Globally local - locally global

How to kill an intranet

  Four easy steps if you'd like to bring sudden death to your intranet. (This is a real story!)

1. Remove or redeploy the intranet team, and put external communications in charge.
2. Stop training authors.
3. Turn the home page into a flashy news tool with lots of fancy widgets.
4. Remove all user feedback mechanisms from the home page.

This is real - I did not invent it!
All I can say is RIP (rest in peace) as in the old westerns.
Maybe John Wayne will come riding back into town and save everything! Or maybe management will come to their senses.

Thank you, my anonymous friend, for this real life example, and let's hope very few others follow this path.

The middle layer is disappearing

Lost in the middle or is the middle lost?

I wrote an article for the publication "Intranets Today" exactly 2 years ago entitled "Lost in the Middle".
Today I would give it a stronger title: "The Middle is Lost".

Seriously, I've been struck in recent months by the number of organizations I have seen that have decided to eliminate what I call the "middle layer". Decentralisation strategies in organisations result in giving more power to the out-lying parts of the organisation. Strategic guidelines come from the central head-quarters. So the centre and the entities end up being reinforced, and the middle layer severely weakened, even removed in some cases. The current economic context is pushing organizations to become leaner and meaner. Where better to cut than the middle?

This has big impact on intranet landscapes because many global intranet landscapes have relatively heavy "middle layers". So many times I've seen the divisional or regional intranets masquerade as head-quarter intranets. Sometimes, the middle layer intranet managers even attempt to prevent direct communication between the central intranet manager and the local intranet managers in their regions or divisions. I've personally experienced this when doing intranet audits. 

Removing the distance to be both "globally local and locally global"

Interestingly, when the middle layer is removed in intranets, things seem to work just as well as before. The challenges become how to provide guidance from a distance and in fact how to remove the distance:

• What is the right balance between "rules" and "guidelines", between "mandatory" and "highly recommended" when defining governance policies?
• How can you build trust, among intranet managers and with users?
• What tools and methods will help communication in a geographically dispersed group of content providers?
• How can you ensure that people in the centre listen and understand those in the entities and vice versa?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have provided a full reprint of the original article below as it was first appeared in June 2007 in Intranets Today. (Intranets is a subscription-based magazine, but authors can re-publish a few months after the initial publication.)

Lost in the Middle

The hard truth is that the majority of these intranets should not exist

The role of divisional and regional intranets can be both ambiguous and misleading. They are neither global nor local. Global intranet managers may feel they reproduce global content, thereby keeping users from the authoritative global site; local managers may feel they are unnecessary because they can best provide their local users with what they need. Thus, the divisional and regional intranet mangers are caught in the middle, running intranets with little guidance, other than their managers saying “we need to have an intranet.” The hard truth is that the majority of these intranets should not exist.
A global intranet has a clear mission: communicate about global strategy and values; provide strategic news; give access to organization-wide tools like employee directories and reference and policy documentation; and provide collaboration tools. A local intranet is closely integrated into day-to-day life. It provides local news; offers tools for reserving meeting rooms and ordering office supplies; has self-service centers for HR and administrative processes; publishes the canteen menu as well as local information such as traffic and weather conditions

Intermediary intranets, on the other hand, exist for less clear reasons. Some are created to deal with temporary objectives. For example, an organization undertaking acquisitions often positions acquired companies at a divisional level. An intranet is then created to communicate and facilitate the merger process but runs out of steam when the integration is completed

Companies doing business globally may create another type of intermediary intranet—regional ones that play a coordination role between global and local for marketing, training, administrative, and other needs. One would think this raison d'etre is more sustainable because the need appears permanent. However, regional intranets also find themselves "lost in the middle" as organizations implement global processes, rolling up regional content and services to the global level.

Two questions: What is unique about them? Who do they serve?
Two simple questions will help clarify if an intermediary-level intranet should exist. First, does it offer unique content and services that cannot (and should not) be found on other intranets in the organization? Second, does it serve only users who work within the same division or region, or do people elsewhere in the organization also need to use it? Examples of unique content and services include: information related to the specific business activities of the division, collaborative spaces used by managers to share regional or business-specific knowledge, and regional reporting tools. However even this uniqueness does not necessarily justify the existence of regional and divisional intranets. It simply means that certain services and content are best provided from the intermediary level. The appropriate place for users to find them may be elsewhere

If users across the organization need access to the knowledge in the expertise centers, they must be able to find it without knowing which region is the source. Marketing and customer-oriented information may be local or regional by definition, but others throughout the organization can learn from sharing experiences, lessons learned, and best practices. It makes sense to place these types of content at the global level where they can be found by subject and keyword. As business becomes more knowledge-based and organizations more global, there are few if any reasons for maintaining intermediary intranet sites

Forget history. Move on to real value and visibility.
Many of these intranets exist for historical reasons and, if the enterprise intranet strategy was to be redone, would probably never be created. When an organization does decide to simplify and optimize the intranet structure, the validity of these sites will be questioned. Managers working at the regional or divisional levels may well want to have an intranet. Unfortunately, the "I have an intranet site, therefore I exist" feeling is still alive and well. One solution is to give high visibility to content producers and less to intranet site owners. Build your intranet strategy, governance, and communication around the concept "I exist because I provide high quality content and services to everyone that needs it." Everyone will be a winner, especially the content contributors who will be more visible and valued, and the users who will be able to find what they need faster.

What happened to SharePoint?

Our friend SharePoint, a very hot topic in the intranet space 12 months ago, was hardly mentioned in the 2009 Quick Poll.

I did not put it on the list, and there were only 10 comments in the open question suggesting to include it (out of the 50 people who commented, out of the 165 total who took the Poll).

Their suggestions for issues concerning SharePoint:

1. When to use SharePoint, when to use the intranet

• "Amazingly, people are using the word Sharepoint as if it were generic for I don’t know what. I’ve never seen a commercial brand name gain such traction so fast in the intranet world. It’s scary."
• "Secured content: intranet or SharePoint?"
• "SharePoint or intranet: appropriate identification of when to use either"

2. Governance

• "Governance intranet / SharePoint"
• "Governance/control of SharePoint Designer, now that it's 'free.' "
• "SharePoint Issues."

3. Numbers & stories around SharePoint

• "Would be interested to know how many organizations have or are intending to roll out Sharepoint MOSS as their portal platform."
• "Another focus on Sharepoint would be interesting."
• "I'd be interested to hear real-life stories of Sharepoint for intranet."
• ".... I deal with SharePoint in an intranet environment not intended for collaboration. I wonder about the experience of others with the same or other systems."

What do you make of this relatively low level of interest in a topic that was so hot just 12 months ago?

Intranet ownership "mental models"

In preparing for the survey this year, I asked the members of NetJMC&Co on Linkedin the question "Who owns the intranet in your organization (which function or department)?"

The answers varied. They usually - but not always - included Communication and/or IT.
However, what I found most interesting was the way people answered the question. It is clear that there are different "mental models" around the concept of ownership. I say "mental models" because I am attaching a lot of importance to how the responses were phrased, the words that were used.
Here are the "mental models" I identified:

1. Single-owner - usually Communication or IT, but sometimes HR or Marketing. No reference to stakeholders in these responses.

2. Co-owned - almost always Communication and IT. Ditto re stakeholders: no mention of them.

3. Triangle - 2 owners with one major stakeholder (e.g. Communication, IT, with HR as "the major stakeholder"). The reference to "a major stakeholder" suggests to me that this stakeholder is as important as the owners, in the minds of the intranet teams

4. Single or co-owned, but strong importance given to multiple stakeholders (the businesses, for example). This feels quite different from the previous response because there's a sense of "we the team are working for many other managers".

5. Informal committee, informal joint ownership - agreement-based, consensus-driven, no strong sense of ownership or territory

I've worked with a lot of organizations over the years, and can practically picture some of my clients for each of the models above. In my experience, each "mental model" implies very different ways of working and therefore results. Some examples coming from my own professional experience:

• Model 1 is more and more rare. It tends to be found in organizations with intranets that are still in Stage 1. This is because the intranet is still perceived to "belong" to a single department.
• Model 2 suggests a spirit of partnership. Communication and IT are beginning to realize they need each other.
• Model 3 is one I've found in organizations where business and local entities play little or no role in the intranet. This model tends to exist in intranets driven primarily from headquarters, and the power balance between Communication, IT and HR lies behind the triangle model.
• Model 4 tends to bring fast-moving results because there is a strong sense of delivering to internal customers, who in turn put pressure on the intranet team and compete for attention and resources.
• Model 5 in a large organisation results in slow progress, sometimes actually coming to standstills on major decisions.

My quick analysis of the 5 models is not based on research, but on what I've seen and experienced over the years. I'd like to know what you think.

Do you agree that there are different "mental models"? Do you agree with my "interpretations"?

Do you fit into one of these "mental models"? If not, how do you perceive the ownership of the intranet in your organization?

In times of crisis, is the intranet an afterthought?

From participants in the recent pre-survey Quick Poll... 

Our biggest pressure point

"Placement/importance of the intranet and its teams within the organisation is by far our biggest pressure point at the moment - in economic crisis, restructures are causing the intranet to be an afterthought more than ever (i.e. 'oh the intranet, well someone can just keep that up to date, we dont need much headcount for that, theres an economic crisis going on'). The challenges to deliver through the intranet instead of external high-cost mediums means the opposite should be happening in times like this, but it just cannot seem to reach the radars of those at the top." 

Top management claims...

"How can an organisation fulfil all increasing requirements in regards of functions to an Intranet when top management claims the intranet to be the most important internal communication and collaboration channel and at the same time reducing resources both technical and communication wise?"

What about the future?

"We are dealing with extreme downsizing of already stretched intranet teams. How will this impact intranets in the coming years?"

Loss of experience, less time for everyone

"Loss of experienced publishers due to downsizing (crisis). Less time for everyone to maintain "public", static, non-collaborative content. (e.g. Information about the company, or policies). Public content is important because it provides general information and "body" for people who are not (yet) using collaborative workspaces. How can we motivate owners of policies etc. to realize that their content is important and should be maintained"

My comments:

Organizations are taking huge risks by ignoring or down playing the intranet during these tough times.
Those that decide to leverage the intranet to help the organizations save time, decrease and avoid costs, and communicate and collaborate better are those that will have a better chance at surviving the crisis and becoming stronger.
I wonder how many organizations have actually calculated what they save by downsizing intranet teams versus what they will be losing.
Practically none, in my opinion.

How far down the ladder is the intranet manager?

As you saw from my previous post, raising senior management awareness of the role of the intranet is a key priority for lots of enterprises.
In preparation for this year's Global Intranet Strategies survey, I did some preliminary pre-survey research with the members of the NetJMC & Co Linkedin group of intranet managers and asked them where they were placed in their organizations.

How far from the top of your organization is the first fulltime intranet person or team? In other words, how many levels under the CEO or top position?

"3 levels down from the CEO" was the most frequent response.
In my calculations to get this figure, I considered the CEO to be level 0, then counted down using the information in the answers. A number of people shared the reporting line in detail.
A couple people responded saying 2 levels down, saying that their manager reports directly to the CEO. Several more ranged from 4 to 6 levels down, but the majority were at 3.

Of course the interpretation of this depends on how hierarchical or flat the organization is. Three levels under the CEO may be quite high, or not very high at all!

I will nuance this question in the survey itself by asking participants to tell us how many levels exist in their organization, then at what level the first fulltime intranet person or team is placed.

Question to the readers of this blog, especially those who work in large organizations:
Do you actually know how many hierarchical levels exist in your enterprise? Is this a question that is relatively easy to answer?

The intranet - what is the elevator pitch?

I started an interesting discussion with my suggestion that the word "intranet" should be changed to something more relevant such as "web workplace" (which came from a brainstorming session inside NetJMC & Co on Linkedin).

The discussion has evolved in three places: this web, Column Two, and NetJMC & Co.

I've followed it closely in all 3 channels and have come to understand that intranet managers in companies where the intranet is already at Stage 3 do not feel a need to change the vocabulary.
This is for one of 2 reasons:

• They already have strong brands for their intranets that connote "online workplace"

or

• Their users are focused on services offered by the intranet and relate to those services more than the platform itself where those services reside (= the intranet).
  In these cases, the intranet has become invisible and is simply a transparent platform for essential services.

Organisations where the intranet is not yet positioned as essential work tools DO feel the need for a new term. "Web workplace" resonates with them. They believe it will help them trigger senior management interest because the term carries the purpose of what they are trying to achieve.

• "Thanks for opening up the discussion about what terms could replace the outdated intranet. "
• "To me, telling someone that I manage strategic direction and content management for our web workplace for employees provides a much clearer understanding of my role than referring to the intranet."

It is easy to say that words do not make a difference: it's what we do that counts. That's true when we are in the "friendly territory” of intranet-land where Intranet managers talk to each other and to business people who have "understood".

When we move to potentially "hostile territory" (just joking, but only a little) we need to change our language. I have a client I'm helping prepare for a 15 minute presentation to the top management board of his company. (90,000 employees). He has a short slot on their heavily-charged agenda (at a moment where the economic climate is tough) to request a multi-million euro budget to build an enterprise portal over the next 3 years.

What should he call the “thing” he is talking about? The intranet? The "enterprise portal"? The “web workplace”? How does he explain what he is talking about? Which term speaks for itself?

Words make a difference. They trigger reactions. They represent values. They are the “elevator pitch” which is what most intranet managers have a lot of trouble doing.

What term to you think works best from a "senior management perception" viewpoint?

Where should collaboration sit?

Here are some issues I'm working on currently:

Should collaboration sit inside or beside the intranet?
I recommend placing collaboration within the intranet landscape. That's to say, making the intranet the front door into collaborative spaces (even if they are built on a different technology). This reinforces the role of the intranet as a business support tool and makes it easier to blend information and collaboration.

Should the collaborative spaces be distributed or centralized?
Should they be scattered throughout the intranet, that is to say, integrated into different work areas or sections that are nearest the people using the spaces? Or should they be grouped together in a larger area under the title of "collaboration" or something along those lines?
Proximity to users is important. That suggests that the distributed solution is best. However, making the spaces centrally visible has the advantage of raising their visibility. When we don't know where to place something in an intranet, we often say "It doesn't matter. It can go anywhere and people can link to it." True, but risky. This can create confusion for users, and of course will create broken links at some point.
I believe it matters very much where you place the collaborative spaces. I recommend that large organizations create a dedicated area where these collaborative spaces "live".

How high up in the navigation should the "Collaboration" area be placed?
I often recommend that it exist at level 1 in the navigation, thereby becoming part of the global navigation bar. This makes the statement that collaboration is important for the organization. There is a "Collaboration central" concept much like some organizations have a "Blog central" area.
I'm currently working with an organization who is considering make "Communities" one of 4 entry points into the intranet. The other 3 are: Reference documents, an HR-related entry and an "About the organization" entry point.
This organization already has a fairly large amount of communities-driven work and projects. They want the intranet to help reinforce and lead the organization towards generalizing this way of working.

Who owns collaboration?
There are different things to be owned.
First, there needs to be a framework: a toolset and guidelines. Although I strongly believe in leaving space for experimenting and playing with new technologies, I also have seen that unless the enterprise designates specific tools for specific collaborative needs, there is a strong risk of creating "collaboration silos" because of the diversity of tools.
Guidelines need to be defined to ensure that there is a procedure (as light as possible) for opening new spaces, an owner for the new space and when and how to close the space.
This framework will be created by a central team, most likely business, communication, IT and sometimes HR people.
After that, ownership passes to the business, functional and project managers. In short, whoever is leading or facilitating the collaborative space.
Stage 3 intranets have more collaborative features than Stages 1 and 2. They also govern/regulate these spaces more than the other stages.

- - - - - - - -
I'm looking for examples where "collaboration" or "communities" or similar themes live at the top (level 1) navigation. If you have an example, can you share it with us (along with giving us an idea of what the other top level categories are)?

Intranet purpose: 3 angles

I got a question a few days ago from an intranet manager who asked me:

"I'm working with my team on developing a shared understanding of the purpose of our intranet and wondered if you had a view you'd be willing to share?"

Here's my approach:
When you define the purpose of an intranet, there are several angles to examine. Each angle requires making a choice. However, they are not mutually exclusive choices. They are choices about what you decide to emphasize.

Angle One
Is the primary purpose to communicate, collaborate or work?

Granted, people need to do all three and these functions should all be part of the purpose of the intranet.
The real questions are more detailed:

• Are we trying especially to improve communication? If so, are we talking about bottom-up, horizontal or top-down. Which flow is the weakest in our organization and how can we improve it?
• Does our business need better collaboration, across different silos for example? Are we working on projects that need more efficient ways of supporting virtual teams, or teams that include our employees and external partners? How can the intranet help?
• Do we have business processes that should be supported by the intranet? Through a portal? Through integration of core process applications?
• Do we have secondary processes that we could integrate into the intranet? This could save time for employees and process owners.

Simply put, where do we want to put the emphasis?

Angle Two
Look at the intranet and its services from three perspectives: the employee, the business and the enterprise.

Are you serving all three well?

• For example, is there anything going on in the economic environment that means you should give extra support to business managers?
• Is your enterprise undergoing a down-sizing or transformation program that requires special support to employees?
• And so on.

Needs change over time. Needs can also be very temporary but nonetheless critical for the company.

Simply put, take your head out of the intranet, and think about your company, your business and the people. What do they need?

Angle Three
Do you want to position your intranet as a layer or as an integrator?

• Do you envisage a flat, thin layer over a lot of specialized sites, each one independently serving its users?
• Do you envisage a customized, single entry point into all the company's information, applications and resources. I say "attempting" because doing this successfully is hard and rare.

If you are in the first case, you need to:

• Understand what is common to all, and ensure that it is found only on the intranet-portal, leaving the specialized content for the independent sites. Otherwise, these sites will become the entry points for their users who will thereby not see the common, shared information and messages. Or they will see out-of-date common content because the site manager will not have realized there has been an update.
• Specify the purpose and scope for each piece: the layer and the underlying sites. They will most likely - all taken together - cover all the points in Angles 1 and 2.

If you are in the second case, your challenge will be twofold:

• Identify meaningful and workable profile criteria for personalization
• Ensure that the user experience is meaningful, starting with the home page

The biggest challenge here is accepting that in most large enterprises, from 10 to 15% of the content and services are common and the rest is specific. This is a switch from the way most headquarters-based intranet teams see things.
- - - - -

Readers: please join the conversation. How have you gone about defining the purpose of your intranet or portal?

Future intranet manager

A group of approximately 15 intranet managers in global companies came together in Paris last week for the first JMC Intranet Manager Breakfast in 2009.

This presentation was used to kick off the discussion - which was quite lively! The participants themselves shared views on a number of closely related topics that are described briefly on the last few slides in the deck.

Enjoy, and please comment. (If you want a copy of the presentation in pdf, drop me a note, introduce yourself, and I'll send it to you.)

Future Intranet Manager - what role?

View more presentations from Jane Mcconnell. (tags: virtual-work portal)