Articles by Category: Collaboration

Sage advice on wiki adoption: keys to success

Stewart Mader has written about keys to wiki adoption. To quote:

Meetings are an especially good place to start. Plan agendas using a wiki, then record minutes & notes, and action items. Between meetings, you can update the status of items, and this sets the stage for deeper wiki uses, like project management.

[Thanks to Michael Angeles]

Posted by jamesr at 02:29 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0

Enterprise social tools: components for success

Thomas Vander Wal has written about achieving success with enterprise social tools. To quote:

Social tools require much more than just the tools for their implementation to be successful. Tool selection is tough as no tool is doing everything well and they all are focussing on niche areas. But, as difficult as the tool selection can be, there are three more elements that make up what the a successful deployment of the tools and can be considered part of the tools.

Posted by jamesr at 05:22 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, Knowledge management

Making collaboration work

I was co-facilitating the Intranet Leadership Forum workshop in Melbourne today, and we started the day with a discussion around collaboration. We covered a variety of questions, but one key topic was: how do we make collaboration work well?

In five minutes the group had brainstormed the following list:

• involve key stakeholders
• training
• find out what people need
• single sign-on
• communicate
• define role of collaboration
• make it easy to use
• build trust via some security
• user testing
• when complete, get rid of collaboration spaces
• establish owner
• governance
• demonstrate successes
• ongoing remarketing
• get champions
• target ideas and opportunities
• value for users

Need I say more...

Posted by jamesr at 11:42 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration

Collaboration tools: STAGS

Matt Moore has published his STAGS model for collaboration tools. To quote:

I've been thinking about different collaboration tools for various groups recently and I was pondering on some of the different factors you need to consider and I came up with this (click to enlarge).

Posted by jamesr at 10:00 AM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration

Getting to know collective and collaborative

Thomas Vander Wal has written an article that differentiates between collective and collaborative. To quote:

One of the things that has been a little bothersome in the last year or two and has been the lack of understanding between the difference between two terms, collaborative and collective. The two terms are rather similar in definition (in some dictionaries they are nearly identical), but the differences between the two terms have a huge difference when it comes to value in social software. This difference and value is often overlooked or missed by those crafting these tools and services, which I hope gets corrected as both have great value and compliment each other.

Posted by jamesr at 11:09 AM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration

Community of practice success story

Mark Schenk has written a post on a case study from Rio Tinto on their community of practices. To quote:

Rio Tinto has made a short video on one of the stories and this is publicly available on their website. Well worth checking out and using as an example of how collaboration can make a big difference in unexpected ways.

Posted by jamesr at 05:32 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Knowledge management

The trouble with web 2.0

Alexander Wilms has written an article on the trouble with web 2.0, from an enterprise context. To quote:

We have seen that there are differences between the Web and corporate environments. While the Web is a deregulated environment, with millions of users contributing and easy access to data, corporations have to restrict their users for many reasons, thereby limiting the potential of the Web 2.0 patterns. While Web 2.0 patterns work well in the Web there might be obstacles and issues when they are implemented in a corporate environment without adaptation. "Might" because every company is an individual organization and there are no easy, "one-size-fits-all" solution. On the other hand the Web 2.0 patterns have been proven to be too successful to be ignored.

Posted by jamesr at 08:30 AM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0

What’s my scene -- user roles and needs in social computing

Matthew Hodgson has written an article on user roles in social computing. To quote:

Do you allow people to comment, review, rate and ask questions on your website's articles? If you do, you'll be enjoying the fact that your own users are helping others know what information is valuable on your website. It's also valuable feedback because it helps you improve the quality of your information. Over the last month, I've been working on a strategy for a client to help them introduce this sort of user-to-user and business-to-user interaction. My client though, has until recently, thought of their users in the same way they do their print magazine.

Posted by jamesr at 09:02 AM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Information architecture, Usability & user-centered design

Trend map for 2008 and beyond

Nowandnext.com and Future Exploration Network have created a trend map for 2008 and beyond, covering key aspects of the online and physical worlds. To quote:

While last year’s map was based on the London tube map, the 2008 map is derived from Shanghai’s underground routes. Limited to just five lines, the map uncovers key trends across Society, Politics, Demographics, Economy, and Technology.

Posted by jamesr at 09:00 AM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, Knowledge management

Librarians challenge Web 2.0 myths

The Register has published results of research into web 2.0 and search amongst youth. To quote:

According to a British Library study many of the assumptions made about the Google generation - defined as those born since 1993 - fail to stack up to the evidence.

Among these, that the Google generation are search experts - something labelled "a dangerous myth". "A careful look at the literature over the past 25 years finds no improvement (or deterioration) in young people's information skills" the report said. Also there is no hard evidence to prove the Google generation needs information immediately and that it has no tolerance for delay in getting such data.

Social networking also comes up short. Around seven per cent of students agreed they were "very" or "extremely likely" to use social networking for a variety of tasks such as online discussions or sharing ideas. But the rest, the study concluded, "are not interested".

Posted by jamesr at 08:07 AM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, Search tools

Collaboration's resurgence

Shawn Callahan has written a post of the resurgence of collaboration as a hot topic. To quote:

Everywhere I turn recently and I hear people talking about the need to collaborate as if the idea was new. Why has collaboration become the capability organisations must have? And why now? I think I have an inkling.

Posted by jamesr at 07:45 AM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration

Perkins Eastman: Practice Area Communities

This is the last of the video interviews with the inaugural Intranet Innovation Award winners.

This interview is with the Gold Award winning Perkins Eastman (USA), introducing their use of "practice area communities". Covered in this video:

• Why were the PACs established?
• The role of gatekeepers
• Benefits delivered
• Lessons learned
• Advice for other firms?

(Yes, that's New York traffic noise in the background.)

Posted by jamesr at 07:46 AM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Intranets, Knowledge management

The elements in the social software stack

Thomas Vander Wal has presented a model of the elements in the social software stack. To quote:

When thinking through social software (also known as social computing, social media, and social web) I have been influenced by many ideas, but at the core there are two things that stick in my head: 1) Good visualization; and 2) Object-centered sociality. Getting the two to mesh, while accounting for most of the important components of social software has been really difficult for me to square for quite some time.

Posted by jamesr at 06:00 AM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Knowledge management

Is this preaching rebellion against IT?

Michael Sampson has written a post on the Forrester survey into collaboration. To quote:

Forrester reports that 68% of its respondents indicated plans to invest in "real-time collaboration software", a phrase which generally means instant messaging. Technology for enterprise instant messaging has been widely available for many years, so what's with the high interest now? My sense is that the employees at these firms have already fully embraced free public instant messaging services, and IT is in catchup mode to deliver an enterprise-class and enterprise-secure IM and presence service. They wouldn't do it if they didn't have to, but those on the business side are so fully invested in it that they won't let it go. It has proven its value, and is now being demanded.

Posted by jamesr at 07:20 AM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration

Collaboration is about people

A number of articles have recently been published on collaboration. Focusing on collaboration tools, these articles have explored when they work, the challenges involved and how to avoid these problems in practice.

In many ways, these articles have taken for granted the central aspect of collaboration: the people involved. This article will explore the human face of collaboration, touching upon a range of enterprise considerations.

Collaboration can't be forced

It make no sense to roll out collaboration tools to the whole organisation. Collaboration takes place between people, and can't be forced or created through the use of technology.

While it is possible to create new opportunities for collaboration using online tools, this is slow and hard, and not the best approach when implementing collaboration tools for the first time.

Instead, collaboration tools work best when they support existing collaboration taking place between individuals or groups within the organisation.

For example, regular meetings may be held between line managers to discuss quality assurance problems. A collaboration space can be a valuable support for discussions that are held during these regular (face-to-face) meetings.

Pilot collaboration projects should therefore seek out areas where there is a demand for tools to support existing groups or communities.

[CM Briefing 2007-22, read the full article]

Posted by jamesr at 01:27 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, James' articles, Knowledge management

It's nice to have friends

It's nice to have friends. Over the years, we've met a lot of people at conferences and events, and have steady readers of the articles we publish. We've also worked with a lot of organisations, or have had conversations via emails.

The connections we build at conferences, however, can be lost at the end of the events. While many teams read our articles, this readership is largely invisible and unconnected.

So we've created a Friends of Step Two Facebook group. Everyone is welcome, and this is for those interested in intranets, information management, usability or information architecture.

We'll publish links to our regularly monthly articles, and well as cool stuff like the upcoming video interviews of the Intranet Innovation Awards winners.

Beyond that, the group is entirely open. Everyone is welcome to post links, photos and videos. Let's start a conversation, we're all friendly people...

Posted by jamesr at 10:28 AM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Conferences & presentations, Information architecture, Information management, Intranets, Usability & user-centered design

Start by 'gardening' collaboration

Collaboration tools have been used in organisations for a long time now, and the new generation of tools is spreading at an incredible rate. Tools are being deployed in parallel across many different business units, irrespective of any organisation-wide strategy or support.

A planned approach must therefore be taken to the management of collaboration tools within organisations. While it is left to a future article to outline a full strategic roadmap, the first step is to put in place a model of 'gardening'.

This must be done now, before the 'horse has bolted'. Any delay will leave much cleanup to be done after the fact.

Addressing collaboration challenges

This briefing is one of a number of articles published on managing collaboration within organisations.

The earlier article Collaboration tools are anti knowledge sharing?, highlighted that while collaboration tools are great for meeting local and individual needs, they can be detrimental to organisation-wide knowledge sharing. Locking up all the content into small collaboration spaces can make it harder to find key information.

The article Successful collaboration requires support highlighted a range of resources that should be developed to help staff pick the right tools and make the best use of them. There also needs to be a central team who play a 'mentoring' role to the organisation, guiding the adoption and use of collaboration tools.

Gardening collaboration

Organisations should not stand in the way of collaboration, or create barriers to the adoption of collaboration tools. Equally, they should not stand by and let these tools spread without support or direction.

[CM Briefing 2007-21, read the full article]

Posted by jamesr at 07:26 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, James' articles

Successful collaboration requires support

Successful organisation-wide collaboration does not happen by chance. While the uptake of collaboration tools can be very rapid, some areas will use the tools well, while others will struggle (or fail).

Rolling out collaboration tools is not without its risks. As outlined in the earlier briefing Collaboration tools are anti knowledge sharing?, the fragmentation of information can be greatly increased when the number of individual spaces grows.

Organisations must, however, support collaboration (and collaboration tools) as the need for these is great. This briefing outlines some practical steps that all organisations should take to help business areas and staff make the best use of collaboration tools.

Immediate support

The topic of how to make collaboration succeed is very broad, and one that is still being explored (and debated) within the community. With collaboration tools being rolled out as we speak, however, it is imperative to put in place some immediate support.

This briefing focuses on some very practical steps that can be taken to dispel some of the confusion surrounding collaboration tools and help staff use them successfully.

[CM Briefing 2007-20, read the full article]

Posted by jamesr at 07:15 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, James' articles

Establish a portfolio of collaboration tools

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for collaboration needs within an organisation. Individual teams and business areas will have very different behaviours and requirements, and this must be reflected in the collaboration tools that are put in place.

To fully meet an organisation's collaboration needs, a 'portfolio' approach should be taken. This involves providing a range of supported tools, and allowing each area to pick the functionality that they require.

This briefing explores the portfolio approach, and provides guidance on making it work in practice.

Different needs

There are many different situations within any organisation that fall under the heading of 'collaboration'. Common examples include:

• Team-based collaboration, where a small group of staff work on a single project or other ongoing task.
• Communication and collaboration between a geographically dispersed group of staff, such as a working group or community of practice.
• Collaborative creation of documentation.
• Teaching and e-learning spaces that support educational needs.
• Ongoing research projects, where researchers and other experts share information.

Each of these situations will require a unique mix of collaboration tools, processes and practices.

[CM Briefing 2007-19, read the full article]

Posted by jamesr at 07:07 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, James' articles

Building a culture of collaboration

Bill Roberts has written an article on building a culture of collaboration. To quote:

Today's collaborative tools fall into two broad groups: tools created for a web-based function, and collaborative platforms designed for various disciplines from supply chain management to HR processes to general knowledge sharing.

The first category, known as Web 2.0, includes blogs and wikis. Although developed for the web -- the greatest collaboration platform ever designed -- these tools have been adapted for secure use by businesses. IBM , Microsoft and other vendors also have infused many of these features into their software.

Posted by jamesr at 06:27 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration

Followup to collaboration is anti knowledge sharing?

A few days ago I posted an article titled: collaboration tools are anti knowledge sharing? This was a deliberately provocative article, and I've now had an excellent response from Michael Sampson. To quote:

If the team has done a proper job of collecting and collating all of their discussions, all of the document editions, all of their meeting notes and so forth, that is not a collection of "knowledge" ... it's a set of data points and information items on the route to a final destination. James writes that the inability for merely anyone to understand the context of each item ("What is this file, is it a final or a draft? How does it relate to this other document? Where is the main project plan?") is a failing of the tool.

I don't buy that.

As I've commented on his post, I agree with everything that he's said. This is definitely not a technology problem, although it can be a problem caused by technology in the absence of appropriate governance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of collaboration, and have given up on the "white elephant" KM solutions a long time ago.

What I'm concerned about is that collaboration is very much viewed as a technology issue by IT areas, leading to it spreading in an unmanaged way. This is the lesson we didn't learn from the Notes era, and are just about to be repeated in the SharePoint era if we aren't careful.

(I've got more coming on the solutions, not just the problems, so watch this space!)

PS. Michael has published some superb resources relating to collaboration, including the 7 Pillars of IT-Enabled Team Productivity. See the bottom of Michael's post for a longer list of resources.

Posted by jamesr at 06:15 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0

Collaboration tools are anti knowledge sharing?

There is a clear need for collaboration within organisations, and the rollout of collaboration tools will bring many benefits. What is not widely recognised, however, is that the unmanaged spread of collaboration tools can work against knowledge sharing.

While collaboration tools work extremely well for the staff using them, they can lead to hundreds (or thousands) of information 'silos', making it harder for other staff to find required information.

This briefing will explore this issue, drawing on experiences gained across many different organisations.

Collaboration works well

Collaboration spaces work very well for the staff using them. Team and project spaces are a particularly good example of this, providing an effective space for team members to communicate and collaborate in.

The ability to 'work in' these spaces is one of their greatest strengths, allowing easy sharing of content, documents, discussions, diaries and more. Far richer than file shares, intranets or document management systems, the current generation of collaboration tools have the potential to deliver considerable productivity benefits.

What also makes these spaces successful is the 'shared context' amongst users. Because they are actively engaged in the ongoing use of these spaces, everyone knows what's happening, and where to find key information.

In practice, collaboration areas naturally evolve to fit the needs of the staff who are using them, with the spaces matching the idiosyncrasies of the groups they serve.

[CM Briefing 2007-17, read the full article]

Posted by jamesr at 09:59 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, Information management, James' articles, Knowledge management

Taking the best of both worlds

A little while back I wrote an entry on enterprise 2.0, characterising the conflict between the libertarians and the corporate suits (noting the deliberate stereotyping). To quote:

On one side we have what I would call the "libertarians", the body-and-soul evangelists of enterprise 2.0 technologies and approaches. While not all speaking with the one voice, there is a common theme of "get out of the way and let it happen". In other words, encourage the release of enterprise 2.0 technologies into an organisation, let staff find their own uses for it, and information management problems will start to melt away.

On the other side, you have the "corporate suits". Mostly driven from an IT, IM or KM perspective, there is typically a focus on enterprise content management (ECM), and the general adoption of "enterprise" solutions. This includes products that have been in the market for some time, such as web content management systems, document management systems, records management systems, and the like.

The purpose of the post was to argue for the need to find a middle ground between the two extremes, recognising that both are wrong. In this piece I'd like to explore that further, by asking: what do we get if we take the best of both worlds?

The idea is to move the debate beyond black-and-white, towards exploring how we make all this work in practice, how we avoid the pitfalls and maximise the benefits. To that end, here are my lists of what I would take from each approach, and what is currently offered by neither...

Best of the libertarian approach

• support for a heterogeneous mix of tools within the organisation
• ability for individuals to select tools to fit their specific needs
• adoption of solutions driven by local needs
• inherent flexibility in the use of tools
• driven by a focus on innovation
• support for experimentation in both technology and approaches
• ability of individuals to tailor, configure and integrate solutions
• capability for individuals to contribute, and not just consume
• explicit support for collaboration and other social effects
• endorsement for both internally and externally hosted solutions
• use of low-cost, low-footprint solutions that can be rapidly deployed
• use of modern web standards and platforms
• focus on "flows" rather than "stocks"

Best of the corporate suits approach

• corporately supported platforms
• ability to deploy onto corporate servers
• dedicated IT support
• backup and other core IT services
• consideration of security and compliance issues
• recognition as part of corporate strategy
• senior management support and endorsement
• centrally allocated budget
• single sign-on across applications
• integration with core enterprise solutions, such as HR and finance
• specific projects to deploy solutions, where needed
• longer-term strategies

Currently offered by neither

• overall owner of enterprise 2.0 approaches, beyond the technology platforms
• dedicated individual or team playing an internal mentoring role
• development of best practice guides, how-to manuals, tips and other resources
• focus on building expertise and knowledge within the organisation
• capture and communication of local successes and failures
• well-established community of practice supporting enterprise 2.0 approaches
• collaboration with other organisations to share knowledge
• high standard of usability and accessibility across all solutions
• clear vision of the future of enterprise work practice
• singular focus on resolving business problems and meeting needs

Posted by jamesr at 08:27 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0

Social networks and group formation

Shiv Singh has written an article on social networks and group formation, drawing upon a range of academic research. To quote:

The online social network field is broad, and any literature review can only focus on a selection of articles. The present article highlights recent research in the field and focuses on centrality, linkage strength, identity, trust, activity and benefits. By no means is this review comprehensive, but it should give practitioners some useful concepts to consider as they design social network based web applications.

Posted by jamesr at 04:35 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration

Adopting collaboration: continuing the discussion

A few days ago I posted a model for the adoption of collaboration, which outlined the following phases:

• Phase 0: Fragmentation
• Phase 1: Gardening
• Phase 2: Business solutions
• Phase 3: Rich networks
• Phase 4: Coherence

This has generated some excellent conversation via other blogs. Matt Moore started the conversation by adding his insights against each of the phases:

I look at phase 4 and go "yeah, right". The collaboration tool space is changing very quickly at the moment. Phase 4 feels like a utopia at the moment. And given this dynamic environment, a very unlikely utopia. I think many organisations have enough on their plate trying to get to phase 3. I would feel nervous talking about phase 4 because I can just see a senior exec going: "This sounds great, I want one of these by the end of the month!" and mayhem ensuing. What is more likely in the next 1-3 years are rich networks (collaborative ecosystems) and then richer networks - with tools dropping in and out. "Coherence" feels way too static to me as a goal at the moment.

I certainly agree that phase 4, is a "nirvana" state and that phase 3 is the goal for the next 1-3 years. I don't believe we can even articulate what "coherence" would really look like yet, although vendors are busy promising it via their solutions. My experience, though, is that we need to "capture the high ground" in these models, explicitly including the longer-term vision. Without this, these models are too quickly ignored when a "sexier" approach comes along. My goal was also to highlight that there are three big phases that come first, before attempting to tackle phase 4...

Still, I agree that it is always dangerous to paint a picture of the "holy grail", particularly if this is taken on by over-enthusiastic senior execs. Matt, any thoughts on how to find a middle ground between the two extremes of no vision and looking too high?

James Dellow then joined the discussion with some excellent insight, including:

To me, James is describing the innovation process and some elements of the collaborative infrastructure, where as I would treat them as parallel processes. The issue that Matt points out is the challenge of trying to reach an equilibrium or stability (or perhaps perfection? - see The Search for the Perfect Intranet). In this respect I think the process James is describing should be seen as a cycle, not an end state. In fact if you managed to stabilise your collaborative environment I would be wondering what you have done wrong.

I definitely agree that this model is very simplistic, and my goal was to give organisations an idea of how (and where) to start, and to get them moving in the right direction.

In practice, many things will be happening in parallel, and different parts of the organisation will be at different phases. There's definitely a need for continuous innovation, but I think that phase 4 is far enough off to prevent organisations from trying to "stabilise" on this state.

It's a challenging (and fun!) space. There's plenty of complexity, and it's still uncharted waters. I do think we need some common language for everyone to align around, and hopefully this simplistic model is the start of that. James, what do you think?

Anyway, thanks for keeping the conversations going, and apologies again for the broken commenting on my site. (I promise I'm working on it, but life's very busy, so I'll need a bit more time!)

Posted by jamesr at 12:20 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration

Enterprise 2.0: working in the middle ground

vs

It's been interesting to observe how the battle lines are shaping up between the evangelists of enterprise 2.0 on the one side, and those perceived to be resisting such technologies on the other side. In this piece, however, I'm going to argue that both sides are wrong, and that we need to find a third way.

Libertarians

On one side we have what I would call the "libertarians", the body-and-soul evangelists of enterprise 2.0 technologies and approaches. While not all speaking with the one voice, there is a common theme of "get out of the way and let it happen". In other words, encourage the release of enterprise 2.0 technologies into an organisation, let staff find their own uses for it, and information management problems will start to melt away.

This camp even sees that senior management support may be corrosive to enterprise 2.0, as success relies on a groundswell of "grass roots" adoption. There is certainly no place for policies or governance in this world view, or the direct management of technologies by central teams.

Corporate suits

On the other side, you have the "corporate suits". Mostly driven from an IT, IM or KM perspective, there is typically a focus on enterprise content management (ECM), and the general adoption of "enterprise" solutions. This includes products that have been in the market for some time, such as web content management systems, document management systems, records management systems, and the like.

This camp focuses on developing overall enterprise strategies, information management governance and change management. Supporting this side are a large number of well-established vendors, and the analyst firms that surround them.

The debate between these two sides is often polarised, argued in black-and-white terms. The libertarians see that enterprise software is a dinosaur overdue for the asteroid, while the corporate suits see the threat of unmanaged software use.

Both sides are wrong

The difficulty with the libertarian approach is the reliance on problems just "sorting themselves out" if the right tools are made available. The challenge is that while these tools (including collaboration tools) are great for the individual and the team, they increase the fragmentation of information across the organisation as a whole. (More on this later.)

This is the lesson we didn't learn from the Lotus Notes era, where we ended up with tens of thousands of Notes databases scattered far and wide. And don't forget the impact of the easy availability of Access databases and Excel spreadsheets.

That's not to say that the new generation of tools haven't given some consideration to this, but it's naive to think that organisations will simply "self-organise" a solution that works for both the individual and the organisation as a whole.

On the other side, the corporate suits have been in trouble for some time now. The adoption of these systems is very low, and the inherent complexity of the products is hurting organisations. There are questions on whether a fully-centralised model for information management can ever work within modern, complex organisations.

In practice, very little meaningful discussion occurs within the traditional "enterprise" space about how to get staff working productively in these solutions, let alone how to connect together the huge information silos.

Finding the middle ground

Neither "libertarian" or "corporate suits" extreme works, and we're not really learning much by arguing between black and white. Instead, we need to be exploring the grey, the middle ground, the middle way.

Yes, we absolutely need the kinds of capabilities delivered by enterprise 2.0 technologies, and this addressing a huge unmet need within organisations. Can we stop their use? No. Should we try to stop or restrict their use? No.

We do need plans and strategies though, along with some simple guidance or governance for staff. We need to find much more mature ways of managing processes, and shaping outcomes. We need to let individuals and teams drive adoptions, but play a strong leadership role to ensure that the end outcome is desirable for all.

This is where all my thinking is around at the moment. The first outcome is the simple (simplistic?) model for collaboration adoption that I recently posted, and there's more to come.

Let's stop demonising either side, and instead ask the questions:

• Where do we want to end up?
• What does the best solution look like, and how do we get there from here?
• How to we make things work in the complex organisational environments we have in the real world?

Posted by jamesr at 11:34 AM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0

Adopting collaboration tools in four phases

I've been doing a lot of thinking recently about collaboration and collaboration tools. It's clear that there's a huge unmet need for this capability, but a lot of confusion about how best to introduce these tools to organisations.

What is equally sure is that just providing the tools and hoping for the best will make the situation dramatically worse, not better. So to avoid this, I've been exploring a possible model for how best to introduce collaboration tools. Here is a summary of my thoughts so far:

• Phase 0: Fragmentation

  As the usage of collaboration tools grows in an unmanaged an unconsidered way, so does the "fragmentation" of information. Key information is divided into ever-smaller spaces, locked up out of broad use, generating considerable information management and knowledge management problems. (This is not a search problem.)

• Phase 1: Gardening

  The starting point is to identify an overall owner for the collaboration tools, and to put in place simple governance, policies and management. Rather than trying to restrict usage, the approach is one of "gardening", helping to guide usage , connect the dots and identify best practices.

• Phase 2: Business solutions

  The next step is to identify key (and common) needs, and build solutions that are tailored to meet them. In this way, clear user needs can guide how to bring together different solutions (wikis, blogs, lists) into more coherent solutions. Possible targets include project collaboration, teaching or e-learning, collaborative authoring, communities of practice or research.

• Phase 3: Rich networks

  Organisation-wide collaboration will only be achieved with the silos are broken down between different spaces. This involves recognising the difference between "inwards" and "outwards" facing spaces, and putting in place processes for sharing and linking between them.

• Phase 4: Coherence

  This is the end goal, where there is coordination between the collaboration spaces at all levels, accessed through a personalised portal-like interface. The lines between different "tools" is blurred, creating a single working environment. (There's a lot to be done before anyone can reach this state.)

The idea behind this simple model is to give a "roadmap" for organisations confronted by the growing demands for collaboration tools. Not proscriptive, it aims to help "shape" the adoption of these tools, ensuring that common pitfalls are avoided.

I'll be writing more on this over the coming months...

(I'm also going to be talking more about this model at our after "Where collaboration tools fit in" sessions in Melbourne and Sydney. Come along and ask some questions!)

Posted by jamesr at 08:33 PM | Permalink
Categories: Collaboration, Information management, Intranets