Work | CMS Blog Watch

Posts Tagged ‘work’

The Enemy of Collaboration

Posted in ECM, Email, Enterprise 2.0, collaboration, eRoom on August 26th, 2010 by Pie – Comments Off

image A week ago, I wrote an article for CMS Wire on The Long Hill for Enterprise Collaboration.  Normally I put an announcement at the top of my blog sharing the link, but I wanted to write this post, and I’ve just been a tad busy…

You should read the article before proceeding much further.  In the article, I talk about the challenges facing the adoption of collaboration tools, an important one being the desire to perform one activity in one interface.  Email is a classic example because, for all its faults, you can collaborate with anyone with an email address.  People will tend to stick with one tool and not keep switching unless they are the “stopper” that is always on a mission to convert people to the good of collaboration platforms.

Well, this scenario is something I have seen quite a bit.  There is one example that really drives home the need to get people not just out of email, but to get everyone into something that can transfer collaborative data between systems just like email is transferred using SMTP today.  That example….me.

Pie Said What?

That is correct, I am a violator.  I am not always compliant.  I have been implementing collaboration solutions for a long time.  I almost always play the role of a stopper in any organization or project that I join.  In the last six months, I’ve noticed something….

I’m spending more time collaborating in email than ever before.image

I am working more with people outside my organization than I ever have in the past.  Doing a lot of work in the Federal market, my company is frequently teaming with other companies, and not always the same ones.  For each effort, we have to find different ways to share content and track actions.  Rather than supply the collaboration solution for everyone, we tend to use email.  Why? Simple, our partners use it as well.

It doesn’t stop there though.  I have also been working with people at AIIM and vendor companies on CMIS efforts.  More users and more reasons to collaborate, but still no single system.  Once again, we all use email, so that is where we work.

Doing all of this in email, I have found myself collaborating with colleagues on purely internal efforts via email.  I’m just cruising along in my workday, and before I know it, I’ve sent documents via email rather than sending an alert or a link to a document in an email.

I’m regressing!!!!!

What Can Be Done?

Well, like any good American, I’m going to blame someone else for my problem.  There are two solutions which would solve the problem:

  • Universal Collaboration: So we need an incredible, kickin’, collaborative platform with no storage or user limits that is online an free to everyone.  Let’s not forget security because I want to collaborate in one place on all my efforts, not just the public ones.
  • Universal Communication: Bad name, I know, but the point is simple.  If my collaborative artifacts could be sent to anyone for interaction the way I send email, but they do their work in their collaborative environment and I am staying in mine, that would be great!

I think it is pretty safe to say that the first will not happen in the foreseeable future.  The second sounds like a lot of work.  Well, the efforts we expend to push Collaboration and Enterprise 2.0 adoption is a lot of work as well.

Fun fact, one old, and lovely feature of eRoom is the ability to email content to a room.  That was a first step in the right direction.  If collaborative packages could just be emailed between systems in a standard format, that might solve all the problems.

There is no easy path.  Maybe instead of trying to get over the hurdles by creating new features, selling, and evangelizing, maybe we should make the tools the obvious in-process tools.

But why solve it?  There is a lot of money to be made telling people how great the software is now.

Are We Paying Attention?

Posted in Information Overload, Jonathan B. Spira on August 26th, 2010 by Jonathan Spira – Comments Off

“Pay attention in class” is something many pupils have heard from their teachers, but what exactly does it mean to pay attention? We define the phrase “to pay attention” as meaning to “heed” or “be attentive to.” In the workplace, especially when it comes to knowledge work, we need to understand it as being much more, namely as a complex cognitive ability.

Hold your head for better concentration

In 1890, William James, in his textbook Principles of Psychology, provided what has become the classic definition of attention:

“Everyone knows what attention is. It is the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization, concentration, of consciousness are of its essence. It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others, and is a condition which has a real opposite in the confused, dazed, scatterbrained state which in French is called distraction, and Zerstreutheit in German.”

We also know that attention has its own circuitry in the brain and that specialized networks carry out various functions, namely achieving and maintaining alertness, the control of thoughts and feelings, and orienting to sensory events.

But paying attention isn’t a simple, straightforward act. The barrage of information and interruptions makes it extremely difficult to do so.

There are, however, ways to cut back on the multitasking and interruptions, shaping your own environment and work style so that you better use your attentional networks. If you have a difficult problem or a conundrum to solve, you need to think about where you work best. Right now, people seem to hope they’ll be able to think or create or problem-solve in the midst of a noisy, cluttered, and interrupted environment. However, to optimize your attention, quiet and uninterrupted time is a far better starting point.

Jonathan B. Spira is CEO and Chief Analyst at Basex.

eForms Checklist: Find the Right Automation Solution For Your Business

Posted in Document Management, electronic forms, forms management on August 25th, 2010 by lsanders – Comments Off

“Work faster.”

“Get everything right the first time.”

“Outperform our competitors with better service.”

In challenging economic times, these goals are imperative. Yet achieving all three simultaneously is improbable unless you have the right tools to assist you.

Fast, accurate, friendly service helps you to be viable and competitive. At the same time, being effective is vital to cost-efficiency and customer loyalty. Unfortunately, however, fast work often generates mistakes, while meticulous attention to detail slows progress. Whether you are investing in technology and growth or are focused on doing more with fewer resources, electronic forms (eForms) and intelligent automation can help you get ahead.

According to AIIM’s State of the ECM Industry 2010 report, 41% of businesses aren’t confident that their digital information (except emails) is accurate, accessible, and trustworthy — a severe obstacle to efficiency. Forms are a small part of the web of business information. Yet when content is captured accurately and managed properly, eForms address the challenges of accuracy, accessibility, and trustworthiness while transforming service, increasing profitability, and encouraging sustainability. How? By:

read more

Traditional Intranets are so Nineteenth Century

Posted in Enterprise 2.0, knowledge management on August 23rd, 2010 by Bill Ives – Comments Off

Oscar Berg posted
a useful piece on
why traditional
intranets fail today's knowledge workers
that I want to bring to your
attention. I heard about it through Twitter and
Marcia Conner. Oscar starts
with some useful stats on the increasing amount of knowledge-based work. He
writes that
a study by The Work
Foundation
estimated
our workforce has 30 per cent in jobs with high knowledge content, 30 per cent
in jobs with some knowledge content, and 40 per cent in jobs with less
knowledge content. I think the numbers are higher for knowledge work but this
is still a lot.

Oscar notes that knowledge work is less
predictable and repeatable than traditional industry work. Move over Fred
Taylor. He adds that the structure of knowledge work typically emerges as the
work progresses. I would add that it is very context dependent and this argues
against the concept of best practices, at least the static kind.  This makes it hard to know in advance
what knowledge you need.  This
means that you need to place control over knowledge access in the hands of the
worker and not the system. It argues against scripted solutions.

Most traditional intranets do not provide the flexibility
for knowledge access that knowledge workers require.  As Oscar writes, “most of today’s intranets primarily consist
of pre-produced information resources which are intended to serve information
needs which can be anticipated in advance. They aim to serve people who perform
predefined and repeatable tasks.” This is so nineteenth century.

Now in the twenty first century we have the potential to
address these needs through a social intranet (aka enterprise 2.0).  This is more than a simply adding
collaboration tools. As Oscar writes, “It equips everyone with the tools that
allows them to participate, contribute, attract, discover, find and connect
with each other to exchange information and knowledge and/or collaborate.”  Ahem.

I have just given you the highlights. Hopefully this is
enough to make you want to read Oscar’s complete passage.

 

 

Be good

Posted in Uncategorized on August 16th, 2010 by Oscar Berg – Comments Off
The increasing transparency that follows the digitalization of our lives and work is a delicate and complex matter.
At work, the increasing transparency poses an immediate threat to people who repeatedly make bad decisions because they’re not competent enough for their jobs, who hide from their responsibilities, who conspire and intrigue against others to defend or strengthen their positions, or who hoard information and censor information flows hoping to gain personal competitive advantages. For obvious reasons they don’t want to have these – often socially and morally – unacceptable decisions and actions (or lack thereof) put on display.

In tomorrow’s business environment, transparency will be the new black. Traits such as honesty, directness, authenticity, openness, and respectfulness will not just look good in the age of transparency – they will be necessary for staying in business.

I guess there’s a simple advice to all of us… 
Be good.



eDiscovery Integration Remains a Challenge Despite More Market Consolidation

Posted in Enterprise 2.0, Search, search tools on August 13th, 2010 by Bill Ives – Comments Off

According to Forrester's Brian Hill, recent
mergers and acquisitions in the eDiscovery market can benefit organizations
wanting to mitigate legal risk with a mix of disjointed applications as long as
they do their home work (see
eDiscovery Market
Consolidation Continues Its Steady March
). As usual, organizations must separate marketing hype from actual functionality, especially in the area of end-to-end
process capabilities. While integrated advances can provide concrete benefits
and help rationalize application infrastructure, it's important to look at
these in the context of a broader eDiscovery strategy.

Such
strategies should identify technology gaps and costly process integration
points. Then enterprises need to request more eDiscovery application
integration. 
Even then you cannot expect to end up with a
single provider.  The report notes
that
recent survey results indicate that 60% of
records management stakeholders and 57% of message archiving users perceive “synchronizing
eDiscovery, records management, and archiving efforts” to be a challenge.

In theory the
transparency within enterprise 2.0 should support greater eDiscovery
capabilities but there is still the tendency to create even more silos. Cross
platform capabilities need tor receive a greater focus.  The report offers some useful
guidelines for enterprises as they navigate this space.

 

Upgrading to SharePoint 2010

Posted in CMS, ECM, Enterprise 2.0, SharePoint, SharePoint 2010, WCM, Web Content Mavens on July 26th, 2010 by Pie – Comments Off

No, I haven’t converted into a SharePoint fanboi.  I am merely acknowledging that it is here to stay, at least for two more versions.  Realizing that, my company has been doing quite a bit of SharePoint work in the past few years.  We have recently been looking at SP2010 and just upgraded a customer to the new version.

This dalliance with SharePoint has not gone unnoticed by some people in the local area.  I was asked to co-present with Wyn Van Devanter to the Washington, DC Web Content Mavens group on what web managers need to know before making the move from 2007 to 2010.

I thought I would share my slides and offer a few additional notes for people.  For the record, Wyn tackled the first part of the presentation and I handled the second portion.  We could probably each speak to the other half, but we each presented to our strengths.

SP2010 Overview and Upgrade Planning

There were several discussions that spun out of the presentation.  I think the actual discussion was a lot more valuable than the presentation.

  • Competition: There was a discussion on competition.  If you stick to the public website , there is a wide selection in the WCM/CMS market.  If you look at the Intranet usage, you are really looking at some of the newer Enterprise 2.0 players that offer a broader set of capabilities.  The legacy competition, eRoom and Lotus Notes, each have their own issues in regards to they’re being long-term players.
  • Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of SharePoint.  SharePoint is not designed for WCM.  It has a lot of requirements that drive other license revenue for Microsoft.  It has complexities and requires a Microsoft platform and .NET expertise.  That said, if you have SharePoint (MOSS) 2007, you are likely going to be on SP2010 in the near future.
  • Future of SharePoint: We had a fun discussion on this.  It is my opinion that this version of SharePoint will mark the peak of SharePoint’s popularity.  The next version will likely ride on the coat tails of SP2010.  After that, I believe SharePoint will fall into the legacy category.  It is simply too big to innovate enough to maintain a lead over a long period of time.  Someone new is likely to come in and supplant them.  Of course, even with this estimate, that is some time away.
  • SharePoint for WCM, Really?: Yes really.  While I have stated in the past that maybe SharePoint is not ideal for WCM, it doesn’t change the fact that people still use it for that purpose (at least the 2007 version).  They will likely continue to do so in the future as SP2010 is better suited to WCM than MOSS 2007.  The question you want to ask if someone proposes SP2010 for your website it this: What are you using for your website? Oh, and get references. Plural.

There were more, but these are the ones that I remember clearly and that aren’t covered in the slides and notes.  Feel free to drop questions.

References

These are the links from the Reference slide of the presentation.  I am providing them here for easy reference.

Good luck.

Work Breakdown Structure vs. Deadlines

Posted in Development, Management on July 21st, 2010 by seth – Comments Off

One of the most common points of friction between project managers and developers is planning work. Most programmers hate creating work breakdown structures (WBS). You can’t blame them, accurately predicting steps and effort required to build undesigned software is impossible. Yes, you heard that right. Software development planning is impossible — [...]

Related posts:

  1. Plone Strategic Summit results posted Notes and action items from the Plone Strategic Planning…
  2. Fixed bid implementation work: a marriage made in Vegas Most of my CMS selection clients are not just…
  3. How I use Twitter for Work Publishing Decision Tree V2 Originally uploaded by sggottlieb I…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Work Breakdown Structure vs. Deadlines

Posted in Development, Management on July 21st, 2010 by seth – Comments Off

One of the most common points of friction between project managers and developers is planning work. Most programmers hate creating work breakdown structures (WBS). You can’t blame them, accurately predicting steps and effort required to build undesigned software is impossible. Yes, you heard that right. Software development planning is impossible — [...]

Related posts:

  1. Plone Strategic Summit results posted Notes and action items from the Plone Strategic Planning…
  2. Fixed bid implementation work: a marriage made in Vegas Most of my CMS selection clients are not just…
  3. How I use Twitter for Work Publishing Decision Tree V2 Originally uploaded by sggottlieb I…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Why traditional intranets fail today’s knowledge workers

Posted in Uncategorized on July 14th, 2010 by Oscar Berg – Comments Off

“Flexible access to people and resources can be enormously powerful in a world driven by changes that, more often than not, lead us in unanticipated directions…we need to become more adept at ‘capability leverage’ – finding and accessing complementary capabilities, wherever they reside in the world, to deliver more value.”  

- From “The Power of Pull” by J Hagel, J S Brown, L Davidson 

Businesses, in particular in the Western world, are becoming more and more knowledge-intensive with an increasing part of the workforce engaged in knowledge-based work. A study by The Work Foundation has estimated that we have a 30-30-40 workforce – 30 per cent in jobs with high knowledge content, 30 per cent in jobs with some knowledge content, and 40 per cent in jobs with less knowledge content.

Knowledge work is about such things as solving problems, performing research and creative work, interacting and communicating with other people, and so on. Such work is by nature less predictable and repeatable than traditional industry work (transformational and transactional activities organized into repeatable processes). Both the inputs and outputs of knowledge work – which is information and knowledge – vary from time to time, from situation to situation. So does the purpose, activities, roles and resources involved in knowledge work. Knowledge work is also less structured and the structure of knowledge work typically emerges as the work proceeds.

In a knowledge-intensive business environment, it is often very hard or even impossible to anticipate in advance what information is needed. You simply cannot know what information will be relevant before the moment you need it. The information might not exist until the moment you need it, or you are simply unaware of its existence. That’s why more is better (“more is more”) when it comes to information supply in a knowledge-intensive business environment. If there is more to choose from, chances are there will be something for (almost) any need. That’s also why it has become critical for knowledge workers to access to the information abundance on the Internet. We also need to have immediate access to anyone who might possess the knowledge and information we need but which is not captured – often because it is hard to capture or simply does not allow itself to be captured (tacit knowledge) and exchanged.

There’s a long tail of information needs that still needs to be served

Assuming we have a long tail of diverse, constantly changing and virtually unlimited amount of information needs, we need to do what can be done to serve these needs in some way or another. The problem is that the information resources that most businesses choose to produce and provide access are not aimed at serving these infrequent, uncertain and constantly changing information needs. Let’s use the Long Tail power graph below to illustrate and further expand this reasoning.

In the left end of the power graph we have the information resources which are most frequently used because they are serving frequently recurring information needs. The information which is needed for transformational and transactional activities – but also administrative knowledge work – is likely to be served by information resources in the left part of the Long Tail power graph. This information does not change very often and thus can be quite easily reused. It’s the kind of information used for commonly performed activities, which means that the information needs are predictable. An information need that has occurred once will for certain occur again. This allows us to define, design and produce the type and structure of the information as well as the actual information before the next time the information need arises (the activity is performed).

Knowledge work is often a completely different story. While the information used us input to an activity or process is likely to be found in the left part of the Long Tail power graph, the information needed for a knowledge work activity is likely to be found in the long tail. There you have information resources which are used infrequently or maybe even once. The information which is needed varies from time to time, from situation to situation. Not only the actual information varies; often the type and structure of the information resource varies too. This makes it virtually impossible to define a reusable information resource in advance before it is needed.

The unpredictable nature of knowledge work is why we need to give knowledge workers access to all information that exists and that might be relevant. Since we don’t know what might be relevant until a certain need arises (which we never might be aware of until we discover certain information), we can’t really put the relevant information in one “for keeps” pile and all other information in another “to be trashed” pile. We also need to provide them with tools so they can create or capture information with each other, or else there will not be enough information available to serve the knowledge workers’ information needs. To help people find and discover information that is relevant to their tasks when they need it, we also need to create powerful pull mechanisms which allow relevant information to automatically surface and be placed at the fingertips of knowledge workers just when they need it.

Traditional intranets are not designed for knowledge work

This leads me to the changing role of intranets in knowledge-intensive businesses. These intranets need to provide flexible access to both information and people by employing pull models for serving as many knowledge worker information needs as possible, including unanticipated information needs. Information supply needs to be maximized by supporting the creation and access to user-generated content as well as by allowing for easy integration of external information sources. The intranet needs to be turned into an “information broker platform” where information is freely and easily created, aggregated, shared, found and discovered at minimal effort.  Such an intranet gives everybody access to all information which is available and make room for virtually infinite amounts of information.

However, most of today’s intranets primarily consist of pre-produced information resources which are intended to serve information needs which can be anticipated in advance. They aim to serve people who perform predefined and repeatable tasks. These intranets are push platforms. As such they might work well for repeatable routine work where the information needs can be defined in advanced, but they are quite dysfunctional for knowledge work. It’s not a coincidence that many knowledge workers find it much easier to find information on the web than in their internal systems and that the intranet plays a marginal role in their daily work.

The information that knowledge workers need can often not be anticipated and served by a push-based intranet. It is also critical that they have access to ALL information that is available, including collaborative content produced by teams, content produced by external resources, tacit knowledge captured in conversations, and so forth. Since the information artifacts on an intranet typically are produced by a relatively small part of the organization’s total workforce, the resources available for producing these information resources are limited. A line needs to be drawn between information needs which can be served and those which cannot be served. A common approach is to identify the most common information needs and focus available resources on serving these needs as good as possible. Assuming that the resources for producing and maintaining information resources are scarce, this is a seemingly feasible approach. But it’s not a feasible approach for an intranet that needs to serve the highly varying, extensive and unpredictable information needs of knowledge workers.

To conclude: a major reason why traditional intranets fail today’s knowledge workers is that all information they provide access to is produced with a push-based production model. This model assumes that all information resources on the intranet must be produced in advance (only serving information needs which can be anticipated) by a small subset of all available resources (employees) and that the entire body of information needs to be supervised by a few people for the purpose of controlling the message, format and/or organization of the information resources.

Knowledge workers need a social intranet 

There are plenty of definitions trying to define what a social intranet is, but most of the ones I’ve seen have not been able to see beyond tools and technologies. They don’t succeed in describing the paradigm change that is transforming intranets into something completely different from what they are today.

The social intranet is not just about adding a layer of social collaboration tools; it is a platform that combines the powers of push with the powers of pull to supply anyone who participates and contributes within an extended enterprise with the information, knowledge and connections they need to make the right decisions and act to fulfill their objectives. It equips everyone with the tools that allows them to participate, contribute, attract, discover, find and connect with each other to exchange information and knowledge and/or collaborate. It connects information demand with information supply in knowledge-intensive businesses, something which can only be done by involving all employees in the information supply, removing bottle-necks created by the production model (such as approval workflows and that everything must fit in a central taxonomy) and enabling employee-to-employee information exchange.

When it comes to information supply, the previously dominating “less is more” paradigm is being replaced by a “more is more” paradigm. A social intranet must necessarily be designed for information abundance. The increasing volume of information resources needs to be seen as opportunity to be embraced rather than as a problem – a problem which can only be solved by reducing the body of information down to an amount which can be managed by a few people (relatively to the entire population of the extended enterprise).

Although too many options can decrease your performance and create stress, information abundance does not equal an abundance of choice; the social intranet is a pull platform with mechanisms for automatically attracting relevant information and people to you. What’s important is that the options you are presented with are relevant and usable. But that’s another issue. The point is that the information you need is not there in the first place, chances are that none of the options you will be presented with will do. That’s of course an unwanted situation as you might not be able to perform your task or you might make an incorrect decision that can have serious consequences. Deliberately hindering information to reach people is not the way to avoid the sensation commonly called information overload, because as Clay Shirky argues the problem is not the amount of information but rather that the filters we have fail to sort it properly for us. We need to get the filters in place instead of blaming and demonizing (”Tsunami of data”, “firehose of information” etc) information supply and arguing that the only way to solve this “problem” is to limit supply.

The social intranet also has an important part to play when it comes to supporting serendipity; enabling people to find both information and people they didn’t know they were looking for. To do so it must have mechanisms that allow information and people that might be useful to us to be pulled to us. Spending time and effort searching for relevant information and people where there is information abundance just won’t pay off. We must have ways that “automagically” attract useful information and connections to us. We just need to implicitly and explicitly share what do and know to other people in our networks, to people who share our interests, or to people who happen to pass us by at any other kind of cross-road.

Needless to say, the push-based production model used for most intranets will still have an important role to play – but only as a component within a social intranet. It will continue to serve the most common, stable and predictable information needs. Even though it is important and sometimes critical that these can be served efficiently and effectively, the greatest value that can be created with the use of an intranet relies on the long tail of information. This is because the long tail of information supports the core of a knowledge-intensive modern business: the knowledge work.