Intranet Benchmarking Forum

Intranet governance in the social media age

Concerns about how to govern social media in the workplace are often cited as one of the main barriers for not doing it. And as organisations do start to experiment with social media inside the firewall, governance often amounts to bolting additional policies onto existing intranet governance. While this may help in the short term, in the longer term it can become unwieldy as new tools are added. And for organisations holding back from getting their hands dirty with social media, employees wanting to connect with colleagues may increasingly turn to external tools such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter – potentially leading to an exodus away from the intranet.

How to develop governance around social media – mitigating the risks and fostering user trust – was the subject of a recent briefing paper for IBF members, written by our director of intranet strategy & governance, John Baptista. In it he looks at the rise of social media behind the firewall and sets out a model of governance for the next-generation intranet where:

“... governance could be structured around the main kinds of intranet activities, with a different set of policies, roles and technology for each of them. This model provides for:

• governance for using information (such as policies and product information)
• governance for doing things (such as booking travel, doing online training, using HR self-service)
• governance for interacting and connecting (for networking, collaborating and sharing ideas and good practice).

The benefit of this approach is that governance will be much more aligned with the actual purpose and use of the intranet. The policies emerging from this model will also be wider reaching. Instead of regulating applications and content, they regulate key organisational activities, which are core to the functioning of the organisation. One advantage of this approach is that designing governance around organisational activities enables much more accurate management of risk because the policies, roles and technology reflect more directly the risks associated with the use of the intranet.”

This is governance at the next level, where the intranet has penetrated to a deeper level of usefulness and integration within the organisation, and is more than a few steps away for many intranet managers! To bridge the gap, the paper also looks at the stages of evolution of social media policy:

“There are three possible approaches to developing policy for social media:

• Develop policies for each tool.
• Develop policies for the different content categories and classifications.
• Develop policies for each task.

These three approaches should not be seen as three independent methods for developing policy, but rather part of a continuum. The reality is that many organisations evolve through these three approaches.

Organisations are likely to want to move on from tool-based policies when they realise new forms of publishing are being used to create content that should be governed more tightly. Moving to content-based policies resolves this problem by changing the focus from the tools used to the type of content published on the intranet. Then, as the intranet expands to become the central hub for all business resources and organisational life, a new shift is likely to be needed. Policies based on content will not cover the complexity of the new activities on the intranet, and so more task-centric policies are required. This changes the focus from types of content (corporate, personal or social) to types of tasks that may be done across tools or types of content (for example, the task of collaboration is cross-platform and cross-content).”

At the research webinar, we discussed the findings and one interesting thread that came out was the fact that while the potential risks do need to be addressed, to some extent they’re as hyped as the terms “social media” and “Enterprise 2.0” themselves. As senior executives start to conjure pictures of a chaotic and unruly Facebook-esque world, it pays to remember that (a) it’s a myth that social tools exist in an unregulated environment (as a quick look at the T&Cs for some of these tools shows), and (b) the majority of employees know how to behave at work! As one member commented, in the same way that we know what is appropriate to wear to work, we also know what is appropriate behaviour, on- and off-line.

There are lots more interesting topics coming in IBF’s research programme this year, with the next report on enterprise intranets with MOSS 2007 by Martin White.

Some recurring patterns in Intranet Strategy and Governance

IBF benchmarking Model looks at intranets from four different perspectives:

• Strategy & Governance
• Metrics & Performance
• Communication & Culture
• Design & Usability

One of the areas that I focus on is Strategy & Governance  which looks at how well an organisation manages and develops its intranet. This includes alignment with business strategy, senior sponsorship, enforcement of controls and risk management. In this post I thought I'd summarise some of the themes that seem to keep coming up:

Keeping decision-makers involved

Intranet managers understand the importance of having some kind of steering group in place and normally work hard to get stakeholders together. Unfortunately, what sometimes happens is that senior people begin to delegate their seat to a more junior representative. The representative feels unable to make a decision without consulting their boss, so the meetings cease to be productive. This shifts the business of the steering group to more operational matters, so even more senior people disengage and the steering group grinds to a halt. Counter-measures to this include:

• Have clear role definitions and a charter for the steering group. Use the chair's influence to resist delegation
• Keep it strategic, not too large, and don't meet too frequently (quarterly seems about right)
• Consider a Working Group  below the steering group to deal with more detailed matters.

Strategy Communications

This continues to be a challenge for Intranet teams. Some have no documented strategy, so its hard to communicate, but even when they do they tend to focus on updating their main champion. As IBF has recommended before in the intranet manager's challenge, it's important to enthuse a much wider group of stakeholders so that they have a shared view of the purpose and value of the intranet. Have a communications plan and make use of informal channels such as opportunities for one stakeholder to influence another, rather than just the formal ones such as status reports.

Following-up on compliance

Standards and guidelines only really add value if they are observed. When we benchmark, we look for evidence that publishers are trained not just in tool use but also in the relevant standards for visual design, writing online, usability and legal compliance. Having a systematic way to check if the standards are working is valuable too. It can help identify where intranet managers need to intervene. A simple 'health check' report on sub-sites can be an easy (and non-threatening) way to begin that discussion with publishers that have drifted. In some organizations, publishing the health check scores will also stimulate competition and raise quality levels.

For more on this topic see:

• Intranet Strategy ; the intranet manager's challenge
• More on the challenges for intranet managers
• Intranet strategy and governance: the state of the art (IBF research report available to purchase)

Should you have a Web 2.0 Strategy?

I've seen a number of conference flyers recently that talk about "developing your Web 2.0 strategy" for your Intranet. It set me wondering if an organisation have such a thing as a separate Web 2.0 strategy - in the sense of an agreed roadmap for the next few years?

The Case For

Generally, when a substantial change is taking place, it does make sense to have a structured approach that involves all stakeholders and asks the usual good questions: why? Where? When? and Who? This applies if the change is internally driven (e.g. to improve supply chain efficiency) or due to external circumstances (an economic downturn is an example that springs to mind).

Having a Web 2.0 strategy will allow an organisation to focus efforts - avoiding duplication of effort and sharing knowledge gained. Without it there's a risk that users become confused with multiple innovations all offering similar features, for example. It also means that resources can be pooled, so that infrastructure can be properly supported rather than 'best efforts' by an enthusiast.

The Case against

I can see two different camps that would counsel against a specific Web 2.0 strategy, however:

The 'Integrators' will say that Web 2.0 should not be treated as something apart from what the organisation already has or is trying to achieve. A wiki, for example, is an approach to content management, so to have a strategy for wikis that is set apart from that for content management just creates parallel systems and potential conflict. Much better to have strategies for outcomes - Communication and Collaboration, for example, and use the most appropriate tool, whatever the label.

The 'Liberals', for quite different reasons, would argue that the whole spirit of Web 2.0 is to experiment and see what happens. Devising a strategy misses the point. It is both lumbering and risks losing the very benefits that Web 2.0 can bring: freedom from a top-down way of thinking.

Sitting on the fence

My own feeling is that organisations worry too much about re-inventing the wheel. If you relax control and let it happen - who knows - you might end up with a better wheel! You at least have more people that have learned something about how wheels are made. Therefore in the early stages, the 'strategy' for Web 2.0 should be to allow experimentation with low-cost, easily-started approaches and focus on learning from what happens. The strategy should also be clear what will happen when something starts to take off. At that point it makes sense to think about a longer-term perspective and ensure it integrates both with the IT ecosystem and also the business direction.

Are your users always right?

One of the things we ask in an IBF Benchmarking exercise is how well connected the intranet team is to its users. The best companies have feedback tools on the intranet, work closely with the IT helpdesk and with the publisher community to listen to what users want.

However, this doesn’t mean you always get good advice by listening to what users say. There are potential limitations such as:

• Users tend to ask just for incremental improvements to what they already know
• Comments may be from a vocal minority and not be representative of what most people need
• Often people can’t visualise the hypothetical scenarios accurately and have rose-tinted expectations (see, for example, the earlier post on this blog "Can't we have an intranet search engine like Google?")
• The request may be at odds with your organisation’s strategy

For example, a commonly heard message when talking to users about  information-seeking is that most people say they would prefer to ask a colleague than search a system such as an intranet. This has been shown  even as far back as Tom Allen's work in 1977 (pdf).

However, if you dig deeper, this doesn’t appear to be true of all situations. Older generations may have an ingrained expectation that databases rarely have the right answer because they used to require complex search syntax; teenagers seem to assume Google can answer everything (limitation 2). Some types of information are much more likely to be available from a system than a person. If you wanted to know film times at the local cinema, would you have more success asking a friend first or use the web? (limitation 3).

Finally (limitation 4), one reason why intranets are attractive is that they can reduce internal service costs. You may not want highly-paid staff answering the phone all day for routine queries, no matter how much the caller may prefer that mode. You want to keep them free for the high-value, non-routine work that really needs people to people interactions. Each query has a cost, but asking a colleague in an organisation doesn't usually expose the requester to that cost. If your staff were a premium-rate helpdesk, its unlikely they would be troubled so readily if the alternative was to get the answer on an intranet for free.

2008 Hot topics for the Global Intranet Survey

Take part in this year’s Global Intranet Strategies Survey and receive a free advance copy of the 2009 Intranet Trends Report (£300 ERP).

First published in 2006 the 2008 report will provide fresh insight into for example:

• Content sharing and management, especially in a distributed author context
• Social media: adoption, governance, benefits
• How 2.0 is impacting the way people share knowledge: what this means for the enterprise
• The blend of internal and external worlds in project teams and how to meet their needs for online support and tools
• Making the intranet a business-critical tool: benefits, risk management, business cases

And investigate:

• The often vague role of “Intranet Manager” becoming a new profession? What expertise and skills are required? What is the future of this role?
• How companies are facilitating the work of virtual teams made up of internal and external people who need to share information that is behind firewalls?

To participate in the 2008 survey, send an email to Jane McConnell at jane@netjmc.com. Include your name, title, organization and number of employees.

Completed entries are to be received by 31 August 2008

More information about NetStrategy/ JMC
More information about the 2008 Survey
Quick Poll Results: Hot Topics and Surprises
2007 Survey Highlights

Intranet strategy isn't just about strategy alone

Intranet strategy isn't just about working out a high-level, visionary paper about the future direction of the intranet. Instead the process of strategy development should also be used to make crucial decisions needed in later phases of an intranet project.

Let's start with a look at some of the most important pre-requisites for successful strategy development (or revision):

• involve and commit the 'right' people in the organisation (including but not limited to senior management)

• take other existing strategies into account (namely the corporate strategy, but also HR, communications, IT or any other relevant ones)

• work it out together in a collaborative, consensus focused approach (as opposed to e.g. just sending some paper around for sign-off)

• broadly communicate goals and objectives in a suitable fashion in regard to the target audience

Working out the strategy is already challenging and time-demanding. Still, it seems good advice to go one step further and include discussions about critical aspects that typically come up in every intranet project, now, in order to get ahead faster and more efficient in later stages.

The reason why this should be done is simple: you (hopefully!) have the right people to make decisions and build acceptance at the table – and that's probably the only time you'll actually get them there.

So, it pays to think about which issues might require senior competencies, a broad spectrum of voices from across the organisation or dissemination through respected persons outside the intranet and project team.

Here are some such issues I have repeatedly come across in intranet projects and that often require substantial time and resources to work out, if not addressed up-front in the strategic phase of the project:

• Decentrally organised roles and resources:
  It is important to create a common understanding about roles and resources needed for the ongoing management of the intranet and its contents. Try to get commitment from the business units to allocate those – both in regard to the quantity and quality required.

• Governance:
  Acceptance is key for effective execution of an intranet governance. Achieving this can be hard if the governance is not borne by multipliers from across the enterprise. Topics to discuss should include the basic orientation of the governance (e.g. is it rather strict or relaxed?), its focus and reach (e.g. is only information on the intranet affected or in all systems that contain information?) and how neglect is to be dealt with.

• Performance evaluation:
  Discussions about ROI often come up at the worst moment. Addressing the organisation's position on goals, key performance indicators and financial measurements at the beginning of a project not only helps to set expectations right but also to focus on longer term value instead of one-off project costs and returns.

There are more topics that could or should be covered in the strategy process (e.g. the organisation's take on accessibility issues, non business related use of the intranet or the provision of information to employees without computer workplaces), but usually the time available is a very limiting factor, so focus on what seems potentially most problematic - especially from a political point-of-view - in the course of the project to come.

Intranet governance matrix

Recent discussions over the right governance model for an Intranet seem to be unduly black and white, as if the only choices for any organization are either a free-wheeling 2.0 fest of blogging, tagging, rating, and chatting, or a rigid regime controlling every information movement. The reality is that the right solution for any organization will lie in a balance between the two extremes. Understanding this balance, as well as the relationship between a particular governance approach and the organization’s strategy and culture will result in the right model for your company.

On a simple axis of information creation and information delivery, there are positives and negatives associated with each type of approach. Organizations who are in the midst of tackling their own strategy around Intranet and especially Enterprise 2.0 governance should take some time to consider the matrix, and the following questions:

1. How is employee voice expressed in the organization?
2. Are there concerns about morale or culture (expressed through town hall meetings, focus groups, or just the word on the ground)?
3. What, if any, are the current business challenges and concerns?
4. What are restrictions or concerns for information publishing and data control in the organization (i.e. regulatory issues, legal controls, etc.)
5. What is the organization trying to achieve?     
1. Need to tap into “collective voice” of organization
2. Need to ensure timely and correct delivery of information to all employee       populations
3. Need to enable collaboration across organizational silos and geographic boundaries
4. Need to ensure information quality, accuracy and discoverability
5. Need to establish two-way communications channels to encourage employee       feedback and participation.

I hope this spurs some good discussion about governance as we prepare for the topic as part of IBF24 next week.   (With thanks to Anne Jackson for her invaluable assistance in fleshing out these concepts).

The practical issues of governing 2.0

The debate continues as to whether Enterprise 2.0 is little more than hype or represents a key cultural as well as technological shift in our organisations; whether we should talk about it at all; and if we should talk about it, then whether it isn’t just knowledge management in a new disguise... phew!

In the meantime, organisations need to deal with the practical issues around introducing more participative, open tools, both inside and outside the firewall (whether we call them 2.0 or some other equally cool sounding name). One of these practical issues is addressing the concerns these tools cause in some quarters around company reputation and legal risks. Paul Miller touched on this in his post about Intranet Governance 2.0 back in January and it will be the subject of an (eagerly anticipated) research report in the very near future! :)

If you take the new wave of employee directories I blogged about in my last post as an example, the question of data protection and privacy comes up as more employee data is exposed on the intranet. And for global organisations, this may have different implications across their operating countries. Additionally, with more freedom of expression, both on the intranet “inside” and “outside” concerns arise around content liability.

But these issues should not become show stoppers within the organisation for letting Enterprise 2.0 tools in and letting employees out to participate in Web 2.0 sites. Rather, they should be handled through ensuring that intranet governance keeps pace with the changing intranet landscape. The nature of this landscape means that hard and fast rules suited to more traditional structures, are not really suitable. Rather we get a framework of guidelines around behaviour and content that is acceptable and (as at BT) ensure that employees are held accountable for their actions.

Andrew McAfee on his Harvard Business School blog puts the argument around the risks into perspective: “Imagine two competitors, one of which has the guiding principle "keep security risks and discoverability to a minimum," the other of which is guided by the rule "make it as easy as possible for people to collaborate and access each others' expertise." Both put in technology infrastructures appropriate for their guiding principles. Take all IT, legal, and leak-related costs into account. Which of these two comes out ahead over time? I know which one I'm betting on.” In his recent debate with Tom Davenport (and that's another story!) he makes the point that if people wanted to make defamatory statements or expose company secrets then they have already had plenty of tools and opportunity to do this. He goes on to comment that in all of his research into companies use of 2.0 he has come across no examples of such cases.

The key here is around the guidelines the company provides (this is providing a clear lead, whilst not being over prescriptive), holding employees accountable for their actions (we never get new freedoms without new responsibilities) and being prepared to follow through on any breaches (walking the talk).

Governing the intranet inside and "outside" - Intranet Governance 2.0

At an IBF Member service review meeting this week, I listened to a discussion about whether it was "better or worse" to enable or prevent staff from using social software sites on the internet. One IBF Member talked about a useful document from the Trades Union Council in the UK about good practice in this area. Interesting debate but what does this really mean?

It strikes me that we are actually talking about is governance across three different online services:

• The traditional/formal intranet
• The less formal and flexible intranet including web 2.0 applications
• The "intranet outside" including staff use of services such as Facebook

Thanks go to Richard Dennison from BT for the third area of the "intranet outside" and it is intriguing to view all three facilities as part of the tool set that employees use in their work and all three require some and different levels of governance.

The issue is not about banning the use of social software sites but understanding that they are effectively becoming part of the intranet landscape of the organisation and while available for us they do need to governed as part of the employer-employee relationship.

Let's say our traditional intranet requires strictest governance: health and safety policy and HR self service needs to be correct and verifiable. The less formal "under web" can be more relaxed but still requires governance for meeting coporate standards and leaglity. The third area of intranets outside must meet standards of corporate reputation and brand/confidentiality/data security etc.

This is about appropriate governance across all intranet manifestations and that will allow organisations to include new internet based services - as well as new internal apps that arrive from the internet as blogs have done. Hopefully food for thought......

More on the challenges for intranet managers

Yesterday I started talking through the intranet managers 'vicious circle'.  Today we'll complete the circle and then look at some strategies to break it...

Large corporate intranets often grow through islands of different practices, where local business units develop the intranet to suit their local needs without necessarily considering the wider global needs of the organisation.  This fragmented approach hinders the development of an overall and shared governance model. Without overall governance it's really tricky to have formal strategies in place, prioritise IT development and develop long term plans. 

From a user point of view, consistency in the use of an intranet is vitally important, preventing a user from having to re-learn or re-understand every new site they come across.  However this organic and unstructured approach makes it very difficult to enforce relevant standards and ensure this consistency.

Often good guidelines are developed, maybe by an intranet review project, a piece of consultancy, or by the central intranet team.  However if the resources and processes are not put in place to manage, police or enforce those standards on an ongoing basis, the intranet continues to become fragmented.

The intranet team typically spends time fire-fighting operational issues and trying to support dispersed publishers and encouraging them to keep to standards in an informal way, that many do not invest enough time and resource into forward planning and strategy development.

Without this the intranet struggles to be taken seriously by senior managers - and we are just back where we started!

The good news is there are many tips, tools and strategies out there to help break this cycle.  Several are detailed in IBF's recent report, some key bullet points below;

• Develop a formal strategy that shows the value of the intranet to the business
• Communicate strategy upwards, sideways and downwards
• Develop a governance model with clear roles and responsibilities
• Enforce standards and guidelines
• Ensure clear board level ownership of the intranet
• Involve all relevant stakeholders in the development process

There are also many resources on the internet;

• James Robertson talks about creating the upward spiral for your intranet
• Martin White also has a good white paper on the subject of intranet governance : an introduction
• More tips were recently provided from Intranets Today

However you start to improve your intranet strategy development and governance, my personal tip would be to remember one thing, sometimes forgotten in the politics of intranet management, the USER.  Intranets which are managed through good governance, develop a consistent user experience, provide accurate up to date information and make life easier for the user can only be am improvement.