KnowledgeBlog

In this day and age, more and more emphasis is been placed around the importance of content – as the saying goes, ‘Content is King’. This is due to the increasing number of organisations that depend on technology (which have historically been limited to information technology companies but now broadly include teachers, lawyers, nurses and general consultants) and the ‘knowledge workers’ that run such businesses.

While there are still many differences between sectors, the value of these knowledge-based organisations is content. You don’t want confidential and highly sensitive information to be published on your websites or on your intranet, and in order to control that you need an approval process in place

In order to form an approval process it is necessary that we define the roles/responsibilities of different people in the organisation, once this is set we have automatically formed the base of approval process. Following are some of the roles/responsibilities that should be defined to form the basis of an approval process:

1. Subject Matter Experts (SME): These are the people who have got expertise in a particular area or topic.

2. Content Writers/Editors: These are the people who have got good content presentation skills. In some cases this function might overlap with Subject Matter Experts.

3. Content Managers: These are the managers of their respective departments who have got complete knowledge about their division.

4. Content Approvers/Reviewers: These are the people who will approve content looking at every aspect of it i.e. if the information is latest, correct and how sensitive it is. It should normally include senior staff who have got the complete knowledge about the organisation and also the legalities of it.

Once we have defined the above 4 functions and associated the people to it, the next step would be to define a workflow or a process.

The process would be that the SME writes a content which is then sent to the content editors who put their presentation skills in practice. This content then goes to the respective content managers depending on the type of topic.The content manager can either approve or reject the topic.If the content manager rejects the topic it goes back to the content editors for changes. If the manager approves it, the content is then forwarded to the content reviewer who then looks into the sensitivity and then audience of the topic and approves or rejects depending on it. Once approved the content is then ready to be published otherwise it goes to the content manager for further review.

The article just highlights the key points in the approval process. You can have more or less levels of approvals depending on the the nature,size and the sensitivity of the content.With this I would like conclude that it is be easy to form a approval process but the most important aspect is to properly manage it, if the process is well managed it can save a lot of organisation time and resources and improve productivity.

In order to know how a proper approval process for CMS can help your organisation, please contact us.

There are many lists that detail every Content Management System under the sun. This list is different – it is aimed solely at those organisations that want a product that has experience in the Australian market, and must have local Australian support.

It is not meant to be a comprehensive list. It is a list of products and vendors that we are happy to recommend, although each has it’s own set of pros and cons.

1. SharePoint – Microsoft’s content management platform

2. Alfresco – an open source alternative to SharePoint

3. WordPress – open source Blogging software that has 1000′s of plugins to create simple sites

4. Joomla – probably the best known CMS in the market

5. Intranet Dashboard – great Intranet & CMS solution

6. Claromentis – Intranet, Content & Document Management platform

7. Hummingbird – for large companies

8. Interwoven – for large companies

9. Vignette – for large companies

10. Open Text – for large companies

11. SilveStripe – open source CMS used by Barack Obama’s team

12. Documentum – for large companies

If you want help deciding which CMS is bets for your business need, please contact us on 03 9682 2441 or via our web form here.

If you create a new document in GoogleDocs, not only are you presented with a ruler and a few other changes, but if more than one collaborator are working in the document at the same time you’ll get a coloured cursor and you can see the text in real time. This is very Google Wave-like, unless I’m mistaken they’ve adopted technology from Wave for Google Docs.

I infer that even though the buzz around Google Wave is a lot quieter these days, behind the scenes Google are ‘wavifying’ their other products to get Wave adoption via alternative means.

One of the great benefits of a modern content management system is the ability to ‘federate’ administration of the site to content owners.

This means that the users who create the content, take on the responsibility of  uploading and maintaining that content. As Seth Gottlieb notes here in his great piece entitled The Myth of the Occasional CMS user “one of the big justifications for a CMS is removing the webmaster bottleneck and delegating content entry to the people who have the information.”

It certainly is a great idea – imagine all that unbridled knowledge your users could share without having to wait for those geeky IT gatekeepers to upload their content? Imagine all that previously untapped (or tacit) knowledge that now can be created, published & shared by any content creator?

Now don’t get me wrong, this is the way modern Content Management systems work, but only if the users follow the right rules.

Take for example a recent Intranet & Content Management implementation we have done for a Government organisation. While there was an enormous amount of goodwill for the project, we quickly became aware that one of the key content owners who was tasked with updating a critical part of the site, simply was not doing it frequently enough. As we all know, when users login to see out of date content (especially after such a short time of the site going live) trust in the system is severely diminished.

Luckily, the system has built in safeguards that notifies the system administrator when content is becoming stale. But this misses the bigger point. After all the excitement about a new system, a system that empowers the content owner, within 3 months it fell back to the project team to monitor. Is that a failure of the software, the implementation or the user? To be fair, all three probably share a little bit of the blame. I will go into the answer in more detail in my next blog.

In closing, while social media sites such as Facebook prove that people are great sharers of knowledge, there is still some way to go before we see such enthusiasm  replicated in the workplace.

In this day and age we are very capable of producing vast reams of information. 30 years ago if you wanted to write something you would need to get out the typewriter and feed in some paper. If you wanted someone else to read it you’d post your message in the mail or fax it. If you wanted a lot of people to read it you’d need to write into a paper or in the case of a company, publish it as part of a newsletter.

Today you can easily write something in a program such as OpenOffice Writer and put it up on the company Intranet and share it with everyone instantaneously. This new found accessibility to content is a boon for managing company policies and procedures and giving staff what they need when they need it. However the obvious advantage comes with some less obvious disadvantages. Just ask someone who manages a local Intranet/Document Management system what happens over a few years. Firstly there is a great deal of thought put into how people store, search for and collect documentation. Then, over time, the advantage of having many contributors becomes a problem as the original vision of how documents ought to be structured becomes fragmented due either new staff misunderstanding the structure, or the original inventors being unable to see all the categories that are eventually needed.

The fragmentation of the document structure also contributes to another problem. That is one of relevancy. Documents that are authored now may become irrelevant in the future due to various reasons. For example a policy document is no longer required because its content has been subsumed by another document. Therefore the old policy document turning up in search results may create a problem of compliance. So the old policy document is no longer relevant. However, it may also be that the old document must be kept for legal reasons. For example if the organisation is a party in a dispute it may be required to deliver documents that show the policies and procedures at the time that the dispute first arose. The costs of E-Discovery are a burden on the organisation.

So we have a quandary, we don’t want old documents to pollute the search results of our Document Management System, and yet we may need to keep some of these no-longer-relevant documents.

The answer to this quandary is to incorporate document life cycle management into your document management procedures. Document lifecycle management recognises that authors create documents with all the best intentions of informing and guiding colleagues, however their documents, and those created by outside parties, are not all equal in their value or life-expectancy. The challenge for corporate document and record managers is to build ways of managing the importance and life-expectancy of documents.

We think that a good response to the record-keeping relevancy dilemma is to break the task down to:

1. Identification;
2. Classification;
3. Execution; and
4. Review.

Identification means identifying the type of documents that you manage. Classification then means creating record-types, and associated life-cycle rules, to represent and manage your documents. Execution is around how rules are processed when they need to be run. Review pertains to how document and record managers can review the state of their document environment such as the last set of executed rules or any upcoming rules.

This type of framework puts some boundaries on document relevancy and gives the document administrators a basis for ensuring good document governance. Of course it is optimal, and far-sighted, to implement such a framework at the start of a document management implementation, but if there isn’t such an opportunity then the best time is simply now.

Just a quick post (which you can get away with on a blog!) but just finished a new intranet with a client who to help with user takeup, have a section on their Intranet which allows users to rate the best local food and coffee outlets near their office.

Such simple things are great ways to get people using the new intranet.

We often discuss matters without defining them because attempting to define every term and every concept would simply lead a conversation down seemingly endless and ethereal paths. The result is what could have been a useful and practical conversation turns into a philosophical debate without any real action.

The word “Knowledge” is a good example. In our line of work we obviously use the word extensively – it is part of our business name after all. We promote activities centred on “Knowledge Management” and we like to think that “Knowledge Services” are important to every organisation.

But what is “Knowledge”? Does it matter how we define it? Is it even the right word?

Alavi & Leidner (MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1, Mar., 2001, pp. 107-136) report on a few different perspectives on Knowledge including:

1. Knowledge can be defined in terms of its relation to data and information. Data is facts, information is interpreted data and Knowledge is personalised information.
2. Knowledge is an object or asset that can be modified.
3. Knowledge is present in the act of doing something, in the act of application.
4. Knowledge is representative of the capability to influence action.

We find the use of differentiating knowledge by comparison to data and information not terribly useful. To begin with the terms data and information are often as elusive to the application of a definitive meaning. Secondly, the comparative definition suggests that there is a hierarchy, with data at the bottom and knowledge at the top. But as pointed out by Tuomi (Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 16, No. 3, Dec., 1999, pp. 103-117) the hierarchy could be turned upside down because knowledge is required to identify what type of data to collect in the first place. Finally, even if we were able to disentangle these issues would we still be any better off in our efforts to leverage knowledge management to improve organisational performance?

The second method for defining knowledge, as an object or asset, is an appealing definition because an object conjures up persistent material qualities that means that it can be ‘stored’ or ‘retrieved’. That is, if it is a material item then it can be ‘managed’. And we’re not adverse to the concept that someone can write a book, and someone else can read it and then claim they have some of the author’s knowledge. We might dispute that they both have the same knowledge, but they definitely now share some knowledge. So somehow the book has ‘carried’ the knowledge of the author to the reader? Following, it is not difficult to imagine that people can create wiki pages or Intranet pages and readers can learn and develop their knowledge. So, therefore the Intranet system is crucible of knowledge. But a warning, though the concept of knowledge as an asset is easy to grasp, and therefore practical, it does not mean that it necessarily stands up under scrutiny. For example does knowledge really live outside of our heads? Let’s take a knowledge management system full of documents, forum posts, Intranet pages from an Australian council. To them it houses knowledge. If we placed that system into the hands of a Brazilian financial corporation in twenty years from now. Would they think it contains knowledge? Assuming none speak English then they would not be able to read the contents of the site. If they could, would find old information for a specific region of Australia. And they would see it as just that, information. It is information because their context is far removed from the originators of the ‘knowledge’. Therefore whether or not we may think of it as knowledge or not depends upon the context of its use, therefore, perhaps we can’t use this meaning at all?

The third meaning, that knowledge is really only present in the act of doing something, not stored in a system or a book, is a sort of ‘know-how’ interpretation. To us it conjures up the culmination of an individual’s past experience applied in the act of doing something. The activity-based meaning also causes us to think about the differentiation between knowledge and skills. For example an experienced painter has knowledge of different colours and how to mix them on her palette. However she also has a type of ‘muscle-memory’ when applying her oils to the canvas. Her hand applies the type of strokes needed for the type of effect required. Similarly a seasoned programmer has commonly built up methods of thinking that translate easily between different languages. These ‘ways of thinking’, or embedded skills, that are a result of repetition- is this different from knowledge or a different sort of knowledge? These thoughts, especially the ‘ways of thinking’, are analogous to the oft-cited endeavour of the new CEO to change the culture of the organisation.

The last interpretation of knowledge is interesting because it takes an agency view on knowledge. It is almost a political agent view that ‘knowledge is power’. Contrast this meaning with the comparatively passive ‘knowledge as an object to be received’ or the here-and-now of ‘knowledge is used in an activity’. With knowledge as a measure of the capability to influence action there is a sense that knowledge is marshalled towards a purpose. This is helpful for our purposes and I’ll summarise next.

So does this discussion help us? Does defining knowledge matter? I believe it does. We’re a long way from completing a longitudinal study of the definition of knowledge, nor have we travelled far back into the Greek philosophical tradition where the matter was first raised. However we have uncovered some interesting lessons from our narrow assessment.

Lessons:

Thinking about knowledge as something storable is helpful because it prepares us for the opportunity to capture and transfer knowledge. But to compliment that thought it is helpful to understand the context that the information will be used. That’s because thinking about the context of the use of information means that we can identify which activities are of high value and have a high dependency on explicit knowledge. It then follows that you won’t unnecessarily attempt to capture everything (not that you ever could) and secondly, with the audience in mind, what you do capture can be thoughtfully stored and presented – i.e. more targeted and more useful at the time it is needed.

Overarching these imperatives for our knowledge strategy is reflected in the last meaning – the power to influence. What is it that we want to influence? I believe this question is important and it points back to the strategy of the organisation. If you’re unable to make a strong case for a knowledge management strategy by using the organisation’s overall strategy then your efforts to thoughtfully capture, store, and publish the organisation’s knowledge may be targeted at the wrong activities and you’ll find your capability to influence is lost.

Even the most elementary Intranet fulfils the most basic of Intranet functions – bringing users together to the one online area. However, what people see when they get there can vary widely. So if you’re struggling to find interesting things to keep your Intranet fresh, what about trying a ‘Share your Ideas’ feature. Companies like ideascale.com offer cheap but very effective software packages that you can incorporate into your Intranet that will drive take-up and help ensure your site remains interesting to your users.

Is the implementation of an Intranet something which is expected to change our organisation?

Or is it just expected to support the way we do things?

The answer may sound ambiguous but the answer is yes – if it is a successful implementation then it will change your organisation, but yes, it is there to support you as well. Both are equally important to realise during the early stages of the decision to implement an Intranet. If you go into an Intranet implementation thinking it will seamlessly and invisibly embed into your standard processes and procedures then there is a danger that expectations will be set unrealistically or there will be missed opportunities. If you go into an Intranet implementation thinking that it is just “something we have to do” and that the way the system works “is just the way it works” then you may also miss some opportunities to leverage the best an Intranet can offer.

In academic circles these questions are characterised as either ‘technological determinism’, that is, this is just the way it works and we’ll have to change things to use it, or ‘social constructivism’, that is, we can shape the technology to the way we work. Esoteric terms, but an interesting and relevant debate. The truth really lies in the places in between these two opposing views – if you want to achieve the best you can you’ll need to change some things about the way you work and you also need to change the technology.

A practical example for the way an organisation might change to get the most out of an Intranet include new roles to demarcate Intranet management and reporting responsibilities – both from the technical and people and process angles. But do not just ‘load’ people up with new Intranet responsibilities without reducing or removing their other tasks and roles. Another example is the management of some of the organisation’s standard procedures. Some examples: move the employee induction process online, encourage online discussions over email use, and discourage shared drive usage.

In terms of recognising the flexibility of your Intranet look at how people work now and ask your Intranet implementation team to change the Intranet to suit the organisation’s needs. For example, do some staff wish to work from home but it has previously been to difficult to access the work they need? If so, create an Extranet capability making sure that the mobile workforce has what it needs when it needs it. Another example is to ask your Intranet implementer about all the different customisations that are possible with your Intranet. It may sound broad but your Intranet implementer should know what is possible and have examples on hand. The important thing to consider when shaping the Intranet is how will it empower people in their day to day work.

So to re-iterate, make sure you go into an Intranet implementation understanding that the technology is there to benefit your organisation, but it won’t come without some change to your organisation.

Internet has revolutionized the way we collaborate and capture information. There are a number of collaboration tools available on the web i.e. Blogs, wiki and forums etc. It can be sometimes confusing as to which one is the best. Let me tell you there is no best or worst but it is your requirements that makes one suitable over the other. Lets discuss some of the scenario’s:

Blog: It is a website that is usually maintained by an individual or an organisation. It is like an online diary that focuses on a particular subject. If you have something in your mind and you want it to reach out to people, blog is the best option. It is a good marketing tool for organisations.

Wiki: It is a collaboration tool where by different people contribute to the wiki page by editing its content. As an example organisations can generate a task list for employees and as and when tasks are finished the employees can update the status of those tasks by editing the same wiki page.

Forum: It is like an online discussion board. It is useful in scenarios where people want answer to specific queries, want to have a poll or wants to start a debate. Unlike wiki, the forums doesnt allow the people to edit each other’s messages. It also gives you the flexibilty to be anonymous.

According to the discussions above I feel forums are more for Q&A, Blogs are better for compiling you views and Wikis are best for collaboration