Column Two

James, this post neatly summarizes concerns and gaps I noted during a recent evaluation of “out of the box” intranet software applications for a client of mine. I (and the client) found the usability, the 2.0 graphics, the rich user & social focus, etc etc of at least one of the new solutions appealing – seductive even – but ultimately wasn’t quite persuaded. I don’t think I quite understood why though, until I read this. So no, I don’t think you’re missing something – I think these solutions are.

It’s interesting to read Lynn’s use of the word “seductive” (and I agree 100%, they look amazing!). I am one of those vendors who has a “social” intranet product, however the basis of our product is those core tools and applications that James has mentioned. The human approach excites me in that it gives us the challenge in thinking more of benefits vs. features, and how intranets can better serve the employee. I am glad that you wrote this article James because in all of the 2.0 hype the traditional model is getting a really bad rap. I am sure we will see the enterprise 2.0 vendors start to move towards the more traditional model by adding in these missing elements: document management, policies & procedures, electronic forms, and other task-based applications that offer so much more than a wiki based content structure.

@ James – You say “vendors really need to understand how intranets tick, and what intranet best practices are”. I agree, however there’s a danger in “best practices” that I’m sure you understand. What’s best for one organisation is not necessarily best for another, even in the same industry.

It depends on your intranet architecture and the different technologies you are using. But assuming you are talking about an enterprise social computing suite that becomes your primary intranet, then yes it should support all those traditional intranet functions. The point about ‘social’ isn’t just about supporting conversational collaboration, but providing a platform that can be shaped by people at they use it to get their work down. However, perhaps where there is some room for debate is about how much of the information architecture is allowed to emerge versus how much is designed centrally. The suite you choose should still support that, rather than forcing an all or nothing decision.

Great comment, James D., about structured vs. emergent IA. This is a key concept that people talking about Enterprise 2.0 are not giving enough attention. Even if you go for a very unstructured approach, it is important to have a community manager versed in IA best practices & web usability who extracts IA patterns as they emerge and helps re-organize content.

INTRANET BEST PRACTICES

There are a number of best practices that are more about guidance on how to lay down railroad tracks then the specific destination to build towards. User-focused, task-oriented IA, iterative user testing, state clear business problems, ensure support from Executives, let the selection of the tools follow clarification of the needs, etc. Some best practices will be specific to CMS vs. wiki vs. portal-based intranets, but still probably more of the “how” than “what.”

@James Robertson. As I read your comment I realized that parameters of each off-the-shelf social intranet software product’s site setup and features dictate the range of best practices that vendors can prescribe.

I don’t think whatever you have been looking at is designed to replace an entire intranet. I don’t think that has been the purpose of things like Lotus Connections. Most enterprises will have such systems in place to do the HR stuff. Replacing all that and adding social features to a company would probably be too much in one go.

This issue reminds me of the early days of intranet adoption, where similar arguments were raised over locally-created (specialised) content and centrally written (global) content.

The content authoring problem was eventually resolved by better resourcing for content creation in localised areas (including training and staffing), more centralised control over processess and standards (eventually through more sophisticated XML-based CMS that could handle multiple workflows, CSS and flexible architectures), and infrastructure investment.

Now the discussion isn’t about the content, but about the tools available to author the content. What’s being wished for is a single, super-configurable tool to manage the full range of content types, but what suppliers can viably (and profitably) produce and market are ‘localised’ solutions to each content type.

I personally think that XML/CSS (and the drive for accessibility) was the watershed for resolving content authoring problems. If we look under the hood is there a technical challenge here that needs resolution and critical mass adoption before the ‘one ring to rule them all’ dream can be realised? RDF? Can Enterprise search surpass these issues and pull content from localised tools to display in a centralised interface so that the source is irrelevant to the user?

@Kingsley, I really don’t believe just putting in a wiki is the answer to intranet problems or needs. Some aspects sure, but not all, not for the vast majority of large organisations.

@James D, very good point, there has to be a balance between social features with emergent structures and traditional intranet functionality with a designed architecture and framework, however basic or lean.

The example James R was looking at seemed to throw the baby out with the bathwater – all social features, no traditional features, which we do still need.