Michael Krigsman reports on Information Technology (IT) project failures, a great topic deserving of attention. On his hosted phone discussions, featured speakers share their stories.

Stories are wonderful mechanisms to thread together relevant facts. They often become objects of entertainment where facts are embellished with each telling — stories morph into ‘tales’. I suggest that failure often starts with basing business design on fairytales and folklore. Ironically, the best clues for changing this, are found among people who create fairytales professionally.

Pixar Storytelling

Lurking in your own DVD collection may be a treasure of clues. In the ‘extras’ for the movie Finding Nemo, is the documentary Making Nemo.

Their story starts with a premise, shared by Writer-Director, Andrew Stanton:

“We just want to make a good movie.”

There are many examples of journeys that started with “We just want to make/deliver a good [fill-in-the-blank]. A few ‘outtakes’ might suggest why Pixar’s results are different.

Executive Producer, John Lasseter says things I’ve never heard uttered from a leader in any enterprise I’ve been in, including some responsible for design (perhaps you have):

“I always believe in research. No matter what the subject matter is, you cannot do enough research…because so much believability will come out of what’s really there.”

Software, processes, products, services: these are all all abstractions of reality. To be successful they must approximate reality, they must be believable.

Lasseter then mentions:

“I went to every single person early on in the film and said…”

Whait! Personal contact from an executive leader? Is that in a rulebook somewhere? Lasseter continues:

“We cannot make a movie about the underwater world without you experiencing it firsthand.”

John insists they go onsite for research, and that they all get certified in scuba diving.

Suggesting any of this to Project Managers typically results in blank stares. Let’s start here: IT fails because of its methods. The methods are flawed. Requirements gathering is not the same as immersive research.

With a foot still in research, the Pixar team explores possibilities. Stanton asked his people:

“What is it that makes you believe that it’s under water?”

Figuring out what “under water” would look like resulted in “My First Ocean”. They got believable water, but it was more like a chlorinated swimming pool than ocean water. Stanton worked with his team:

“Each of these individual aspects of being under water looked great, but we couldn’t get them all to work in concert together. I just picked a couple shots of things above water and things below water from real footage [referring to live artifacts from their research] and I said, ‘Using exactly the tools that we have created and nothing else, I want you to see how close you can mimic these actual shots.’”

The results were too good. They came back two weeks later and the animation could not be distinguished from the live images. But their goal was believability, not reality. They still needed the feeling of a make-believe world for their animated creatures to live in.

Another telling differentiator in methods comes from Bob Peterson, Co-Writer:

“It’s really important for us sortof at the head of this big pipeline — before it gets to layout and animation, and lighting — to work this thing out right. That includes the pacing of a film, that includes the emotion — making sure that people are feeling things as the movie progresses.”

Unlike other projects, they started this one with a full screenplay, written by the Director. They thought this would make the effort easier. Lee Unkrich, Co-Director says:

“But the reality is that once you put these movies up in storyboard form, a lot of things come to light that aren’t clear when you’re just reading words on a printed page.”

Let me interject briefly: Requirements are just words on a printed page — they are insufficient for success. Another critical element that Stanton points out (the inverse of ‘final’ requirements as a goal):

“The thing that finally makes it on the screen is all about rewrite, rewrite, rewrite, rewrite. A good portion of the rewrite process is not done by the screenwriter at a word processor…it’s the story department.”

They have a story department? Who are these people? Stanton explains:

“…the guys that sit in a room with you for close two years, batting out ideas, countering your ideas, drawing up story panels, putting them up on a wall, pitching things, putting things on a reel down in editorial. It’s a very maleable, messy, glorious process.

When it works, it’s amazing. The power of what you can do with a group of great minds. But at times it can be very frustrating.”

When they reached an impasse the co-writers would get in a car and drive to some destination on their schedule rather than fly (e.g. for TV interviews, etc.). Sequestered together for hours, this forced them to just “talk it out” with no other distractions. Peterson says:

“We worked a lot of good stuff out that way. When I watch the film now I remember where we were on I-5 when this idea was brought forward.”

Storyboards are followed by story reels — complete threads of a story with pieces of animation (often both digital and hand-drawn artifacts) with voiceovers, music and sound effects to approximate the complete film experience. This is the template for the movie.

Then it’s back to the drawing board for the details — LOTS of details. The sketches of the original storyboard are replaced by full-color swatches, hand-drawn with pastels, to show the color themes and inform successive levels of detail, like lighting and motion.

Animators don’t just draw characters, they develop them — drawing them from different angles, with different emotions. Sculptures are then created of the characters. Now we’re talking 2D and 3D artists who inform each other’s work. Art Director, Ricky Nierva:

“That’s really when the magic happens. Starting to see that 2D drawing come alive in 3D. I get all this amazing information from it. I start seeing it in a new way. I start turning it around. I look at it from the top and the bottom, because you never know if that’s the way they’re going to be seen in the movie.”

This project required abandoning things learned before. All of the previous Pixar movies focused predominantly on bipedal characters (i.e. 2 legs). Dealing with marine life moving through water required new frames of understanding. No matter how talented or experienced the contributors, these circumstances were different. They had to adapt their work habits to a new set of heuristics.

As more and more people become part of the production, play and contests served a critical cultural purpose: getting people together to check out each other and their work. Their production is not a phase where leadership throws the work over to the team to be led by project managers — there is continuous review/feedback of the work by the leadership.

Their work is immensely collaborative. It’s not collaborating on bringing parts together. Various specialists touch the same pieces over and over again, adding their own value in its evolution. In the end, there are no individual star performers. The star power shifts to the results of the collective effort: the movie itself.

Let’s Recap

These are the artifacts of creative, immersive work at Pixar.

• Immersive Research
• Premise-Challenging Questions
• Multiple Leaders “Work Things Out” Together
• Possibilities Created by Storytellers, Sculptors, Animators, Modelers…
• Physical Reference Artifacts used for Conversations
• Specialists for: Color, Shading, Photography, Motion, Sound, even a Professor of Physiology…
• Plans that Change via Continuous Discovery, Continuous Design
• Incredibly Collaborative Work (including inspiring leadership)
• Immersive Play

Thank you Pixar, for giving the rest of us a real life example — a model — to look at from different angles, to perhaps see solutions and business in a new way. Imagine what we could accomplish if we were to fundamentally change the way we approach our work — right now!

Postscript: Tweetpeep @nenshad immediately shared this great piece from the Wall Street Journal “How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity“.

.

It’s that simple … to do much of what we call knowledge work (other than filling in boxes on forms) people need to connect, talk, listen, point to sources and noodle together over ideas and new information.  They look, in conversations, for ways to stitch information and knowledge together so that it becomes useful.  That’s what humans have always done .. it’s only in the last 100 years or so that we have had the sequential arranging and measurement of tasks and highly-structured division of labour that we have understood as work during most of this lifetime.  As Bill Ives points out in the previous post, things are changing, and (relatively) fast, even though I am fond of the phrase "it takes a long time for change to happen quickly"  (think about that for a second).

One more piece of evidence that "organizations will have to realize …" is the recent announcement that Microsoft is testing, and may offer the corporate market, a Facebook-like application called TownSquare, a business-user-focused social networking application..  Whether one think Microsoft is the answer to E2.0 for their organization or not is not the point here … the point is that most or all of the large vendors are now adding features and functionality (or acquiring them) such that the platforms being used to support the work of knowledge workers will have been substantially re-tooled  before another 5 years passes.  And that re-tooling will consist largely of social computing capabilities.

And then there’s the culture issue

Will Management 2.0 be needed before or after an organization addresses E2.0 ?

The excerpt on Microsoft below via ZDNet:

.

Microsoft to show off a corporate Facebook-like prototype
Mary-Jo Foley

Office Labs – an incubator within Microsoft testing business-focused technologies that may or may not end up part of future Microsoft products — is showing off this week yet another of its ideas.

The latest, known as “TownSquare,” is a business-user-focused social-networking tool. According to Computerworld, Microsoft will demo the new offering at the Enterprise 2.0 Conference in Boston on June 12.

TownSquare, via a layout similar to Facebook’s, provides internal company information, ranging from promotions and anniversaries, to a list of shared-document modifications pertinent to individual users.

TownSquare was launched inside Microsoft in January, according to the aforementioned report, and has been test driven by 8,000 Microsoft employees so far.

Microsoft has been stepping up its work on a number of other social-networking-related projects throughout the company. At its TechFest research fair earlier this year, Microsoft officials showed off a FriendFeed-like aggregation tool, codenamed C2, which is likely to find its way into Windows Live for Mobile some time in the relatively near future. And earlier this week, Microsoft rolled out a test build of a SharePoint Server plug-in for producing/managing podcasts.

Powered by Qumana

His recent blog post titled "Most companies who try to do Enterprise 2.0 will fail" resonated with me, notwithstanding Andrew McAfee’s point (made at several presentations I have attended) that he is not aware of any social computing pilot projects / initiatives that have gone catastrophically off the rails.

Amongst those who follow the domain known, for want of a better name, as Enterprise 2.0 will also recognize that it is becoming conventional wisdom that the main challenges to effective implementation and use appear to be cultural and related to widespread assumptions-in-use about effective management … a notion that Gary Hamel takes to task in his recent book "The Future of Management" (earlier post on this issue here).

.

Most companies who try to do Enterprise 2.0 will fail

And it will be for these reasons in no particular order:

1. They think it is about technology.

2. They aren’t prepared to deal with the friction that allowing their staff to connect generates.

3. They will assimilate it into business as usual.

4. They will try to do it in a way that "maximizes business effectiveness" without realizing that it calls for a radical shift in what is seen as effective.

5. They will grind down their early adopters until they give up.

6. They will get fleeced by the IT industry for over engineered, under delivering solutions, think that Enterprise 2.0 failed to live up to its promise and move on to the next fad.

7. Lack of patience

8. It is not companies who do Enterprise 2.0 it is individuals.

Powered by Qumana

.

Open Text strikes Web 2.0 deal with Ottawa
MATT HARTLEY

The Canadian government is getting a Web 2.0 upgrade.

Waterloo, Ont.-based business software maker Open Text Corp. [OTC-T] announced Tuesday it has landed a seven-year maintenance contract with the federal government to supply the tools that will “provide the foundation for the government’s 2.0 strategy.”

Open Text said the agreement will see its software used in all federal departments, agencies and crown corporations helping to create internal wikis, forums and blogs to help the government be more responsive to Canadians.

Open Text, which became Canada’s largest software company when International Business Machines Corp. purchased Ottawa-based Cognos Inc. last year, produces “enterprise content management software” that helps businesses to store, organize and analyze records and documents.

.

Perhaps I’m mistaken, I can’t help but think that this will be the knowledge-worker equivalent of acquiring and implementing a large ERP system which will require enormous amounts of training so that everyone uses the tools in the same way, so that they push and pull content to and from each other in the same ways. Will it become a new form of email for use internally ?

From what I have been able to understand about using social software to carry out social computing inside the firewall, this approach (or my interpretation of it) flies in the face of much of what we have learned about social computing.  I strongly suspect that different government departments of varying size and scope will carry out different kinds of knowledge work, and have different requirements for when and how to use collaboration to develop policy and deliver services.  However, I am sure that there will have been consultant studies and recommendations backing this decision.

I think it might be better to consider a 2.0 strategy that takes into consideration those different requirements and look at a range of possible solutions, with the intention of acquiring and implementing that which will work best.  After all, many of the 2.0 collaboration platforms can co-exist nicely with existing information technology architecture and what differentiates with respect to effectiveness is the take-up and use of the 2.0 capabilities by the end-user.

My sketchy opinion notwithstanding, it may be the case that such issues have been considered will be addressed with the Open Text solution.  Open Text has been a leader in the collaboration space for some time now, and my thinly-informed interpretation of a short newspaper article does not have the benefit of the details of the Canadian government’s 2.0 strategy.

But my knowledge of the structure and dynamics of the work of government departments (I have consulted to a number of them in the past) suggests to me that there will be many procedural binders and lots of day-long training sessions trying to help workers become familiar with the new tools and which categories to use for which piece of content, etc.

I believe that control is still a very important consideration, if not the primary factor, in the design of work in government departments.

It will be interesting to check in 3 or 4 years down the road and see how things are going.  Nothing would be more pleasing than to discover that my country’s government is reaping the benefits of using social computing inside its firewalls.

Powered by Qumana

I have been writing and blogging more over the past six months or so about social computing inside the firewall, and have spoken at several conferences about the issues and dynamics therein.

Today I used Google to search for references to me and my work, and so rediscovered a blog post I wrote four years ago about the use of blogging in organizations to stimulate dialogue, learning and innovation.

Obviously, people looking for references to my past writings on the use of blogging inside the firewall have helped this old and forgotten blog post to surface.

Update for the fact that there are now more collaboration platforms and applications, change the verb tenses and few words to make it pertinent to today’s Enterprise 2.0 context, and I think it’s still relevant.

.

Blogging, Dialogue, KM and Learning
by jonh on Thu 03 Jun 2004 12:17 PM PDT | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Over the past couple of years many knowledgeable and committed bloggers have held forth on how blogging can replicate the dynamics of dialogue. They have also offered opinions and examples of how blogs and blogging can (potentially) be extremely useful for what we call "knowledge management".

In addition, there have been various anecdotes and examples of how reading blogs, commenting on blogs, and creating blog posts are activities that accelerate learning.

All this makes good sense. There are core aspects of blogging that facilitate learning in simple and effective ways.

Firstly, individual or group blogs that are focused on a domain of information and expertise chronicle and catalogue the blogger(s)’ knowledge. Over time, this grows to create a recognizable "body of knowledge".

Secondly, by offering the capability of commenting and interacting, the information on offer can be better defined, refined, explored, tested, and built upon.

Thirdly, the information on offer provides a latent platform for action – information that can be acted upon often turns into knowledge that can be shared and used in various ways.

Fourth, by linking to the blog or blogs that offer related information, the knowledge that is built can be shared more and more widely, if desired.

Fifth, the rhythym and cadence of the posting, reading, commenting and linking replicate the dynamics of dialogue in very effective ways. There aren’t the same kinds of interruption and distraction that so often occurs in conversations that only weakly replicate the dynamics of dialogue.

Finally, an ecosystem of knowledge can develop that consists of the aggregated sets of links and content the participants in a blogalogue create. And this "body of knowledge" and understanding remains online, available to anyone who cares to become involved.

I think these dynamics hold great promise – they demonstrate the characteristics that many have suggested are desirable and necessary for learning communities and learning organizations.

.

Tags: Enterprise 2.0, blogging, dialogue, accelerated learning

Powered by Qumana

The survey of 385 corporate managers and developers covered Web 2.0-based development mechanisms — such as mashups and gadgets/widgets — as well as social networking tools. Both types of environments are now very much a part of the corporate scene, and have become important tools for corporate applications, the survey finds.

Demand for Web 2.0/Enterprise 2.0 talent is hot, as a matter of fact. Two out of three respondents say their demand for such talent will increase over the coming year. That’s because there is a lot of strategic business-to-business and internal business development going on by software developers in the survey. Developers are working on Web 2.0 software for business applications in several areas, including interface design, gadgets and widgets, and social networking.

Most Web 2.0 applications are being targeted at internal corporate requirements, versus consumer engagements. Close to half of the survey participants are focused on developing applications for internal use inside their companies. Less than a third are building Web 2.0 applications intended for delivery on a subscription base to online users.

Forty percent of interfaces for Web 2.0 applications are “mixed” web-rich clients that include AJAX for fast downloads of pages that include live feeds of data (gadgets) and other dynamic components found in Web 2.0 applications. An overwhelming majority of respondents are using gadgets and widgets (portable Web parts) from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and others to deploy fast, lightweight business applications and services.

More than four out of ten companies encourage social networking; however, most feel the business value still needs to be demonstrated at this time. Social networking is strongest among developers in scientific and technical fields, who see social networking as a communications and collaboration medium, and among OEMs and systems integrators, who see benefits in product delivery.

Notwithstanding a substantial amount over the past two years of online and offline "press" about the Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 phenomena and the increasingly participative and interactive online environment (first for consumers and now increasingly apparent as "the" future for the workplace), decision-making about enterprise software in general continues to warily circle the issues involved with implementing community-based collaboration or more broadly defined, "social computing".

You’ll note that in the article (excerpt below) Dennis checks in with FASTForward’s Jevon Macdonald, who is of the opinion that Microsoft Sharepoint may well be the safe, "default" implementation of choice.  Certainly Sharepoint has developed some key alliances over the past year that seem designed to support that point of view.

Here’s a You Tube video (also featured in Dennis’ article .. thanks for the pointer, Dennis) that presents a wide range of views on the question "Enterprise 2.0 -  Hype or Happening?"

.

Enterprise 2.0 – Hype or Happening ?

.

In the ZDNet article Dennis (and Jevon) make a key point about value propositions.  That said, getting an enterprise IT shop to listen seriously to the value proposition of  a small startup is a key challenge in and of itself, regardless of how good it is.

I also believe (even after a decade or more of general agreement that functional stovepipes and silos are not helpful) that a large number of enterprises do not really know how to come to grips with regular and continuous flows of information across functional boundaries and throughout the organization.  And it’s quite likely they won’t be able to come to grips with using such flows effectively (in any practical sense) until the architecture of their IT systems enables it and supports it, and the management learns, and practices with, using these flows to feed effective collaboration.

.

The end of software…

Posted by Dennis Howlett @ 6:43 am

…as you know it. Right now I’m falling over startup vendors vying for attention in the so-called ’social software’ space. The fact enterprise people hate the term doesn’t seem to bother those who are bypassing IT as they sell into the marketing departments of companies at departmental budget prices. But there is a battle brewing on two fronts.

First, we have the mega vendors who think they ‘own’ the enterprise but have little clue what they’re doing when it comes to providing community style collaborative software. As Barry Libert, chairman of Mzinga said to me: “Does Microsoft have a relationship with me? Do any of the ‘monster’ vendors?” Second, we have the startups who are largely making their money by selling social media style solutions to marketers. While the two solution sets may look the same from the outside, they are being bought in fundamentally different ways and are setting up a tension that today is barely felt but which will have a disruptive effect on the software buying patterns of the future.

It is particularly appropriate that Phil Wainewright has penned an article dubbed Enter the socialprise as this plays directly to the themes I am currently exploring.

He says:

But enterprise computing is still designed for the old, stovepipe model in which every transaction took place within the same firm. There’s no connection with the social automation that’s happening between individuals.

[ Snip ... ]

I then spoke to another Irregular, Jevon MacDonald who has been working in the so-called Enterprise 2.0 (aka socialprise) space for some time. He said that where the startups fail but where the incumbents succeed is in identifying a specific value proposition within specific industries.

His view is that Sharepoint will be a ‘big winner in the next five years.’ If the amount of noise being made by Microsoft is indicative, then it should be a winner. But…he also says: “Sharepoint deployments are horrendous and I really don’t know why people put up with them.”

I do. They keep IT shops busy.  (Read the whole article here)

Powered by Qumana

What about owning the means of production in today’s information age?

Bob Lewis has a 21st Century take on this: why not leave it up up to the end users to supply their own computers on the job?

Here’s the lay of the land, as Bob puts it:

“When using their home computers, end-users experience a vast array of possibilities, but at the office they operate in a very constrained space; and increasingly, ‘work/life balance’ is giving way to “‘live your life wherever you are.’”

As we’ve seen from the many insights coming out of FastForward ‘08, users need to be unleashed to get their jobs done with the tools they see fit. So why not let employees do their thing with their own PCs? As Bob Lewis put it:

“No corporate-owned PCs at all. Let employees buy their own — whatever they think they need to do their jobs. It’s Nicholas Carr’s vision in reverse: Only central IT remains. Employees take over ownership of the periphery, including responsibility for their own PC support.”

We already see plenty of instances of employees using their own mobile devices for work-related connectivity. And, countless users log in from their homes to check into the intranet or for updated communications.

Of course, the legal departments would pull their hair out at the notion of everyone bringing in their own machines to work, especially in light of fears of data being taken out the door. But if there were a way to effectively lock down data either online or offline, wouldn’t this idea make a lot of sense?

So, Bob put another idea out there — virtualize. “Give end-users two virtual machines.” One virtual machine — the corporate virtual machine — could be “buttoned-down, corporate, protected, fully supported, and strongly connected.” The personal virtual machine could be the “sandbox,” on which users can do anything their hearts desire.

As part of their work with clients over the past several years and their experiences in designing and adapting intranets, they developed a hybrid wiki, blog and CMS platform called ThoughtFarmer.

.

ThoughtFarmer

Beyond wikis – Knowledge Sharing for the new enterprise

ThoughtFarmer combines structure and social networking with easy wiki authoring, helping companies share knowledge and strengthen community.

.

ThoughtFarmer has gained some significant clients over the past year or so, including NESTA (National Endowment for the Sciences, Technology and Arts – the largest single endowment devoted exclusively to supporting talent, innovation and creativity in the UK), IDEO (the globally renowned industrial design firm) and most recently eHarmony.

I’ve known about ThoughtFarmer since its early days, and wrote up a descriptive entry in the recent book "Making Knowledge Work – the arrival of web 2.0", published by the ARK Group (UK).

I wanted to delve a bit further into the why’s, what’s and how’s of ThoughtFarmer, to find out more about the appeal it held for client organizations who are serious about tackling the issues and dynamics of Enterprise 2.0.

I ran through the following 4 questions with Darren and Gordon in a question-and-answer interview format.
.

1. I understand that ThoughtFarmer is an hybrid collaborative platform comprised of a wiki, social networking capabilities and various modular elements that traditionally have formed part of an enterprise’s intranet platform. Is that correct, and can you offer us a more concise description ?

D & G – Yes, it’s a hybrid, which is actually becoming a fairly standard architecture or configuration for Enterprise 2.0 collaboration platforms.

Our conception of ThoughtFarmer and its initial design came out of our work with clients helping them implement intranet publishing tools. As Web 2.0 tools and services became more prevalent, we realized that it would be natural to incorporate these into an intranet publishing and knowledge-sharing application, and so we set about designing and building what became ThoughtFarmer 1.0, a platform to support easy user publishing and the sharing of pertinent information and knowledge in an intranet environment.

Our first client, IntraWest (at that time owner of Whistler Blackcomb and other ski resort properties), essentially provided us with the design principles. They wanted a platform that would make it easy to:

- publish and maintain current, up to date and relevant content
- create and sustain a content repository that would also serve as the company’s central knowledge repository
- strengthen workplace community by bringing forward and exposing the relationships amongst colleagues who were spread out geographically, and
- minimize any additional work (the "thing" would have to be self-sustaining and create no additional employee headcount).

Interestingly, these design principles came out of the (admittedly progressive) HR function, who insisted that we focus on the needs of both the organization AND the users. Initially, IT said "Use Sharepoint" but that involved some fairly significant customization and user training efforts.  HR said "that’s a non-starter", and so off we went.
.

2. In your opinion, what most clearly differentiates ThoughtFarmer from the other recent arrivals on the Enterprise 2.0 scene that combine wikis, blogs, social networking, enterprise search, etc. ?

 D & G – We think that the answer to that question has to be "ease-of-use".  The core design principles can be summarized as "Simple" and “Social”

Simple – we got rid of as much jargon as we knew how – for example, everything a user posts is a "page" -  and we provide the users with a fair bit of simple but clear structure.  There are lots of simple "tools" that help users re-structure and shuffle around the content, such as by re-labeling or sorting the content,  through the use of easy-to-manage tagging.

ThoughtFarmer offers full text search, making it easy to find all sorts of content, and the newer version (2.5) incorporates such useful features as activity tracking whereby everything that takes place is logged for easy future reference.

Social – we also focused on "Social" as a design principle, which essentially means that every feature and the pages on which the activity takes place follow the axiom "simple rules for complex spaces".  We’re big fans of Edward T. Hall (The Hidden Dimension), and worked to introduce attention filters that allow for the customization based on the cognitive capacity of individual users.  ThoughtFarmer features something we call activity tracking, which is based on Hall’s theory of proxemics (the study of the human use of space within the context of culture).  We implemented a sllder-based attention filter that enables zooming in and / or out and lets a user see all the projects in which she or he is a member and all of the related project content and activity on the intranet. 

We believe that his is a deeply humanistic design principle for knowledge work in social settings.

.

3. I understand that for a small not-Silicon-Valley-based Canadian Enterprise 2.0 startup, you have had some impressive initial client wins. What is the implementation of ThoughtFarmer you are most proud of, and why ?

.
D & G – We’re proud of the fact that some very innovative and innovation-oriented companies have chosen to use this application designed by a small Canadian communications firm. We’ve only just recently been able to talk about the fact that IDEO (designers of the Palm V, the Swiffer, the Apple Mouse and many other innovative products) chose ThoughtFarmer.  IDEO evaluated every Enterprise 2.0 collaboration platform they could find, and chose ours. They are currently using it on their main intranet and are rolling it out to their offices around the world..

4. Is it plug-and-play, or does it’s implementation involve customization and set-up depending upon a given enterprise’s overall information systems architecture .. or is this even the right question ?

.
D& G – Yes, it’s essentially plug and play, although of course every organization will have different requirements and a different IT architecture with which ThoughtFarmer must operate. But to offer an example, a recent installation of ThoughtFarmer at eHarmony (involving more than 250 employees) required only 5 days to install the platform, train the employees and migrate all the pertinent content.
ThoughtFarmer is Microsoft-based (SQL server and .Net), and is "IT-shop" friendly. OpenRoad is a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner and ThoughtFarmer was recently certified for Windows Server and SQL Server 2005 by Microsoft’s product testing labs.
Even though we like to consider it "plug-and-play" the design does not preclude customization and specialized integration with complex corporate IT architectures. ThoughtFarmer can also be used as a collaboration-oriented module within larger-scale intranets, and of course a wide range of other business applications can be integrated into the core ThoughtFarmer platform.

.

Tags: ThoughtFarmer, collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, IDEO, eHarmony, Microsoft, Sharepoint

Powered by Qumana