Blog

The cost of inaccurate information? – possibly £9million of UK taxpayer money in damages

Although there is an agreement that effective information management is important in improving operational performance and reducing organisational risk it is rare to have any documented examples in the public domain. Now two have come along almost together. The first is an analysis of how information management failures were a contributory factor in the Fukushima nuclear disaster in a paper by Andrew Thatcher and Ana Vasconcelos (Information School, University of Sheffield) and David Ellis (Department of Information Studies, Aberystwyth University) and I will comment on this paper in due course. The second is an interesting court case in the High Court regarding a winding-up order being issued by Companies House as the result of the bankruptcy of Taylor and Son Ltd in 2009. However the winding up order was actually issued in the name of Taylor and Sons Ltd, just one letter different. Companies House corrected the error three days after the initial order but by then the credit rating of the Taylor and Sons Ltd was damaged beyond redress. The company, which had 250 employees and 3000 customers, went into liquidation three months later.

The published judgment makes interesting reading as the Judge decided that Registrar at Companies House owed a duty of care when entering a winding up order on the Register to take reasonable care to ensure that the Order is not registered against the wrong company. The claim for damages has yet to be agreed, four years after the demise of a successful family business, but lawyers for the former owner of the business estimate them to be of the order of £9million. In the end the people paying the damages will be UK taxpayers.

The judgement is well worth reading to learn about how Companies House manages its information quality and how the Judge interpreted the law. The problem seems to have arisen from a failure to follow agreed internal information management policies. This decision (especially from the High Court) might well be a precedent for other actions where public organisations have not taken due care to ensure that the information on their records is correct, but I am not a lawyer so that is only a personal opinion. It is only fair to point out that Companies House has a very good record for managing data errors but the Judge commented that the implications of this excellent record were that such errors were easy to avoid and so should not have occurred. My thanks to Charles Oppenheim and Rich Greenhill for bringing this case to my attention through their Tweets.

Martin White

 


Intranet Design Annual 2015

I’ve spent a lifetime writing books and reports and so have some idea of the effort that goes in to producing a 370 page report that sets out to critically assess 10 intranets. I’m come across far too many people who question whether the Design Annual reflects the best intranets in the world. The Nielsen Norman Group can only judge the intranets that are submitted and the value of these reports is in the behind-the-scenes research into how these intranets have been conceived, planned. implemented and managed. Moreover this report is an Annual, and not an Award. The organisations profiled this year are Accolade (the Netherlands), Adobe (USA), ConocoPhilips (USA), Klick Health (Canada), Saudi Food and Drug Authority, Sprint (USA), Tauron Polska Energia (Poland), Foschini Group (South Africa), UniCredit (Italy) and Verizon Communications (USA).

The report starts off with an analysis of the award winners since 2001 and some of the highlights of this year’s winners. Nine of them used role-based personalisation though the approaches adopted are somewhat different. Responsive design approaches were used by five organisations, with a lot of care being taken to remove irrelevant content. In the case of Verizon (a three-times winner!)  50% of the HR content was removed in the upgrade. At last social features are being integrated into intranets instead of being tacked on as an after-thought, and several of the winners used some elements of an agile development approach. I was pleased to see that much more attention is being given to search implementation, with a good use of facets and filters and a couple of examples of federated search. Adobe, Sprint and Verizon were the only non-SharePoint intranets, with Verizon using a combination of Drupal as a CMS and IBM Watson (!) for search.

Each of the intranet descriptions provides an overview of the intranet, the business case for redevelopment, governance, the design process and usability work, content and content contributors, technology platforms and applications and a final lessons learned review. The 149 screen shots are not only a feature of the text but are available as a high-resolution png file. A most welcome addition to the report this year is a well-prepared index. There is also a useful review of the reasons why other intranets failed to make the final selection.

The report works at two levels. A read-through provides inspiration, because each of the organisations featured went through a long and complex journey to achieve excellence. The second level is the detail provided about each intranet, and this where the index is invaluable in providing a cross-case study entry point into (for example) thirty examples of the use of video. As I now can’t fault the lack of an index I would like to suggest that the technology platforms are listed in the introductory profile, so that as you start reading you are already aware that you are looking at an SP2010 (Unicredit) implementation.

The team of Kara Pernice, Amy Schade and Patty Caya, together with probably most of the NNGroup team, deserve a round of applause for their work on the report. There is a summary on the NNGroup website and an individual licence is $248, which works out at (say) only $20 a profile and $48 for the summary, or around $1 per day of your intranet working year. However you do the maths it is excellent value as a source of inspiration and neat ways of delivering business-critical information to employees. If you think your intranet is better than the selected 10 why not enter it for the 2016 Annual?

Martin White


Content curation – a response to good questions from APQC

Recently Paul Corney and I were asked by APQC to comment on three questions relating to content curation. We have worked together for many years on projects for organisations (many of them law firms) who realise that it is not about ‘content management’ but about ‘information management’ and ‘knowledge management’. Paul gave the closing address to an event on Knowledge & Information Management at Lisboa Business School in December and sparked a friendly but passionate debate when he suggested that you needed an information foundation on which to build the KM structure. In fact he said if you haven’t got the former don’t bother with the latter. Knowledge starts with information and if the information cannot be trusted then building from information to knowledge is building on sand no matter what subject expertise and experience someone may bring to making a business decision. The questions and our collective response are below. Stephen Dale has also commented on the questions, as has Harold Jarche. You should also read Steven’s paper in the December issue of Business Information Review as it sets out a very useful framework for consisting content curation processes and governance.

  1. Our best practices research says great content management systems have content developed around stakeholder needs. Why is this not always the case, and what can companies do to make sure it happens?

Companies rarely understand the importance of information as an asset. So all processes related to content curation are fitted in as a ‘hobby’ around other tasks. This makes the work difficult to prioritise, it may be invisible to a line manager, and when a content author leaves it may not be obvious that this is a role that their replacement needs to take on board. Companies have to adopt good practice in information management and appoint someone at Board level to take responsibility for content creation.

  1. What are the keys to having content that different generations of employees can use and understand?

This is not a sensible question. Content should be readable to anyone with an appropriate command of the language. However they may not always have the knowledge context to understand the value, perhaps because it has been written in a very technical way with far too many acronyms.  Content authors should write for all the potential users of their work, perhaps summarising technical reports for a business audience.

Perhaps more importantly is the need to take into consideration the device through which the content is being initially accessed and how it is going to be shared. Here there are some significant generational differences and where techniques such as gamification have an important role in enhancing value.  Mobile first is the only way to consider content consumption.

  1. A lot of content management systems are filled with content that is no longer relevant or useful. What processes have you seen or used that ensure CMS isn’t cluttered with material of questionable value?

Every item of content should be owned by an employee, not a department. There should be an automatic review of the content after (say) a year, at which time it can be revised, archived or withdrawn as is appropriate. Successive reviews might be either at yearly intervals or gradually at shorter interviews as the content reaches the end of its useful life. This is important work, ensuring that employees can trust the content when taking decisions.

If you have information that does not align with the business and will never be of value in making employees making business decisions that support the development of the company and their own careers then why are you sorting it?  Storage may be cheap but the time taken to work through search results that contain outdated, irrelevant and low quality information to find business-critical information is very expensive. It also takes time to undertake the review process, which leads us back to Q1.

Martin White


Seven questions to use to benchmark your digital workplace strategy maturity

Digital workplaces are receiving a lot of attention at the present moment. I for one am looking forward to the next edition of the Digital Workplace Trends report from Jane McConnell. It’s still not too late to take part and the survey will ask you some questions about your organisation and its plans for which you may not yet have good answers. A while back I mentioned in a blog post that I had seven important questions that I felt that organisations should be able to answer if they were on course to a digital workplace future. I use them as test questions, usually just one or two, to gauge the depth of understanding an organisation has about digital workplace development and management.

I included the seven questions in a presentation I gave to the JBoye 2014 Aarhus conference.  A slightly revised list is given here in case they are of value in assessing your digital workplace strategy.

  1. Are suppliers and customers able to access your corporate information repositories and collaboration areas?
  2. Have you carried out a survey of how cooperative working is carried out that highlights any requirements for better training and support?
  3. How certain are you that employees can quickly find the information they need, and then trust it when they have found it?
  4. Do you certify skills in virtual team management, distinguishing between skills for participation and skills for leadership?
  5. Do you have information management policies that are approved at Board level and owned by the business, not IT?
  6. Have you taken account that digital work takes place inside physical spaces, not just in your organisation but in other locations?
  7. Do job performance interviews, engagement surveys and exit interviews in your organisation include a review of how well employees are managing their digital working environment?

There are of course many more issues than these involved in digital workplace development but these are seven which I find most organisations are not able to respond to with a considered answer.

To expand on a few of these, in Q2 I have deliberately used the term cooperative working, not collaborative working. Work can be managed cooperatively but need not be collaborative. There is a well-developed discipline of computer-supported cooperative working that many information and knowledge managers are unfamiliar with. Q7 is about the issues of information privacy, which is not the same as data privacy. There is a very good 80 page report on information privacy from office equipment manufacturer Steelcase once you’ve registered on the site. Moving on to the question about where digital work takes place an issue that is almost always overlooked when considering mobile device access is how documents are going to be viewed or printed.

Of course there is far more to a digital workplace than just these seven topics, and one of the benefits of taking part in the Digital Workplace Trends survey is that you are able to benchmark yourself at a vertical industry sector level. So I present these questions as a more informal benchmark. If you need help developing good solutions to increase the number of positive responses you give please let me know.

Martin White


The opportunities for digital workplace adoption by law firms

Since February I have been working on a digital workplace project for a major global law firm. It has been a fascinating project as it is taking place against the background of very significant changes in the business of law, especially in what is often referred to as Big Law. This is a the term applied to the top 100 law firms. the top thirty of which have revenues in excess of $1 billion. The Harvard Law School Centre on the Legal Profession has just launched a new bi-monthly subscription journal entitled The Practice that will report on and analyse the changing market for legal services. In the preamble to the launch issue there is this statement

“Sophisticated clients have more access to information about legal services and what they need from those services. They’re demanding more transparency, asking firms to take things that used to come all packaged together—such as “litigation” or “deal work”—and unbundle and array those services across increasingly global supply chains. Such market forces are accelerating a move toward efficiency and what is euphemistically called “value” billing, in which work is priced not by input, but by the value of a firm’s output to clients. Vague, inexact measures of quality are no longer enough.In addition, competition is moving away from reputation or credentials to value as measured by metrics, and from firms to networks.”

What I find fascinating about the situation is the scope it gives to knowledge and information managers to transform the roles they have inside a law firm and build stronger links out to their opposite numbers in clients.Technology is also an important element of supporting changing market requirements and it is interesting to note the very rapid growth of UK collaboration software vendor HighQ in identifying specific requirements of the law business for closer collaboration internally and between a law firm and its clients. In terms of digital workplaces it could well be that major law firms move quickly to become significant adopters of digital workplace good practice, and it will be interesting to see the outcomes of the 2015 Digital Workplace Trends survey in this respect. The techniques now being adopted by law firms are largely standard practice in other professional services organisations and it will be interesting to see whether law firms start to entice the best KIM managers from these organisations to join them. Law is a very competitive market, dependent on the skills and reputation of senior partners.  Almost daily there are reports of either individual partners, or small groups, moving from one law firm to another, a substantial challenge to knowledge managers.  It is also a very conservative business and it will be interesting to see how quickly partners respond to the opportunities and challenges of digital legal workplaces in the next couple of years.

If you are a KIM manager and like to explore some of these issues at a breakfast meeting in London on 9 December book a free place on Eventbrite.

Martin White


Is enterprise search useful at all? Outcomes of a case study

I’m in the final stages of writing the 2nd Edition of my book Enterprise Search for publication in April 2015. I have spent an enjoyable day making sure that I am aware of any research literature on the subjects covered in my book. At the recent JBoye Aarhus conference I was a member of a plenary expert panel and used my slot to highlight the fact that very few practitioners look at the research literature. The reaction from my fellow panellists was that there was little of value in the research literature that was relevant to practitioners and that seemed to be the sense of the audience. Perhaps because of my background as a chemist I find the research literature fascinating and full of valuable insights.

As I was working through the ACM Digital Library my eye was caught by a paper entitled Is Enterprise Search Useful At All? Lessons Learned From Studying User Behaviour by Alexander Stocker and five co-authors from the Virtual Vehicle Research Centre, Graz University of Technology and Know-Centre Austria. There are in fact very few papers published on enterprise search, let alone on a case study. This paper reports on a group of ten engineers and how they apply enterprise search to their projects, how satisfied they are with the search application and what they perceive to be the overall value of enterprise search. The initial section of the paper is a quite extensive literature review (though it omits my book) of 41 references, a good indication of how little research has been published on enterprise search in practice. The engineers used SharePoint 2013 Foundation in an out-of-the-box configuration.

Among the issues that emerged (not surprisingly) were the difficulty of query formulation, inconsistent documentation and use of metadata, the heterogeneity of document content and structure and the misleading built-in relevance model of the search application. What also emerged was the need for help in developing the optimum search strategy. The project was very small scale, and the outcomes are mainly some interesting comments made by the engineers as they undertook searches. For those of us who are familiar with the vagaries and challenges of enterprise search there is nothing especially surprising about the outcomes but the paper is useful in putting enterprise search into context and providing a basis for further research projects along the same lines. The bibliography alerted me to some papers that I was not aware of, though only 6 of the 41 references date from 2011 onwards. Getting funding for research projects is much easier when there is an established methodology that can then be extended to other disciplines and circumstances. The paper was presented at the i-KNOW conference, held in Graz in September this year.

The downside of much of the research literature is that it sits behind a subscription firewall, and this paper is no exception. As you will see from the paper link above the conference proceedings are published by the Association for Computing Machinery and at present there does not seem to be a parallel publication from any of the three participating organisations.

Martin White


An end to ‘killer apps’ please

We live in a very dangerous world. Once again ISIS has shocked the world with violence at a new extreme for the 21st century and still there are people who want to settle scores by shooting adults and children.

Despite the incalculable sorrow caused by these acts of violence the IT software and development industry feels that it is quite OK to refer to ‘killer apps’. I’ve also seen the term used by web and intranet managers. It is both instructive and of great concern to carry out a search on Google for “killer apps” and find the number of results indexed in just the last 24 hours. Apart from anything else the term makes semantic nonsense. Just think about it for a moment.

To me it is a sign of marketing managers with both a serious lack of language skills and an equally serious lack of social responsibility.

The next time you are offered a ‘killer app’ you might want to ask the vendor exactly why they have chosen to describe the app in that way and what other adjectives they discarded in the selection process.

Martin White

 

 


Certifying virtual teams – a key skill in digital workplace implementation

A few weeks ago I was giving a presentation on the vision and reality of digital workplaces at the JBoye 2014 Aarhus conference. I never understand why the right to ask questions is only applicable to delegates so I started of with one of my favourite questions. “How many of you regularly work in virtual teams?”  Virtually everyone in the room, around 50 delegates, raised their hand. I then asked “How many of you have a training programme for virtual team membership and leadership?” Only two people raised their hands. In most job positions in an organisation there will be a an engineer comes to service a piece of equipment, be it a photocopier or a CAT scan machine, you would rightly expect that they have been trained and certified for the skills needed to effect both diagnosis and repair.

I’ve been involved in managing virtual teams since 1974 (that is not a misprint!) and I am constantly learning about better ways to gain the benefit from working virtually. At the Legal KIM Breakfast I am running with Paul Corney in London next month I will be taking about the benefits of tying a balloon on a telephone. To learn more come to the Breakfast. I also use the Mr Men concept to prepare people for the significant challenges of working with people in virtual teams, especially when you have not met them in person. In a discussion later in the conference I asked a small group if they were able to meet other members of virtual teams to get an impression of their building layout and facilities. All said that they were, but on further questioning this only applied to people working in their organisation even though all of them took part in virtual teams on a frequent basis where people from outside of the organisation were involved.

This is especially important in digital workplaces where there will be a constant requirement to work with suppliers and customers. In my experience virtual teams differ in almost every respect from table teams – a term I have coined to describe teams gathered around the same table. This is not just with regard to meeting management but in the leadership skills required for virtual teams. Simple things can make a big difference. Talking to one delegate they mentioned a challenge about getting their East Coast and West Coast US teams working better together in virtual team meetings. I asked if the West Coast team ever had a chance to fix the meeting time even if it was towards the end of the day in San Francisco and therefore in the evening in Boston. All too often meeting times are chosen to suit corporate HQ, not participants in other countries.

I would recommend that developing a structured training programme for virtual team participation and management should be a priority for 2015. You can download a briefing to virtual teams from the Resources section of this site or take a look at what I regard as ten critical success factors in virtual team management. If you would like me to run my virtual team training course in house or develop a certification programme for your organisation please let me know.

Martin White


JBoye 2014 Conference, Aarhus. The best yet!

In my line of business attending conferences is an occupational hazard. Typically I end up at about a dozen a year, often sitting at the back or on a speaker chair muttering about variable quality papers and even more variable quality organisation. The JBoye Aarhus 2014 conference, which took place on 4-6 November, has set an almost unattainable benchmark for both content and organisation.

Although I attended most of the early Aarhus conferences, and one in Philadelphia, a conflict of dates with the Enterprise Search Summit Fall in Washington DC over the last few years meant that this was my first Aarhus conference for a while. But as it was the tenth anniversary event I engraved the date in my diary right at the start of the year. In this account of the conference I’m going to try to give you a sense of ‘feel’ of the event rather than summarise the sessions I attended

The opening plenary session on Tuesday evening took place in the main hall of the Aarhus City Hall and was followed by a very good supper sponsored by IntranetNote. The conference was located in the new Comwell Hotel in the centre of the city. The hotel was under construction when Janus and his team took the decision to use it as the venue. It turned out to be a very good choice. The main room and the breakout rooms all had a substantial amount of natural light, a mix of tables and chairs, good AV and plenty of power sockets. Although there were five parallel themes the rooms for each theme changed between every paper. This meant that delegates were encouraged to re-think their choice and would find themselves sitting alongside a fresh group of people at each rotation. The layout of the rooms around a large coffee breakout area made this much easier to accomplish that it may seem from this description and encouraged high-speed networking at each break in the timetable. The food was excellent at breakfast, breaks and lunch and the queues were minimal.

One of the benefits of not having a subtitle theme to the conference is that the papers, round tables and discussions ranged across the entire spectrum of digital delivery. In the course of my two days at the event among the sessions I attended were on the development of digital services in the UK Parliament (Tracy Green), making Agile development work (James Cannings), the Gov.uk content strategy (Simon Kaplan), a pragmatic approach to big data (Bebo White), implementing a social business application at Schneider Electric (Todd Moran) and web accessibility (Daniel Gartman and Helene Noorgard). I also enjoyed participating in the Expert Panel session with Bebo White (no relation as far as he and I know!) and Ina Rosen. The conference dinner, in the old Turbine Hall of the Aarhus power company, was generously sponsored by Magnolia.

I have already Tweeted that this was the best conference I have attended in the last decade in Europe and the USA. The only other conference I can recall that matched it was the Step Two Designs Intranets conference in Sydney a few years ago. The event provided a wide range of speakers, a very open ethos of sharing knowledge, immaculate conference organisation and a commitment to delegate satisfaction throughout the event. It’s not until you have run a conference that you gain any idea of the amount of work and attention to detail that is required to deliver an event of this standard. The Aarhus event also benefits from JBoye being able to bring the best of the Philadelphia conference speakers across, and vice versa, and that also adds to the wealth of knowledge in the sessions and at the networking events. The 2015 Aarhus conference will take place on 2-5 November 2015. Put it in your budget now. Each year JBoye has consistently improved the events. Based on Aarhus 2014 the 2015 events should be stunning!

PS If you are wondering about the ‘decade’ limitation it is because the early intranet conferences in San Francisco and then San Jose between 1999 and 2002 were outstanding in terms of a community of several hundred practitioners coming together to share a vision and good practice in intranet development.

Martin White

 


Digital Workplace Gold Dust R1.0 – a report from InfoCentric

It has been a while since I last blogged, primarily because of two major digital workplace strategy projects. So it is timely that InfoCentric recently published a report on the experience the company has gained from recent digital workplace projects. As a result the perspective is very different from the survey-based analysis provided by Jane McConnell in the Digital Workplace Trends report.  The report authors are Philipp Rosenthal (formerly at Tieto),  David Franklin and Kevin Hansen. The report is presented in a quasi-PowerPoint two-column landscape format. There are three main sections in the 46 page report, Reality Check, The Way Forward (with sub-sections on Models and Strategy Corner Stones) and DWP Mechanics and Principles. The two objectives of the report are set out as sharing the experience that InfoCentric has gained from the projects and to attract consultants to join the consultancy. The latter is a somewhat unusual objective!

The Reality Check section covers a lot of ground, offering three scenarios, six challenges and six issues related to organisational change in just ten pages. The pace continues in the second section with a five-category typology of organisations, a four stage model of the evolution of a digital workplace, a four element framework for the way in which employees need to be connected and then eight digital workplace strategy ‘corner stones’. The discussion around the corner stone of Concrete Value introduces (very briefly) the 8C Model of Enterprise Information Management. A six-category framework for digital workplace stakeholders labels one of the categories as Cockroach, which is without doubt the first time I have seen this word in a report written for senior management. The report concludes with the section on DWP Mechanics and Principles, listing out five areas which may turn out to be game changers in the evolution of digital workplaces.

There is much of value in this report if you are already actively involved in digital workplace development. All the various frameworks, models, lists and categories are clearly based on a lot of practical experience. However despite the claim that the report is based on projects that InfoCentric has undertaken there are no ‘stories’ about how organisations are approaching digital workplace implementation, which are a valuable element of the Digital Workplace Trends report. There is also no discussion about differences of adoption in vertical sectors. From my own experience over the last couple of months, major law firms and pharmaceutical companies are very different in their approach to digital workplaces. This is certainly not a report you could give to a senior manager. I think that their eyes would glaze over after the first few pages from a combination of the pace of the presentation, the often awkward use of a double column layout and with sentence compression to the extent that it is almost impossible to see spaces between words. Pale green and pale blue highlighting also do not assist the reader, especially if they are reading on-screen and have not printed it out. I would also have liked to see some references for further reading.

Full mark to InfoCentric and the authors for the investment involved in the considerable amount of research and analysis that is presented in the report. I know I will make good use of this very comprehensive analysis of the issues around digital workplaces but I am not sure it is a report that I could recommend to a senior executive trying to make a business case for investing in the scoping and implementation of a digital workplace.

Martin White