Some small signal to begin the new year (these reports are also warming up to me on this blog, I left too much time because of problems with my new state peasant - provided material and spiritual condition - and not add other).
- Rebecca Rodgers of StepTwo, talks about testing with users within the intranet projects ( some testing is better than 'no-test' ); blessed is true that these tests often do not make them do all the trappings, but in any case even conduct some investigation "cooked and ate it" is better than not at all condurne.
- In an old article in the 2004 Paul Chin discusses techniques for promoting the launch of the intranet , a theme that is sometimes overlooked and instead dealt with seriously and with a modicum of creativity. Note that in this case Paul need to clear the content fun and non-working on behalf of the visibility of the project.
Another case is ineressante QUALLI Sabre , and its application (SabreTown) microblogging for questions and answers among employees (soooooo interesting.)
- Speaking of stuff to download, you can check matrix intranet Toby Ward , which lists the characteristics of good intranet compared with those of "good" intranet. Nothing special, but worth a look at it (you must register to download).
For the moment we are okay so ... hello hello and that you manage to achieve that, esplcitamente or obscure, by choice or necessity, you thought this year that is.
Then shows an example for each role (but below are two):
I find the article very correct observations, but I forgot to another role, namely collector of contributions coming from the community: it can accommodate the home page automatically the last things produced within the different spaces for sharing .
Omit this role is to forget that the intranet based partly on a series of sharing and collaboration capabilities that are worth highlighting as emergent behavior.
The article has the merit to highlight some critical issues and proposing alternatives approach to the theme of moderation.
In summary, here are the points that Alex Manchester in the spotlight:
- Policy: Every company has its characteristics and its internal dynamics, for which there is no universal approach, but guidelines are still always prepared, and the article link different sources (perhaps the most interesting is the policy of BT, downloadable pdf )
- Identity: Each contribution should esserfe associated with a clearly defined, avoiding anonymous discussions. The name should always appear vicnio contribution to (and I would add, make your profile )
- Single sign-on: to reduce stress and improve the user experience user, the authentication mechanism should rely on more general single sign-on inside, so not having to continually re-type your password and UID
- Moderate: The article proposes between choices:
self-restraint
moderation 'light'
moderation "full"
Identifying risks and opportunities for each. I personally believe that there is no clear boundary between these three choices: I believe that things will change much with the passing of time (usually more than passing control to less control) as I think sometimes the full moderation on some aspects (eg technical issues) living with self-restraint in other respects.
In any case, the list of factors critical to the success of a project for discussion I would like to add some features not listed in the article:
- Report abuse: add this item to any contribution you can loosen the reins, leaving the community the task of a first filter, as well as give a clear signal about the fact that not everything is permitted
- Rate this contribution: it allows to clearly identify the contents deemed best, feeding a virtuous circle
- Facilities: The entire system must be easy to use. Simply. If it becomes just another application to use cumbersome portray people or not even consider the height to be involved (Hood)
- Keywords: keep a nice list of keywords "hot" and let them get a warning whenever they are written. In this way reduces the need for precise control but still be placed in the situation
- Black List and Gold List: people will end up in "black list" or "Gold List" depending on their behavior, condition differences in access privileges.
We mark one of the articles utlimate Step Two, which examines the difficult issue of customizing the CMS intranet , in particular the problematic relationship with the individual applications that are typically constructed, built or assembled inside the environment.
As usual the images are illuminating. I tell you immediately that the three solutions I have always supported the first, but lately I have somewhat changed my mind on the subject, and where I can try to work with the two solutions, although they are always so many variables to consider.
The article delves into the pros and cons of each solution.
Last year, Nielsen reported he had in his report. This year saw the gold prize of Steptwo (Intranet Innovation Award ). In short, this forum of the British crew really unpopulated.
Here you can listen to the voice of the intranet manager, Allen Huish , which tells the story of this initiative.
In this video, Allen Huish, the intranet manager of British Airways, said the experience of internal forums for the crews of the company (17.00 people).
It 'a case is really interesting when you consider that the forum is really utilizzatissimo and crews do not have a PC, but connecting from public locations in airports.
Allen has recently opened a blog that is worth keeping an eye on.
I've said many times, and I repeat: to design an intranet slap must look first to the needs and processes effectively agitate the people. Be careful, because look at the needs and processes:
- Does NOT mean a half hour interview for the head of IT;
- DO NOT mean to guess why so much, we, the company we know well;
- Does not mean abstract from market surveys or general trends and then go and apply as automatons in a specific organization;
- Does not mean the blog or wiki because it's cool;
- NOT meaning to our (only) to have lunch with the CEO to be told what are the priorities.
In these two presentations good James Robertson gives us some more methodological element.
Some time ago the good Albert , at the pub, I would say roughly this: "But dammit, we give us to use these methodologies with users to external sites, and you have the people available in the ufifci not do . But why? "
Very concerned the first part of this paper, recently published by StepTwo dedicated to the implementation methodology intranets and significantly entitled "Exploring the Intranet Hive (part 1)"
Describes six components to manage in prgetto, giving 6 recommendations for each component (the Americans have it over with 10, while the Australians, with 6. We Europeans, given the influence greek-Judeo-Christian, we are still afffezionati to 3. From Aristotle to Hegel. Klausen parentheses).
The components identified are:
Strategy
Design
Contents
Changes
Technology
Team
I bring you a significant passage
Intranets are never finished
An intranet is always a work in progress.Although initial intranet builds Reasonably linear path to follow, ounces Implementation has Taken Place There is no single path forward and the next steps will depend largely on a combination of mandatory and the Organizational constraints the team is operating under.
From the same site will also point out the recent article devoted to the time needed to select a CMS . Hey, I understand that there are necessary steps (and I'm usually cautious), but I think they take it anyway a bit 'convenient, you say? ;-)
In this presentation find some more details on the reason premiums' Intranet Innovation Awards, sponsored by Steptwo. There are also some beautiful screens (the presentation is not downloadable, but you know ... amme)
It has a nice saying about the importance of collaborating, sharing knowledge, encouraging participation. These things I have listed are not synonyms: let's take a step back and look at it further.
We have to create a group on Lotusnotes, or on a TeamSite Sharepoit, or on a project team yoo +, or a closed group on google groups. You have created a collaboration space for a small group of people within the organization. Now multiply this by 10, 100, 1000 groups: you got a fragmented organization in clusters of interest, or working groups.
But at the same time have also created functional silos, (although informal) do not allow knowledge to flow smoothly between different groups.
But this knowledge can really flow?
This is an interesting topic (one of the most interesting in recent times about this, indeed, that is: what the collaboration is an obstacle to sharing?
In other words: what is necessary in an environment to enable knowledge to move? It 'obvious that a document or information which have their own history, tied to a context of trade between a group outside this context are particularly relevant. So if I take a document drawn up within the teams and a port outside, available to all, information becomes insufficient and insignificant.
In short, while within groups occurs largely Conscenza tacit, difficult to transport, open spaces (such as a space for the forms or manuals) are sharing explicit knowledge, easily decontextualized but do not have a history of collaboration behind (at least visibly). It therefore appears that the degree of cooperation is inversely proportional to the degree of sharing possible if the information has a history and context, this story becomes a dense set and not easily explainable.
What are the solutions to this problem? The debate is open, and I can only give my point of view.
Groups that develop tacit knowledge have always existed, and the creation of closed groups does not take note of this situation, providing an environment for collaboration. But at the same time there are practices of boundary are those that enable groups to learn their internal knowledge to carry out. There is always the figure that connects, passes from one group to another, the innovator, who attended the "boundaries" of communities. These are figures that are a bridge to cognitive knowledge produced locally (Mario comes to his group in the office and says, hey, those downstairs are pursuing all say one thing. It might be useful. After I go to my friend who works there and I do explain ....).
In an intranet should live together respecting these different practices related to knowledge: closed groups that produce collaboration and tacit knowledge and contextual, open groups that allow the explicit knowl-ring (think of a forum on the internal problems of Excel in this case conoscneza contentuale is less), and finally, a practice of "working border" that allows various shapes to groups holding device closed, so you can do cognitive bridges.
Furthermore it is said that the tacit knowledge and context derived from the collaboration can not, at some point, be transformed into explicit knowledge: some final products can be made available to all because they have reached a level of explicitness that can be shared. In this case the collaboraizone becomes a kind of incubator for sharing contextual.
Also on site steptwo has just published an interesting paper (but pay) on strategies for implementation of the intranet. The golden rule (absolutely share) is that, given the nature of the project, and that the best strategy is short term, with half-step after which the entire review process.
In this period are very busy, although I do not know by what (in short, is a period of anxiety nameless ...) so I have the strength and courage to post only posts miniature. However you point out, the wonderful Australian site tramitre Steptwo (in particular the section Column two ), an updated and extensive list of blogs on the intranet . As you can see we are not alone in the world (I say to myself ... eh).
Begins with an article that appeared last year on Steptwo (when the Australians there is at least a foot in the field of knowledge management ...), edited by James Robertson , who is trying to address the issue intranet / internet trying to identify, systematically the differences in approach, the project results. The article has the merit of groped a taxonomy of features that enable optimal design of two rooms which are too often treated as the only hat conceptual "web" or, Instead, loosely differentiated without a clear decline.
Are compared intranets and corporate websites, but what counts in this case, the method is that the merits.
Objectives, Audience, refresh rate, size, familiarity with the environment, consistency of display media, content, structure, graphic aspects. ... Are all key issues that affect significantly the design space
These aspects, however, would add others, but the author does not state that could rightly be added to the list. I'm going to list them:
Services: the functional site type - predominant
Community: functional types of business - part of the project
Learning curves: average rates remain constant - high average, decrease with time
Navigation tree: can also be very deep - massive rather than profound
Documents and materials: any - Necessary and integral part of the project
Interaction: Marginal - Much Thrust
Operational processes: little influence - Much influence
I believe these elements are themselves highly distinctive and contributes strongly to qualify an area intranets.
I have opened my eyes T. Todorov, F. De Saussure S. Freud, E. Goffman, G. Mosse, R. Rorty, E. Cassirer, T. Kuhn, HM Enzensberger, L. Wittgenstein, M. Walker, A. Barthes, K. Marx, E. Durkheim, I. Kant, M. Heidegger, G. Frege, R. Jakobson, G. Preti, I. Prigogine, W. Benjamin M. Bakhtin, Z. Bauman, J. Bruner, C. Geertz, F. Jameson, CS Peirce, J. Austin, my friends
I have turned out like a sock JP Sartre, Plato, R. Musil, G. Gregory Bateson, T. Adorno, PK Dick, E. Canetti, LF Celine, Luther Blissett, M. Houellebecq, GWF Hegel, R. Laing, M. Richler, D. Hofstadter, M. Selvini Palazzoli, JD Salinger, M. Scorza, K. Kraus, G. Pontiggia, H. Boll, P. Roth, C. Locke, P. Gourevitch, A. Kojeve, W. Ong, E. Havelock, H. Marcuse, my ex loves
I have tickled your mind G. Perec, H. Kureishi, D. Hume, K. Vonnegut, R. Quenau, E. Ionesco, I. Calvin, J. Cortazar. No Hornby, R. Rucher, L. Tolstoy, G. Flaubert, J. Noon, C. Palaniuk, the situazonisti, M. Augè, A. Nothomb, E. Flaiano, D. For, G. Deleuze, discussions at the university
They worked on my dark side F. Nietzsche. A. Gehlen, N. Luhmann, C. Popper, D. La Rochelle, J. Fodor, F. Dostoevsky, JK Huysmans, J. London, Thomas Bernhard, G. Parise, F. Kafka, de Sade, M. Vargas Llosa, C. Sini, J. Derrida, J. Lacan, J. Baudrillard, some programs Mediaset
