Search as the interface?

February 9, 2007 at 3:21 pm · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

A number of speakers at the conference have said the following:

“Search is (or will be) the interface”

My question is: what does this mean? I’ve carefully listened to a lot of talks, and have kept my eye out for practical examples that show this concept in practice, but I’ve seen very little.

Can someone add a comment to explain this concept?

Comments (3)

Are blogs and wikis really it?

February 9, 2007 at 10:54 am · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

Whenever enterprise 2.0 is mentioned, it’s all about rolling out blogs and wikis. Whether using free or commercial software, these two pieces of software have come to define what “enterprise 2.0″ is all about.

My question would be though: are blogs and wikis really it, or are they simply the first pieces of software to become famous?

Let’s face it, blogs and wikis are not exactly revolutionary, at least, not within the enterprise. At their heart, they are both lightweight publishing tools. Blogs provide an “online diary”, while wikis offer a simple documentation/collaboration space.

Yes, I know they enable different forms of interaction and communication, and this is where the real value is gained. Nonetheless, blogs and wikis in their current incarnations are pretty clunky. They don’t even work together all that well…

And just because they have both been tremendously successful out on the web, this doesn’t mean they automatically gain the same success (or play the same role) within the enterprise.

If enterprise 2.0 really does succeed, the one thing that I know for sure is that the evolution of software solutions won’t stop with the current generation of blogs and wikis.

Whatever we end up using is going to be far more flexible, powerful and elegant. Still simple, but a lot more evolved from the clumsy tools we are currently using.

So perhaps we should stop getting caught up in the cult of  ”blogs and wikis”, and start thinking about what else might make up enterprise 2.0…

Comments (6)

Two types of search

February 8, 2007 at 3:04 pm · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

Spending whole days listening to talks on search has highlighted to me that there are really two types of search:

• Broad and shallow: this is the typical intranet or website search, which supports a large number of users conducting relatively simple search tasks.
• Narrow and deep: this is the search for specialist groups, whether they be staff in the intelligence community or pharmaceutical researchers.

The “broad and shallow” search is the 80/20 solution: with relatively modest technology it meets the day-to-day needs of the majority of staff in most organisations. For this search, the focus should be on simplicity, usability, and ongoing tuning. This search is hugely important, but can be hard to measure in terms of direct ROI.

In comparison, the “narrow and deep” search is the 20/80 rule. While it only targets a fairly small number of specialist users, the benefits gained can be huge, and
often directly measured. This search focuses on functionality and capability (also hopefully usability).

The challenge is that these two cases are not well articulated in the marketplace. Customers need to be clear about what kind of search they are looking for,
and select technologies accordingly.

Similarly, vendors need to better target their  materials and marketing (and ultimately their products) to these one of these two cases. This is particularly important in the “enterprise” space, where organisation-wide is often confused with
powerful (but complex) search solutions.

Both of these situations are valid, and very important. In the work that I do, my focus is more on the first (broad and shallow) situation, with the aim of improving the search experience for the largest number of users. In contrast, a number of the search vendors
are validly focusing on the latter (narrow and deep), recognising that this is where they can really differentiate themselves.

In summary, language is important. If nothing else, it gives us some common ground to understand the problems that we are trying to solve, and to identify how best to design a solution.

PS. like any black-and-white categorisation, there are exceptions to the rule. Online yellow pages sites, for example, are both broad and deep. This is what makes them so hard to get right…

Comments

Enterprise 2.0 matters because it’s so hard

February 8, 2007 at 2:05 pm · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

One of the interesting talks this morning was from Andrew McAfee from HBS, and this is what I took away from it (paraphrasing in my own words):

Enterprise 2.0 provides a competitive advantage because it is so hard to do, so hard to get adoption.

In other words, if this was easy, everyone would be doing it and there would be no competitive advantage for individual businesses. Of course, enterprise 2.0 still remains extremely hard to get going, and there’s the rub.

Comments

I have some fears about enterprise 2.0

February 8, 2007 at 12:08 am · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

Enterprise 2.0, following behind web 2.0, is certainly getting a lot of visibility at the moment, which in itself is no bad thing.

I have some fears, however, that enterprise 2.0 could easily become yet another fad, bubble or gimmick. It’s certainly being sold pretty hard by quite a few consultants (and
some vendors), and is promising to “change the way the world works”.

Already I’m seeing people get caught up in specific ideas (read-write web, small pieces loosely joined, etc), without really communicating how this is all supposed to work in
practice, particularly within the organisation.

Organisations aren’t going to change overnight. They are the way they are for a reason, and that hasn’t gone away. While new ideas and technologies can provide new solutions, they still need to be fitted into the culture and processes of the organisations we have today.

Few of these challenges are being seriously discussed, and that’s why I’m worried that enterprise 2.0 won’t last beyond another year or so.

Which would be a pity. For the one thing that organisations really need some sustained (and sustainable) innovation around is business processes and information management. The enterprise space has been completely stagnant for at least a decade, and organisations desperately need some change and improvement.

So I hope that what will come out of this is an ongoing focus on innovation (whether radical or incremental), and that we don’t lose sight of that goal in our focus on one particular set of solutions.

[Tags: ff07]

Comments (2)

Tips for gaining adoption (1)

January 28, 2007 at 6:23 pm · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

James Dellow has been following this group blog, and has published an entry on his blog titled Chicken AND egg. It his post, he accuses us of each focusing on just one part of the overall equation, and not on the whole picture:

To me, this is approach of one or the other is a mistake. As in the old chicken and egg problem, the trick to Enterprise 2.0 is all about dealing with both sides of the equation at the same time.

James is right. While we’ve been writing some good stuff, we’ve not yet engaged in a meaningful conversation to hammer out some consensus approaches. Instead, we’ve all be writing from our philosophical “corners” (including me).

So in the spirit of “walking the walk”, I hereby challenge everyone posting on this blog to publish their list of 5 tips for gaining adoption of enterprise 2.0, both at the organisational and individual level. Here’s my list to start the ball rolling:

1. Create a prototype or pilot. Start by identifying an important group of staff (ideally at the front-line), and work with them to create a prototype of a solution that would greatly enhance their ability to do their jobs. Use this to showcase potential improvements, and to “sell” it throughout the rest of the organisation.
2. Use stories to articulate (and capture) needs. Storytelling is an extremely effective way of communicate the day-to-day issues that staff are encountering. It’s also a great way of capturing these needs, to help guide the development of appropriate solutions.
3. Build on existing platforms. Use existing platforms, such as the intranet, as the starting point for enterprise 2.0 enhancements. Build incrementally to deliver immediate improvements, and avoid creating yet another platform or system.
4. Use case studies from similar organisations. Adoption of new technologies and processes is extremely dependent on organisational culture. So unless you are a global consulting firm, avoid using case studies from these types or organisations (or technology companies for that matter). Instead, find similar organisations and find out what they have done.
5. Be passionate about the right things. Too often we become passionate about the solution (or worse, the technology). Instead, we should be passionate about solving the problem, or meeting the need. Only then will we get the buy-in that we are looking for.

So, over to: Rod Boothby, Jerry Bowles, George Dearing, Dana Gardner, Kathleen Gilroy, Bill Ives, Jevon MacDonald, Jim McGee, Joe McKendrick and Euan Semple. What are your five tips for gaining adoption?

Comments (2)

Start with people and business needs

January 25, 2007 at 6:17 pm · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

Jevon MacDonald has written a great post on this blog titled Enterprise 2.0: Where do I start? In it, he argues that organisations should start by learning more about themselves and looking for internal opportunities, before rushing down the consultant or vendor route:

Check your ego: Here is the painful part, and one of the secrets. The baseline requirement of Enterprise 2.0 is to learn to let go and to realize that you must learn to trust those around you before you yourself will earn their trust.

I’m going to go one step beyond this to say: organisations don’t need enterprise 2.0. Implementing a new technology (or set of technologies) won’t drive organisational change or improvements, no matter how sexy or new they are.

So my answer to the question “where do I start?” would focus on two things:

• People: spend time in the organisation understanding what the needs and issues of staff are. Don’t talk about enterprise 2.0 (they don’t care or understand), but take the time to listen to what people’s “pain points” are.
• Business needs: work with senior and middle management to identify strategic needs and directions. At the end of the day, the right points to start are those that will have the biggest impact on the organisation.

Of course, we  go out into the organisation with an understanding of how enterprise 2.0 can help, and where it may fit in. This will help us to take a new perspective on how technology can support day-to-day business needs. (We also need to recognise that we will find as many situations where enterprise 2.0 isn’t relevent, but the needs are just as great.)

Time and time again, I’ve seen organisations get tangled up when it comes to defining an information management strategy for the whole business. The cause? Starting with technology.

It’s easy to get caught up in questions such as: do I start with content management or document management? Should we be doing enterprise 2.0? Should we be creating an ECM platform?

These questions are a trap, because technology was never the real issue. The real issues are staff and organisational needs. So we should start there, prioritise according to business strategy, and then slot in the appropriate technology when required.

Enterprise 2.0 is about taking a new perspective on the organisation, not on a set of technologies. That’s what’s so exciting, if we can make it all work.

Comments

The pressure of consumer tools

January 23, 2007 at 12:27 am · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

In an earlier post, Rob Lancaster writes:

The notion of “consumer” software trying to succeed as “mainstream” enterprise software is certainly not a new one.

Let me take a slightly different angle on this…

One of the most interesting things that I’ve observed is the increasing gap in technology between what people use in their personal lives, and what’s available in their office environment.

At home they are using advanced mobile phones, with photo, video and internet capabilities. They’ve got super-fast broadband, and use this to share files, thoughts and photos. They’re using Myspace and Flickr, and Google Maps. They use a rich set of USB peripherals attached to their computers.

And yet, when they come into the office, they have none of this. Corporate IT won’t even let a single piece of additional software to be installed onto the PC, and access to popular sites is blocked at the firewall. Forget trying to make use of handheld devices (unless it’s a corporately-endorsed Blackberry).

I think it is perhaps this that will create ever-increasing pressure on organisations, and IT departments in particular. Since we’re in a global skills shortage, perhaps we have to create more attractive (and more modern!) environments for people to work in. Environments that at least match what they use at home…

Comments (1)

What are the trigger points?

January 21, 2007 at 11:50 pm · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

Traditional information systems only succeed if staff actually make use of them when looking for information. Enterprise 2.0 solutions push this one step further: to succeed, staff must also actively contribute.

Now I’ve heard this in many organisations:

Me: how often to staff use the intranet?

Them: all the time!

Me: how do you know this?

Them: well, there’s no other source for [insert key info here]

The problem is, this is simply not the case. Intranets (etc), compete with every other possible source of information. This includes emails, pieces of paper stuck to the cubicle wall, ringing someone, talking to the person next to you. If the intranet is to be really successful, it needs to be quicker and easier than any of these other methods. (Sometimes this will be the case, other times not.)

There also needs to be a point in the day when the staff member says: “I know, I’m going to look this up on the intranet”. This is what I call a trigger point, a condition or circumstance when there is a trigger or reason to actively use the systems provided.

If there isn’t a trigger point, then the intranet will never even be opened. Staff will instead just use the paper and people around them.

This is exactly the same for enterprise 2.0, only harder. Not only does there need to be trigger points for looking up information, but there needs to be trigger points for contributing and participating.

That is to say: what will staff say: “I’m going to add the link to the collaborative bookmarking system”. This is not just an issue of motivation, it’s a simpler issue of what will make sure that staff even remember to use our systems?

This is not an easy issue to overcome. What I do know, though, is that the more we integrate our enterprise 2.0 systems directly into the daily work of staff, the more likely we’ll have the trigger points we need.

Just some food for thought…

Comments (1)

Gaining adoption

January 13, 2007 at 6:02 pm · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

I’m  not going to talk about technology on this blog. Instead, I’m going to explore what it takes to gain adoption of new approaches, and how we can gain a deeper understanding of the organisations we are serving.

Let me start with “gaining adoption”. Enterprise 2.0 delivers great functionality, and holds tremendous promise within organisations. All of these new technologies are for naught, however, if users (staff) don’t actually make use of them.

Let’s explore this from two perspectives…

The Enterprise 1.0 way

The traditional way of delivering enterprise solutions is to purchase a large technology product, pilot this centrally (often within IT areas), and to then “roll it out” across the organisation.

In many cases, these enterprise applications face considerable resistance from operational areas, and adoption may never be gained. In fact, I would argue that staff should resist enterprise applications.

Most of these enterprise applications actually work very poorly for the staff that need to make use of them. The reality often is that if staff really did make use of these tools, then staff (and organisational) productivity would fall.

The failure of these systems comes from not building an understanding of the day-to-day needs and issues of staff. Without this, it becomes impossible to deliver solutions that work.

This is something that I’ve talked about before, when writing the 10 principles ofeffective information management, or on conducting intranet needs analysis.

The Enterprise 2.0 way

Bill Ives wrote an excellent post on tagging behind the firewall, where he outlined may ways in which collaborative writing and linking can be used within organisations. While I agree with all of this, the challenge still remains on how to get adoption of these new approaches.

The key thing to recognise is that people’s motivations within the enterprise are different from the outside world. While there are many that gain great satisfaction from posting to Wikipedia, does this mean that we can expect to see the same thing magically happen within organisations?

What is clear is that motivations are very different within the enterprise, and we must find new ways of engaging staff if we are to expect them to deliver bottom-up solutions. Most of the case studies so far have been from consulting firms (IBM and others), and while these generate great excitement, these organisations are hugely different from the typical corporation or government agency.

While there are no easy answers to this at present, but I do know that if we are to succeed than we should step away from the technology aspects of Enterprise 2.0, and focus instead on understanding staff needs, interactions and motivations.

Making it work

One approach that definitely does work, whether for Enterprise 1.0 or 2.0 applications is to one-business-unit-at-a-time approach outlined by Kathleen Gilroy. I’ve done this many times, and it works beautifully.

More on this to come…

Comments

Joining the discussions

January 13, 2007 at 5:40 pm · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

I’ve been very busy over the Christmas period, so I’m only just joining the discussions now. Following the lead of others, here’s my introduction:

I’ve been working in this space for over a decade now. Based in Sydney, Australia, I’m the managing director and owner of Step Two Designs, providers of vendor-neutral advice on intranets, content management, usability, information architecture and search.

I regularly publish entries to my blog Column Two, which is intended to help people (including me) to keep up-to-date on what’s happening across the various industries that I’m involved in.

At the last IA Summit in Vancouver, I was called the “intranet guy”. Having published almost a hundred articles on intranets (and more than 150 articles in total), it should be obvious that I like writing!

I’m also the author of the Intranet Roadmap, Improving Intranet Search and Staff Directories reports, with another report on intranet strategy to be released in the coming month.

Travelling the globe and working with a wide variety of organisations, I’ve seen a lot of what works, and what doesn’t work. At present, my focus is on finding practical methodologies that will help organisations to gain adoption (more on this in my next post).

Anyway, I’m honoured to be in amongst many of the bloggers that I respect the most in this field…

Comments