Global intranets - more on paths, strategies and global integration

One of the Globally Local readers (hi Samuel!) has asked me to develop my comments on paths 2 and 3 in this diagram I used in my post "Global Intranets - Different Challenges, Different Paths"

Samuel says: "The difference between companies started in the USA with intranet evolution is interesting. What is your explanation for this fact? The way US companies are organized? Organizational culture?"

JMC response: In my experience, the majority of USA companies who expand abroad do so by following the path started at point 2A. They  "impose" their intranet structure in a natural way (passing through the 2B cookie cutter stage) as they grow gradually.  They usually have a strong IT culture and a high degree of self-confidence or "we prefer what is invented here" and are thereby able to achieve the move to an integrated portal relatively easily.

European companies already have a strong sense of diversity, primarily coming from the geographical proximity of highly different cultures and ways of doing things. Personally, I have never seen the cookie cutter approach coming from a European headquartered multinational or global company.

Samuel continues: "My company relates to path 3. We are now working on one global intranet. Why do you say: it is highly unlikely these organisations will do what we are doing now?"

JMC response: What I said when describing path 3 is:  "One day, the organisation may decide it needs a single point of entry (3C). However, it is highly unlikely that it will ever become more than a thin portal with news from HQ and the businesses, multiple links to the information resources and intranets of the organisation, and a corporate directory (although it will take years to include all the entities). It will primarily be a unifying layer of common information placed on top of the standardised model."

I believe this because unless the global company has a highly integrated business model, the final 3C point will be based on what is "common" to all employees of the global company and when you get right down to it, this is much less than one thinks from the theoretical or abstract viewpoint.

Samuel finishes with a Final Question: "To a large extent I agree with your model. But don't you think there's an intermediary step somewhere between 3B and C, or 2B and C etc in which local intranets are migrated one-by-one to one global intranet?"

JMC response: I have not yet seen it. The one-by-one step is a hard one to pull off. Do you start a  big one, who will usually resist, sometimes successfully? Or with a small one, where from the global viewpoint, it does not make a lot of difference? How do you achieve critical mass?

How can you be sure your integrated solution genuinely meets all needs unless you have discussed it with all types of your entities:

• different geographies,
• mature and young,
• big (lots of resources) and small (DIY intranets),
• those where the native language is the same as HQ and those where it is different,
• Etc.

And once you've discussed the integration strategy and migration path with the key players, how do you establish priorities, timelines and functionalities such as search and indexing while ensuring that all entities are treated fairly, respectfully and without disrupting their day-to-day operations?

Of course this can all be organised, but not, in my opinion, on a "one-by-one" basis. It requires well thought-out strategy with a maximum of communication, diplomacy and change management actions. Not the least of which must address the concerns of local senior managers who are "losing their intranets"!

Thank you for pushing me with your questions, Samuel. Keep them coming.

If other readers have comments or experiences to share, please join us!

Comments

[Samuel]

Just to let you know, I've read your post. Thanks for the elaborate answers to my questions. I have to think about them a bit.