It is with a little sadness that I have to close this blog. My career is moving on and I have accepted a fantastic new opportunity at my company to lead a brand new team in an exciting area.
Over the past couple of years several people encouraged me to write this blog and having written it for a while I have been surprised by the quantity and quality of feedback - there are certainly some lively minds out there in the world of intranets!
To all of you in the intranet world, good luck with your projects and, above all, have fun!
Thursday, 9 April 2009
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Are publishers' needs opposite to users' needs?
When talking with publishers they often talk about their aspirations for their site along the following lines
1. Different
2. Interactive
3. A place to put all of the relevant documents
4. All of the content related to my project in a single place
5. Ways to get users to look at things that I want them to
Compare that list to the typical things that users say they want from websites
1. Consistent
2. Simple
3. Not just a list of PDFs
4. Content arranged by what I am doing - without having to know the organisation structure
5. Don't let anything get in the way of what I'm trying to do - don't make me wade through irrelevant links
Okay, I may have slightly stretched the point, but it is certainly interesting to compare our drivers as intranet publishers and managers with those of the user.
Do you have any examples of the tensions between users and publishers needs? I would love to hear them.
Monday, 2 February 2009
Should we call it web 2.0?
The other day my boss challenged me to really get some energy behind web2.0 on our intranet. He is an enthusiast for all things web and really wanted to get going with this web2.0 thing. I agreed with him and said I would get going at once. I went back to my desk and listed out some of the things that web2.0 included and how it might be used in our business. Every time I came up for a use for web 2.0, we had already implemented it or were already working on the idea. In fact, most of the issue with existing implementations was either lack of management engagement or lack of relevance to mainstream users.
This was quite a breakthrough as I spend quite a bit of time (as you probably do) in meetings with people who just WISH we were doing web 2.0
This need to ask for web2.0 reminds me of the old story of a man who was stranded on a desert island. He prayed to god for help and soon after a rescue boat arrived. He told the rescue team to go away as he was sure god would save him. Later, a helicopter came over and he told the pilot the same thing. A passing boat signalled to him and he signalled back that he was waiting for god to save him. Of course after a little while the man died. Arriving at the gates of heaven he asked god why he had not answered his prayer and saved him. God replied 'Of course I answered your prayer - I sent a rescue team, a helicopter, a boat...'
My learning from all this is that sometimes we need to step back from the buzz and deliver projects and intranets that just work. In intranet circles so much energy is put into the 'redesign' or the 'relaunch' and so little into the basic hard work of running something that is based on needs of the user and the company. By calling something web2.0 we are setting ourselves an impossible challenge that will never go away even if everyone in the company has a blog.
What do you think - should we ban the phrase web2.0 on our intranets?
This was quite a breakthrough as I spend quite a bit of time (as you probably do) in meetings with people who just WISH we were doing web 2.0
This need to ask for web2.0 reminds me of the old story of a man who was stranded on a desert island. He prayed to god for help and soon after a rescue boat arrived. He told the rescue team to go away as he was sure god would save him. Later, a helicopter came over and he told the pilot the same thing. A passing boat signalled to him and he signalled back that he was waiting for god to save him. Of course after a little while the man died. Arriving at the gates of heaven he asked god why he had not answered his prayer and saved him. God replied 'Of course I answered your prayer - I sent a rescue team, a helicopter, a boat...'
My learning from all this is that sometimes we need to step back from the buzz and deliver projects and intranets that just work. In intranet circles so much energy is put into the 'redesign' or the 'relaunch' and so little into the basic hard work of running something that is based on needs of the user and the company. By calling something web2.0 we are setting ourselves an impossible challenge that will never go away even if everyone in the company has a blog.
What do you think - should we ban the phrase web2.0 on our intranets?
Saturday, 10 January 2009
How to prioritise intranet developments
The top 3 dimensions to prioritise intranet developments. Benefits, Reach and Influence.
If you are anything like me you have an ongoing long list of people in your organisation who want something on the intranet. Whether it is a new workflow or some new content there is a never ending stream of demand to develop. This is a good thing, but your time and resources are limited so how do you make decisions about what to do first?
I use 3 simple tests when discussing new opportunities. First, does the development have a direct benefit to the bottom line - and to support this are all of the right people (finance, procurement, senior management) in support of the cost savings that will be achieved. Are the cost savings built into local business plans and are they clearly measurable. If you can't pass this test move on to the next one.
Secondly, does the development significantly increase reach of your intranet. If you are like me you have a strategic goal to weave the intranet into a way of working around your organisation. To achieve this you need a critical mass of users and must-have features. Is this new feature going to extend the intranet to a new set of users (who are not currently using it) or drive increased repeat usage in a community that are already using your intranet. This one is a bit harder to judge than the previous one as every stakeholder who is looking for a new feature will usually be enthusiastic about the likelihood of every person in the company using their page on a regular basis. However, this test should be obvious - if everyone has to book their leave on the intranet and there is no paper alternative then it will obviously increase traffic for the affected groups.
Lastly, if the initiative doesn't pass the previous two tests is it going to significantly increase your influence. In a situation where you have been working to co-operate with a stakeholder for some time it does not make sense to turn them down when an opportunity finally arises. Equally if the CEO calls you and asks for some content or online process it makes equally little sense to refuse. Importantly I would use these opportunities to make a trade. If you have to agree to some vanity publishing against your judgement then make sure you negotiate time to come and explain intranet strategy and benefits to the people who are asking. There are all sorts of things that you can get in return if someone wants something.
What do you use to make priority calls?
If you are anything like me you have an ongoing long list of people in your organisation who want something on the intranet. Whether it is a new workflow or some new content there is a never ending stream of demand to develop. This is a good thing, but your time and resources are limited so how do you make decisions about what to do first?
I use 3 simple tests when discussing new opportunities. First, does the development have a direct benefit to the bottom line - and to support this are all of the right people (finance, procurement, senior management) in support of the cost savings that will be achieved. Are the cost savings built into local business plans and are they clearly measurable. If you can't pass this test move on to the next one.
Secondly, does the development significantly increase reach of your intranet. If you are like me you have a strategic goal to weave the intranet into a way of working around your organisation. To achieve this you need a critical mass of users and must-have features. Is this new feature going to extend the intranet to a new set of users (who are not currently using it) or drive increased repeat usage in a community that are already using your intranet. This one is a bit harder to judge than the previous one as every stakeholder who is looking for a new feature will usually be enthusiastic about the likelihood of every person in the company using their page on a regular basis. However, this test should be obvious - if everyone has to book their leave on the intranet and there is no paper alternative then it will obviously increase traffic for the affected groups.
Lastly, if the initiative doesn't pass the previous two tests is it going to significantly increase your influence. In a situation where you have been working to co-operate with a stakeholder for some time it does not make sense to turn them down when an opportunity finally arises. Equally if the CEO calls you and asks for some content or online process it makes equally little sense to refuse. Importantly I would use these opportunities to make a trade. If you have to agree to some vanity publishing against your judgement then make sure you negotiate time to come and explain intranet strategy and benefits to the people who are asking. There are all sorts of things that you can get in return if someone wants something.
What do you use to make priority calls?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
