Matt Moore Effective Intranets 2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Matt Moore Effective Intranets 2010

on

  • 1,157 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,157
Views on SlideShare
1,075
Embed Views
82

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
18
Comments
0

4 Embeds 82

http://innotecture.wordpress.com 44
http://innotecture.com.au 36
http://64.233.183.104 1
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Matt Moore Effective Intranets 2010 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. WHERE DO INTRANETS FIT INTO THE FUTURE? Matt Moore
  • 2. Agenda  Ozcollab Survey  Information Ecology  Cyborg Semantics
  • 3. Background  Joint project with AcKnowledge Consulting  Interim results
  • 4. Collaboration Software Identify Select Implement Operate Setting priorities with Reviewing vendors Customising Software Support business Running RFT Building Templates Training new users Getting user requirements Purchase approval Testing Software Upgrading functionality Determining required Training Users Developing new templates functionality
  • 5. Does your organisation have a collaboration strategy? 5% 10% 36% No Yes, an informal one Yes, a formal, documented one Yes, but may vary between business units 49%
  • 6. Who drives your organisation's collaboration strategy? 14% 24% 14% IT Support Function (e.g. HR, KM, Information Manage- ment, Finance) Line of Business Corporate Head Office (Senior Executive group or CEO) No-one Other 14% 22% 14%
  • 7. Identify and rank the top 5 of the main factors behind your organisation's interest in collaborative software. Improving team productivity Improving decision-making Improving individual productivity Reducing risk of lost information Improving customer service Improving time to market of product or service offerings Regulatory & compliance issues around content & records management Reducing travel costs Reducing Total Cost of Ow nership of file & email storage (e.g. shared drives). Keeping pace w ith our competitors Don't know Recommended by vendor / consultant 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
  • 8. How would you rate the following functions in terms of their importance in collaboration software? Search Shared Document Storage & Access Collaborative text content creation & editing (e.g. w iki) Forums & discussion Single sign on Calendaring & Scheduling Asynchronous Messaging (e.g. email) RSS or other XML data feeds Workflow and process management Capability to w ork on the netw ork and off-line (e.g. Lotus Notes replication, Google Gears) Collaborative creation & editing of diagrams & images Text publishing (e.g. blogging) Tagging & social bookmarking Integration: APIs, mashability, exposed w eb services, SoA etc. Directories & w hite pages Web conferencing Application Sharing Synchronous Messaging (e.g. IM) Access from Mobile Devices (e.g. Blackberry, Palm, iPhone) Microblogging/group messaging (e.g. Tw itter, Yammer) Social netw orking (e.g. Facebook) VoIP conferencing Video publishing (e.g. vodcasting) Audio publishing (e.g. podcasts) Irrelevant 3D Virtual Worlds (e.g. Second Life) Nice-to-Have Critical 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
  • 9. What steps of the collaboration software lifecycle has your organisation already completed? 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Identify Select Implement Operate Within 12 mths Beyond 12 mths None
  • 10. If your organisation has already considered one or more collaboration software products, what are they?  27 responses / 50 products  iCtye, Google Docs, Blackboard Wiki, Microsoft (Sharepoint, Outlook, Exchange), Ektron, Allette Systems (Pageseeder), EMC Documentum (eRooms), Kavi, Alfresco, Jive SBS, Telligent, OpenText Social Media, Lotus (Notes, Quickr, Connections), MindTouch, Atlassian (Confluence, JIRA), Salesforce, MediaWiki, Drupal, Edna, Blackboard, Sakai, BSCW, Matrix, Teamcenter, Windchill, Webex, IM, Sitescape (Novell), SAP, Socialtext, Traction, Novell Teaming, Govdex, Twiki, Intralogics, Drop Box, Skype, K2 BlackPearl, Joomla, Twitter, Yammer, DotNetNuke, Wordpress, OpenCMS.
  • 11. If your organisation has already considered one or more collaboration software products, what are they? 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  Sharepoint appeared in 16 responses (60%)
  • 12. If your organisation has already obtained one or more collaboration software products, what are they? 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6  10 out of 26 responses using Sharepoint (38%).  7 out of the 14 responses who have obtained only 1 tool are using Sharepoint (50%).
  • 13. How satisfied were you with this process? completely mostly neutral mostly completely unsatisfied unsatisfied satisfied satisfied Identify 1 5 1 Select 1 2 2 1 Implement 2 2 4 Operate 1 2 6
  • 14. Did you receive external help with this process? no vendor other Identify 2 5 5 Select 1 3 5 Implement 4 2 5 Operate 5 2 5
  • 15. Identify: What one specific thing would you do differently if you had to do this again?  Was happy with the process the system did not need IT support which was great, many systems need more support and thereofre need more IT buy-in upfront.  Specify the criteria for success  My issue was that the solution was selected BEFORE the business requirements were determined.  Will have to do it again. Organisational needs will have developed by then, as will the maturity of the market. Would like more resources to consult and do the analysis of course.  Don't get IT involved.  Not underestimate how time-consuming implementing collaboration tools can be - and that this is more about organisation, people and change management than it is about technology.
  • 16. Select: What one specific thing would you do differently if you had to do this again?  Ensure the scope of the requirements was totally clear at the beginning of the project  More/better user requirement definition and end user engagement  Work harder at separating the selection of social software from selection of the document management system  Delay - product space still seems crowded and immature.  As these are internal implementation projects and for the most part do not have a huge licensing component associated with the purchase (most of the cost is the internal development costs) the business case development needed to focus more on the business benefits of the implementation and illustrate how the solution will improve current processes.
  • 17. Implement: What one specific thing would you do differently if you had to do this again?  Training the users  We purchased our wiki system to address a particular need. We then branched out with a few pilot uses, to see what would happen. We intended these to be small experiments, but they have grown a lot more than we expected and really need a bit more structure around them... a support plan would have been a very good idea!!  Spend more time on training and change management.  Put better project processes in place - particularly in requirements gathering, development and configuration management.  Far more research on the product itself, and not be left with some nasty surprises once we got down to detailed planning, especially around a) Information Architecture constraints, and b) mapping business governance to the complex demands of the software.  Gotten more video instruction .  Allow more time to develop particiapant involvement
  • 18. Operate: What one specific thing would you do differently if you had to do this again? (1 of 2)  Strategic approach - gained more support from key management early on.  Training - identified more resources to assist in upfront training.  Given that the academic project is unfunded - at least to now, there has been little option but to go with what institutional support has been available for the selected x software (which is by far the best of the options reviewed). Given that x is a low priority for the hosting organization, service levels have been poor and there have been some prolonged outages due to issues unrelated to the x software. Hopefully we are on the way to achieve funding that will allow us to host the application ourselves.  The division that selected y clearly made the wrong choice, it would have been far better to go with z, which had already been proven in another division. Probably would have saved several million dollars! I had not power to influence the decision.
  • 19. Operate: What one specific thing would you do differently if you had to do this again? (2 of 2)  Push harder to get MOSS, not just WSS and ideally get Webcam conferencing.  Place more emphasis on advertising the benefits.  Spend more time on templates and end-user guidance.  Make sure Sharepoint goes into a more stable environment.  Get the IT folks to recognise that Sharepoint is not just for prescriptive CMS ECM but also can be used collaboratively, eg. they have turned off the blogging feature, they hadn't turned on the RSS features.  Focus on user base rather than technology.
  • 20. Information Ecology Revisited  Information Strategy  Information Politics  Federal, Feudal, Monarchy, Anarchy  Information Behaviour  Information Staff  Information Processes  Information Architecture
  • 21. Questions for Intranet Managers  Where does your intranet sit in your information ecology?  Does it interact well with other species?  How does the ecosystem appear to the user? (global usability)  How do individuals interact with each other through this ecosystem? (sociability)
  • 22. Experts Machines Users