Peer-based Enterprise Document Workflow John Rhoton Master Technologist HP Services
Outline <ul><li>Enterprise Content Management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Formal vs. Informal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Managin...
Enterprise Content Management <ul><li>Formal Content </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Established quality control </li></ul></ul><ul>...
Knowledge Culture <ul><li>A knowledge culture is where everyone understands their responsibilities to contribute to our co...
HP Knowledge Brief Program A case study <ul><li>Response to need to get technical knowledge out quickly </li></ul><ul><li>...
Objectives of Knowledge Briefs <ul><li>Capture field knowledge and experience in a modular and systematic fashion </li></u...
Costs-benefit Analysis Hours required to generate a KB 32 Time for Review/Tech-edit/Publication 8 Cost per hour (estimated...
Incentives <ul><li>Reuse of Intellectual Property </li></ul><ul><li>Increased visibility within community/profession </li>...
Reviews <ul><li>Provide an additional perspective  </li></ul><ul><li>Help to catch any errors </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitate...
HP Labs Social Networking <ul><li>Identify and Display Subject Matter Experts </li></ul><ul><li>Identify Document Clusters...
Popularity brought issues <ul><li>Increasing volume  </li></ul><ul><li>Hard to find qualified reviewers </li></ul><ul><li>...
Old review process Draft KB Submission Technical Reviews Publication Bottlenecks slow process, impede scalability Reviewer...
Our Solution <ul><li>Platform for structured and unstructured reviews </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Formal review process with des...
KBv3 Review Process Reviewers Senior Reviewers Senior Editors Editors Review Sign-off Approve Publish
HP Labs Social Networking <ul><li>Automated Technical Reviewer assignment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Suggests subject-matter ex...
System Architecture <ul><li>Based on SharePoint Portal Server 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>Custom Extensions added to enable a W...
Knowledge Brief Document Workspace June 9, 2009
Knowledge Brief My Site June 9, 2009
Alerts & Reminders <ul><li>Alerts for uploaded KBs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In Progress, Review or Published KBs </li></ul></...
Work in Progress <ul><li>Transition to MOSS 2007 Architecture </li></ul><ul><li>Integration with external sources </li></u...
KBv3 Code Reuse <ul><li>Code written to be configurable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Web Parts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Web Ser...
Achieved so far Pre-workflow Workflow Coordination effort 1 FTE 0.5 FTE Non-reviewed KBs 10% <1% Technical Reviewers 50 52...
Summary <ul><li>Enterprise Content Management dilemma </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High investment vs. Low quality (low reuse) </...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Peer-based Enterprise Document Workflow

566 views

Published on

HP Technology Forum, Las Vegas, 2007

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
566
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Peer-based Enterprise Document Workflow

  1. 1. Peer-based Enterprise Document Workflow John Rhoton Master Technologist HP Services
  2. 2. Outline <ul><li>Enterprise Content Management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Formal vs. Informal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Managing Cost and Speed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Adaptive Workflow Framework </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Peer driven quality control </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adaptive workflow paths </li></ul></ul><ul><li>HP Knowledge Brief Viewer </li></ul><ul><ul><li>System Architecture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Framework in Action </li></ul></ul>June 9, 2009
  3. 3. Enterprise Content Management <ul><li>Formal Content </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Established quality control </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lengthy process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost of service </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Informal Content </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Speed of information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Diverse structure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of quality standard </li></ul></ul>June 9, 2009 Formal vs Informal Content
  4. 4. Knowledge Culture <ul><li>A knowledge culture is where everyone understands their responsibilities to contribute to our collective knowledge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technologists generate, refine, and contribute knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Managers encourage their teams to contribute </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Everyone takes pride in what they contribute </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Everyone has something to share </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Today, we have too many “knowledge absorbers” and too few “knowledge generators” </li></ul><ul><li>Progression through technical carreer requires people to become knowledge generators </li></ul>
  5. 5. HP Knowledge Brief Program A case study <ul><li>Response to need to get technical knowledge out quickly </li></ul><ul><li>Technical Paper publishing, integration with </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Professions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical Career Path </li></ul></ul>KBs Breakthrough Technologist Wider audience TCP review board Profession
  6. 6. Objectives of Knowledge Briefs <ul><li>Capture field knowledge and experience in a modular and systematic fashion </li></ul><ul><li>Provide HP technologists with a way to publish information and grow writing ability </li></ul><ul><li>Not a replacement for patents or white papers </li></ul><ul><li>KBs: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cover a wide variety of focus areas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Range from conceptual primers to how-to guides and case studies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are easy to read and easy to write </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure reasonable accuracy and relevance through peer-review cycle </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are HP internal documents and not available to customers without prior approval </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Costs-benefit Analysis Hours required to generate a KB 32 Time for Review/Tech-edit/Publication 8 Cost per hour (estimated worldwide average) $100.00 Total KBs generated 3’689 Total cost of KB generation $14’756’000 Total cost of staffing for KB system (since 2001) $2’000‘000 Cost of KM systems deployed to support KBs $500’000 Total Cost of KBs $17’256’000 Number of downloads 1’284’179 Hours saved by HP staff per download 0.2 Hours saved through KBs 256’836 Total Benefit (at hourly cost of $100) $25’683’580 ROI: 48%
  8. 8. Incentives <ul><li>Reuse of Intellectual Property </li></ul><ul><li>Increased visibility within community/profession </li></ul><ul><li>Can be included as evidence of continuity of contribution in promotion packages </li></ul><ul><li>Publication Experience – something that leading technologists should consider </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge Brief Awards </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Frequent Contributors (Bronze, Silver, Gold) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical Journal Selection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Most Popular Downloads </li></ul></ul>Metrics drive behaviour!
  9. 9. Reviews <ul><li>Provide an additional perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Help to catch any errors </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitate inter-organizational collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Improve overall KB quality </li></ul><ul><li>Author selects peer reviewers </li></ul><ul><li>We identify technical/editorial reviewers </li></ul><ul><li>Publication involves final copy-editing – but not a complete rewrite </li></ul>
  10. 10. HP Labs Social Networking <ul><li>Identify and Display Subject Matter Experts </li></ul><ul><li>Identify Document Clusters </li></ul><ul><li>Identify User Communities </li></ul><ul><li>Recommended KBs you haven’t yet read </li></ul><ul><li>Focus Area Experts </li></ul>June 9, 2009 Integrating with Enterprise Content Management Framework
  11. 11. Popularity brought issues <ul><li>Increasing volume </li></ul><ul><li>Hard to find qualified reviewers </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of Review Tracking </li></ul><ul><li>Draft content invisible </li></ul><ul><li>Reviews relied on same people </li></ul><ul><li>Quality concerns </li></ul>Pre-workflow data Co-ordination effort 1 FTE Non-reviewed KBs 10% Technical Reviewers 50 Editorial reviewers 5
  12. 12. Old review process Draft KB Submission Technical Reviews Publication Bottlenecks slow process, impede scalability Reviewer assignment is not optimal, appears inconsistent
  13. 13. Our Solution <ul><li>Platform for structured and unstructured reviews </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Formal review process with designated pool of reviewers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Informal review process with invited experts </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Peer driven </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Leverage collective talent of the enterprise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Example: HP technical community </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Quality without sacrificing cost </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Distributed reviewer load </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Few dedicated “content masters” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Transparency </li></ul>June 9, 2009 Heuristic Document Workflow System
  14. 14. KBv3 Review Process Reviewers Senior Reviewers Senior Editors Editors Review Sign-off Approve Publish
  15. 15. HP Labs Social Networking <ul><li>Automated Technical Reviewer assignment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Suggests subject-matter experts </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Weighting of Technical Reviewers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on correlation of past ratings </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Content-based Analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Key phrases and words </li></ul></ul>June 9, 2009
  16. 16. System Architecture <ul><li>Based on SharePoint Portal Server 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>Custom Extensions added to enable a Workflow </li></ul>June 9, 2009
  17. 17. Knowledge Brief Document Workspace June 9, 2009
  18. 18. Knowledge Brief My Site June 9, 2009
  19. 19. Alerts & Reminders <ul><li>Alerts for uploaded KBs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In Progress, Review or Published KBs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Alerts based on Author’s properties (Practice, Country, Business Unit, etc…) </li></ul><ul><li>Weekly KB Newsletter </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Latent Semantic Indexing to find document similarities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social Networking history to determine users interests </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reviewing reminders </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Author </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Registered reviewers </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Work in Progress <ul><li>Transition to MOSS 2007 Architecture </li></ul><ul><li>Integration with external sources </li></ul><ul><li>Wiki-integration </li></ul><ul><li>Offline Viewer </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Synchronizes selected Focus Areas </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Records KB reads </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Integrated Full-Text Search </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Offline Reviews </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mail-in and Mail-out functionality required </li></ul></ul>June 9, 2009
  21. 21. KBv3 Code Reuse <ul><li>Code written to be configurable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Web Parts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Web Services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some Console/Windows Application, ASPs… </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Potential reuse in other internal KM systems </li></ul><ul><li>Components available for Customer projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Code reuse </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Achieved so far Pre-workflow Workflow Coordination effort 1 FTE 0.5 FTE Non-reviewed KBs 10% <1% Technical Reviewers 50 525 Editorial reviewers 5 26 All-time Q1FY07 KBs published 3689 155 KBs downloaded 10,948,636 469,677 Distinct Authors 1070 58 Reviews unknown 659
  23. 23. Summary <ul><li>Enterprise Content Management dilemma </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High investment vs. Low quality (low reuse) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Resolution is possible </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires executive commitment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Careful design of process and technology </li></ul></ul><ul><li>If successful the value proposition is compelling! </li></ul>

×