Group items tagged

In summary To give a clear overview of the different solutions, we summarize their commonalities and differences in the table below.

Document management is all about workflow, control, and risk mitigation. Its objective is summarized perfectly by the two words in its name: "documents" and "management". It got its start in the legal departments of pharmaceutical companies, who were concerned to make sure that their companies were producing documentation in full compliance with regulatory requirements. A DMS thrives where there are a) documents already being created as part of a business process; and b) those documents need to be closely checked in, checked out, supervised, edited, approved, and stored following a consistent and audit-proof process.

Collaboration, by contrast, is all about people working together to share ideas, notes, questions, comments, etc. Collaboration does not typically follow a standard process; it is much more free-form and free-flowing. Documents are not typically the format of choice. Asking a question or creating a meeting agenda or to-do list doesn't require a document; it just requires typing some words and putting them where other people can see and edit them. That's why so many people simply fire off an email when they collaborate; it spares them the unnecessary step of creating a document.

When asked about the relationship between DMS and collaboration tools, what I said was that some of the content in a typical DMS really belongs there. These are the documents associated with highly regulated processes. But most of the content in a typical DMS--to-do lists, meeting notes, press clippings, conversations, working papers, personal observations--doesn't really belong there. It's in the DMS because there was no good place to put it. That's where a collaboration suite can do a much better job. A good collaboration suite can liberate that content from the tyranny of documents and nested folders, and will encourage people to use it for actual working materials.

In many cases, you will want to integrate the two. Law firms, for example, are absolutely dependent on their document management systems to manage their filings and other legal documents. But we're increasingly seeing them set up collaboration suites to capture all the discussion around the documents, how to use them, what they mean, and so on. The two systems are integrated with links from the collaboration suite into the corresponding DMS records.

What I'm saying amounts to this: Use your document management system to manage documents, and use your collaboration suite to collaborate.

unfortunately SocialText is not very good at linking to the documents in the obvious place (attachments).

Group blogs facilitate discussion

Wikis organise information

RSS feeds constitutes the backbone

Consumption of information: personalising according to need

Aggregated bookmarks works as a recommendations engine

Personal and aggregated tagging make connections visible

Social network profiles adds a human touch and transparency

Better communication = A more profitable organisation

In two of our projects with large law firms we included an RSS feedreader in the social software mix (among wiki, blogs, social bookmarking). We introduced it primarily to Knowledge Management Lawyers (KML) that needed to gather a lot of content from various sources. They also use it to subscribe to updates from the wiki and blogs. They appreciate the fact that it is much easier to plow through a stream of updates rather than going from email to email and deleting every one of them.

Have a look at two case studies: Dewey & LeBoeuf and Allen & Overy

In another project with a large law firm we took a very close look at the production (and consumption) of current awareness material. Current awareness included for example information on current developments within legal practices, latest court decisions etc. The firm made extensive use of newsletters to disseminate that kind of information. There was a multitude of newsletters available, some of them covering similar grounds. Maintaining email lists was very time-consuming and frustrating. Consumers did not know which newsletter were available. Also, newsletters were not personalised nor very timely, as they had a specific publishing date. We therefore recommended using RSS as delivery format, which would make the process of producing and consuming content more efficient and in the end more cost-effective as shown in a business case

Once CRM, DMS, Intranet and other proprietary system vendors thoroughly implement RSS functionality, it will get a big push.

I think a tipping point might come if ERP apps providers (SAP, Oracle, etc.) started publishing RSS feeds of ERP data!

In our company, we had a survey in April (2008), asking managers if they needed a RSS Reader. Some figures: 72 managers responded, 68 managers subscribed to more than one (company) blog. 9 managers already used iGoogle or a RSS Reader, 13 managers replied they did not need a RSS Reader, 50 managers replied they need a RSS Reader. As a result we planned a project to select and deliver a company RSS Reader. The project will be executed mid 2009.

It's with a heavy heart and a sense of bewilderment that we conclude that the market for enterprise-specific RSS readers appears to be dead. Two years ago there were three major players offering software that delivered information to the computers of business users via RSS. Today it looks to us like the demand simply never arose and that market is over.

It's insane - a solid RSS strategy can be a huge competitive advantage in any field. We have no idea why so relatively few people see that.

Neglecting RSS at work seems to us like pure insanity.

If dashboards take off, then maybe RSS will gain traction as the wiring? This probably requires: secure feed displaying widgets, good filters.

Enterprises are scared to disrupt their own structure and command lines by introducing uncontrolled information flows both internally (which can route around management) and externally (which can route around the official PR outputs and sales inputs of the company)

Look at the headline you used.. RIP Enterprise RSS. Now read that from the point of view of a manager in an enterprise. WTF does "Enterprise RSS" mean? What are the business reasons to care? What does it do for them? People don't care adopt RSS, just as people don't adopt XHTML, Javascript etc. They adopt products that use technology to do something that they value. No one cares about the technologies used to display this page... they want to read the page.

Enterprise RSS doesn't mean much. When RSS companies start talking about secure communications channels that intelligently and automatically route relevant information to the people who need/want it, light bulbs start lighting up.

I think Microsoft SharePoint could be the killer app for RSS in the enterprise. SharePoint has RSS built in and uses it to syndicate changes that happen within the SharePoint ecosphere and notify enterprise workers that something significant has happened. Of course, SharePoint RSS could work with third-party RSS readers, but it's really designed to be used with Microsoft's Office Suite, where enterprise workers can interface with SharePoint, through RSS and other means, directly

One thing missing from this (great) post is the cost of these tools. Looking at Newsgator & Attensa, these are expensive enterprise tools and trying to sell them to IT managers that don't fully understand RSS is next to impossible. Imagine saying to a CIO, who barely understands what RSS is, that you need $175,000 for Enterprise RSS software... it isn't an easy sell.

In this part of the world (SE Asia) we're seeing more & more top management wanting tools for themselves and their teams to connect to "Facebook and these social network things". Feeds and aggregation/search tools are the perfect wiring for this. But the front end? There's a lot of choice and individual needs vary. A decently setup igoogle/netvibes page can work wonders..so why pay?

Also, reading RSS is likely viewed as not work related, and so its frowned upon within the enterprise (remember, those enterprise folks have "real" work to do, they don't get paid to read BoingBoing all day long).

Content is made of people: from ECM to E2.0 Der Vortragende Lee Bryant ist CEO von Headshift aus London. Sein Vortrag beschäftigt sich mit der Transition von Enterprise Content Management zum Enterprise 2.0.

Bryants Herangehensweise an Enterprise 2.0 fasst er mit folgenden Punkten zusammen: Public feeds & flows: internal and external RSS, feeds based on subjects, persons, group or search Bookmarks & tags: people store, share, tag, vote or comment on useful links and news Blogs & social bookmarks: social objects shared within networks and discussed in blogs Group collaboration: intimate groups/teams organize knowledge in wikis and group systems personal tools: organise your “stuff” by tags; arrange in a portal; manage networks and feeds Dabei geht es ihm vor allem auch darum, diese Dinge als Stimulanz für die pragmatische Umsetzung der alltäglichen - geschäftskritischen - Aufgaben einzusetzen.

Lee Bryant stellt kurz die wichtigsten Vertreter der Enterprise 2.0 Tools vor, die wir auch hier beschrieben haben. Dabei spielt auch Atlassian Confluence eine Rolle. Microsoft Sharepoint kommt bei ihm aber eher schlecht weg, was die Akzeptanz als Enterprise 2.0 Plattform angeht.

Post Wide Web: Das Intranet der Schweizerischen Post

Social Computing bei MLP Finanzdienstleistungen

Einsatz eines Unternehmens-Wikis für das Wissensmanagement am Beispiel von IT-Delivery-Prozessen der REVACOM GmbH

The keyword method has been very useful to-date, especially when searching within large structured databases. It allows users to search by date, location, category, etc., to come up with useful results.

The problem with keyword searching is the expanding mass of unstructured information we now have. Keyword searching has become inadequate and at times counter productive to finding the right information quickly and affordably.

Concept search is one method for solving this problem. My definition: The ability to extract structure from unstructured data.

Concept searching is just coming into the market, with players like Recommind, Autonomy and Collexis. As an emerging technology, the challenge is good implementation. Companies and firms are attacking this problem now, so I would expect this challenge to diminish over time.

Semantic search is truly Web 3.0. Sir Tim suggested this concept over a decade ago and now efforts are under way to make it a reality. My definition: Attach meaning to each piece of data. In practice this means describing each piece of information by its relationship to another piece. In the geek world this is referred to as “subject, predicate, object” and is defined with a standard called RDF (more on that in another post).

In fact in this environment the machine can discover knowledge. By connecting all the triples via their relationships, the machine will answer questions we never ask.

Semantic search currently lives mostly in the minds of geeks and venture capitalists (with some exceptions).