:
1) More definitions, which means more artificial terms. Concerning design, that could be Information Design, Interaction Design, Identity Design, Graphic Design
2) Nobodx will listen while we are trying to explain that stuff. we should have explanations ready and we should be prepared to discuss it with everybody, but it is even more important that we are prepared to understnd who is talking to us about what, to categorie the inputs todeal with everything at it's time, but to stay focused enough to get now the decisions we want now.
This could be something like agile presentation mode.
Not even the first sentence was finished as we were in the middle of a discussion on content details, wether to put tables of content on the top or on the bottom of a page, on how to remodel the voluminous pieces of content that made up large parts of the intranet and on about which new interaction schemes should be designed and how that would influence the organisation.
As regarding the look and feel, she just made an ugly face at the beginning, but at the end of our discussion she said something like "Well, the longer, I look at it, the better I like it, somehow."
We think we're focused clear and precise when we go into a presentation. "I want to discuss our new designs with you, just to give you an overall impression of what it could feel like." - But even artifical terms like design allow such a wide variety of understanding.
Two me, we need two things to cope with that:
1) More definitions, which means more artificial terms. Concerning design, that could be Information Design, Interaction Design, Identity Design, Graphic Design
2) Nobodx will listen while we are trying to explain that stuff. we should have explanations ready and we should be prepared to discuss it with everybody, but it is even more important that we are prepared to understnd who is talking to us about what, to categorie the inputs todeal with everything at it's time, but to stay focused enough to get now the decisions we want now.
This could be something like agile presentation mode.
Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2008
Use It!
It's hard to evangelize the use of blogs and wikis if you have hardly any time to do it your own. It's almost like buying a book on efficient time management and then saying "Well, I don't have time to read it anyway". It's a problem we face, but on the other hand: it gives us the opportunity to think and learn about restrictions and possible requirements we face while introducing these features. Especially with intranet, we need protected areas that are not free to the public, we have big concerns about what to say if we know that our colleagues are probably going to read this. Will they like it? Will they make us look like idiots, because we made some mistake? Or will they make us look like idiots, because we are using the wiki as if we want to become famous for it? In a brief talk I head today with Mathias Schindler, member of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation, he told about some new and not yet fully worked through experiences he had while promoting Wikis to enterprises. It's not easy to - according to the wiki-rules - ignore the rules, if you are about to do this in an environment that usually pays you for resepcting rules. And it's not easy to start something just to get it started - knowing that you can't complete it perfectly, but also knowing that someone has to start the discussion or nothing will ever happen.
Actually, I think this is the way things work: you have to start something somehow. It will be good, as long as there is nothing better. If everything that is done later, tries to improve the first draft, everything is ok. If it focuses on blaming missing information, mistakes, errors - this is waste of time. That's how opne source software works, that generally how every creative process works. Sometimes it is hard to admit that, but nothing gets better just because we think about it harder. It can only get better if we start to use it, test it, discuss it with others. Well, we can only do that, after we have started it. The new facette that comes into play through social media is publicity. That makes you more vulnerable, but after all it makes you stronger - you get more patches to apply. If the deeply negative and destructive comments are more, don't blame social media. Blame your environment - or the way you handle your staff and your peers.
But just use it.
Actually, I think this is the way things work: you have to start something somehow. It will be good, as long as there is nothing better. If everything that is done later, tries to improve the first draft, everything is ok. If it focuses on blaming missing information, mistakes, errors - this is waste of time. That's how opne source software works, that generally how every creative process works. Sometimes it is hard to admit that, but nothing gets better just because we think about it harder. It can only get better if we start to use it, test it, discuss it with others. Well, we can only do that, after we have started it. The new facette that comes into play through social media is publicity. That makes you more vulnerable, but after all it makes you stronger - you get more patches to apply. If the deeply negative and destructive comments are more, don't blame social media. Blame your environment - or the way you handle your staff and your peers.
But just use it.
Mittwoch, 26. März 2008
User Management & Intranets - Best Practices?
The good thing about intranet users is that you know them, that you know how many they are and that you know, which infrastructure they use.
The not so good thing is, that they also know you - and they will come and get you if they dont like what you do. The expectations are a lot higher; everything needs to be simple and great.
That's the way it should be; but dont forget: you cannot gain as much reputation through great features as you can lose through inconveniences with the basics.
Nobody will be proud to say "I'm in, I made it", if they just went through a painful registration process, you can't give them gimmicks and you cannot really reward them - so you have to make a good job.
Thats really challenging when you have to create a new usermanagement for several countries and companies that have acutally not been working together up to now.
It's kind of hard to decide when the challenge is out and the madness begins if you are talking about 60000 users, 9 languages and some really business critical applications.
There are a lot of Best Practices dealing with intranets, features, contents - but I did not find anything helpful dealing with the setup of a big usermanagement - any suggestions?
The not so good thing is, that they also know you - and they will come and get you if they dont like what you do. The expectations are a lot higher; everything needs to be simple and great.
That's the way it should be; but dont forget: you cannot gain as much reputation through great features as you can lose through inconveniences with the basics.
Nobody will be proud to say "I'm in, I made it", if they just went through a painful registration process, you can't give them gimmicks and you cannot really reward them - so you have to make a good job.
Thats really challenging when you have to create a new usermanagement for several countries and companies that have acutally not been working together up to now.
It's kind of hard to decide when the challenge is out and the madness begins if you are talking about 60000 users, 9 languages and some really business critical applications.
There are a lot of Best Practices dealing with intranets, features, contents - but I did not find anything helpful dealing with the setup of a big usermanagement - any suggestions?
Dienstag, 25. März 2008
Communication and Organization
It is great that intranets are developing into something way bigger than "just" a communication media. They are supposed to be collaboration and cooperation platforms, interactive tools and an interface to legacy systems and business processes.
The last one makes a really big difference: this is were you get from talking to acting. That sounds as if communication was nothing (well, it's my job, so dont get me wrong), but what I'm trying to tell is that usually communication sets the agenda and makes the decisions (things are determined a lot by the way they are told; think about new products, organizational changes, new managers) but in the case of representing business processes through the intranet, you learn a lot about the limited power of communication:
The last one makes a really big difference: this is were you get from talking to acting. That sounds as if communication was nothing (well, it's my job, so dont get me wrong), but what I'm trying to tell is that usually communication sets the agenda and makes the decisions (things are determined a lot by the way they are told; think about new products, organizational changes, new managers) but in the case of representing business processes through the intranet, you learn a lot about the limited power of communication:
- you have to understand the processes
- you have to convince the process owners that they bother to explain the processes to you
- you have to represent the processes in a way that others can also understand them
- you have to create the communicative processes that surround the business processes; thats actually some kind of marketing activity
- you have to question yourself if all this is actually worth it or if the world would not be much simpler and clearer if business processes stay where they are and intranets are communication media.
Montag, 17. März 2008
How to research client infrastructure
Today, the deadline for answers to my questionnaire is ending.
I sent out a short form to collect information on monitors, screen resolutions, graphic and sound support, installed browsers and versions, plugins, settings (javascript, active x) etc.
I thought it was clear, but there always seems to be space for misunderstanding: how come that it coordinators tell me in answer #4 that flash plugins are installed, in answer #7 that no file formats are blocked and in answer #9 that employees can not play swf or flv files?
Everytime again it is surprising, but even in the very networked times we have now the only reliable way to find out what is really going is to go there, turn on the computer and have a look on your own.
That eats a lot of time, but it saves a lot of worrying.
I sent out a short form to collect information on monitors, screen resolutions, graphic and sound support, installed browsers and versions, plugins, settings (javascript, active x) etc.
I thought it was clear, but there always seems to be space for misunderstanding: how come that it coordinators tell me in answer #4 that flash plugins are installed, in answer #7 that no file formats are blocked and in answer #9 that employees can not play swf or flv files?
Everytime again it is surprising, but even in the very networked times we have now the only reliable way to find out what is really going is to go there, turn on the computer and have a look on your own.
That eats a lot of time, but it saves a lot of worrying.
Freitag, 14. März 2008
Boy and girl intranets
In evaluating all the intranet solutions in our Group, this is one of my central findings:
There are boy-intranets and there are girl-intranets.
That does not only depend on who creates or manages them; the main criteria is how new content is treated.
New content in a girl-intranet is welcomed quite strictly: "Take off your shoes, hang your coat here, do you want tea or coffee? You will sit here; hand on a second, I will be right back".
That's a lot of work, but it creates a clear and tidy surface.
New content in a boy intranet has a more relaxed entree: "Beer is in the fridge, the TV is there - help yourself."
That's less work - but it works only, if the rules are simple and clear.
If you start thinking about exceptions - that's like marrying: can be heaven, can be hell, but it definitely only works if the rules are very clear.
(I will get back on this with some examples)
There are boy-intranets and there are girl-intranets.
That does not only depend on who creates or manages them; the main criteria is how new content is treated.
New content in a girl-intranet is welcomed quite strictly: "Take off your shoes, hang your coat here, do you want tea or coffee? You will sit here; hand on a second, I will be right back".
That's a lot of work, but it creates a clear and tidy surface.
New content in a boy intranet has a more relaxed entree: "Beer is in the fridge, the TV is there - help yourself."
That's less work - but it works only, if the rules are simple and clear.
If you start thinking about exceptions - that's like marrying: can be heaven, can be hell, but it definitely only works if the rules are very clear.
(I will get back on this with some examples)
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)
Posts
