Intranet ‘innovation’ – what we’re looking for
Categorised under: Intranets
One of the most challenging aspects of the Intranet Innovation Awards is convincing intranet professionals that the work they’ve done is innovative, and worth entering.
While I’m sure there are many reasons for this, it’s worthwhile to describe just what we see and consider as ‘innovative’ in the context of the these Awards.
Our formula
For the Awards, innovation is calculated by considering: Originality + Impact
To help us with this, submissions for the Awards are scored in three categories, as outlined below.
Originality (30% of score)
How is the submission original and innovative?
Submissions should demonstrate new ideas or innovative approaches. While ideas do not need to be unique, they should show an uncommon or original approach.
Staff impact (30% of score)
How has the innovation changed the way staff or the organisation work?
Submissions must show how they have directly changed the way common tasks or business processes are done. More than just being of novelty value, innovative approaches help to reshape the organisation.
Organisational benefits (40% of score)
How has the innovation tangibly or measurably benefited the organisation?
Submissions must demonstrate the direct organisational value or benefits that were delivered as a result of the new functionality or content. This may be measured quantitatively (in dollar terms), or qualitatively (describing how the innovation has delivered improvements).
Examples from last year
In 2008, one of the winners was Swiss Post, with their ‘Speaking Intranet News’ application that was delivered by calling a toll-free number. This remains an original (and perhaps unique?) application, and thus scored high on ‘originality’. The judges said Speaking Intranet News was ‘a great idea and highly innovative’. It scored well in the Staff Impact section too, with the judges also saying it was a great solution for distributed workforces (who normally wouldn’t have regular access to the intranet).
Fuller Landau, winner of the 2008 Platinum Award for multiple submissions, effectively delivered several smart applications, one of which was a ‘Conflict Checker’, which allowed consultants to identify possible clashes with their colleagues’ existing clients.
Of the Conflict Checker specifically, the judges commented that it was an interesting application, it operates at a high level in the company and it’s completely fit for purpose. Not only that, but it reduced the time it took to do a conflict check from five days to one, demonstrating fantastic business benefits, and a great improvement for staff.
Viewed in context these two entries are both innovative, but for differing reasons.
Our message here is, think about:
- how useful a specific tool has been;
- why that is, and think about the impact it has had on staff; and
- how much better it might be than the solution you had previously.
There’s every likelihood that the initial problem you faced and barriers you negotiated in development meant you had to think differently, and the success you’re seeing now is testament to that.
James Robertson is the Managing Director of 