Content Governance – life cycle and reach

This is the fifth post in a series (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 ) on the challenges organisations face as they move from having online content and tools hosted firmly on their estate to renting space in the cloud.  We will help you to consider the options and guide on the steps you need to take.

 Starting from our first post we have covered different aspects you need to consider as you take each step including information structure and how it is managed using Office 365 and SharePoint as a technology example.  We will cover governance and how content should be managed in the cloud in this post.

content buckets

Content created within a context, as either a departmental site, or team habitat has usually only reach and bearing for the local context of fellow members of staff within this unit. Other pieces of content have a coverage that stretches all parts of the business. One simple example, is the bucket of content that makes up the management system, with governing principles, strategies, policies and guidelines that describes the core processes, activities, roles and so forth within an organisation.

Yet other content, as the outcome from a project, will build a bucket of content that either lives in a new context, improves a bucket of content or feeds into yet another following project.

From an information management perspective, it is vital that you have organising principles to all your content, where all these layers have been covered. Both reach, and the life cycle to the set of content.

You need a governance framework that reaches out to every bucket of content.  This covers what is still on your estate as well as the growing amount in the cloud.  All content needs to be managed to remove risks of leakage of sensitive information and prevent people having an inconsistent user experience as they move from one bucket of content in the cloud to another content bucket still on the estate.

You need to make sure people do not see the difference between buckets of content on the estate from content buckets in the cloud.  People using your content to help with their work don’t need to know where the content is kept.  They need to find it as easily as before, preferably even easier!  Content in the cloud  should feel the same and be a natural extension to the digital environment people are already used to.  Manage it with a governance framework that covers every bucket of content and make it more easy to adopt quicker and use more often without caution or delay.

Part of your governance needs to cover publishing standards based on business needs so it is easy to access from any device e.g laptops, tablets and smartphones, and to view without unnecessary authentication levels.  This helps to create that consistent good user experience that encourages people to use your content whether the bucket is in the cloud or not.

A professional team from group HR, might work in their local teamsite, with on-going conversations, work-in-progress documents and so forth. Pieces of their content production leads to governing policies that have a global reach within the organisation, and needs to be linked from the corporate intranet spaces. with versioning and good quality to resource descriptions (meta data). This practice and professional network of HR people, do also share content on a departmental site. With links and resources, that have direct impact on their internal processes. The group of people, have outreaching triggers, and in-bound conversations. And have to balance these two states.

When it comes to temporal content buckets, like a project team site. There are several considerations one have to capture. First where will the outcome and result be stored, when the project is finished. In which context will these content pieces contribute. Second, what should be captured from all on-going conversations (social elements) and work-in-progress and drafts developed during the projects lifecycle? Should a project habitat, be searchable after closing down? Or do the habitat change status, hence all documentation stay within the collection, but the overarching state to the habitat changes? Within Sharepoint these temporal states, versions, workflow and properties. All sum up the organising principles.

If these principles haven’t been ironed out, and been described and decided. Inevitable there will be emerging ghost towns, of dead habitats and lost collections of content. With no governance or ownership whatsoever. All this will become a digital landfill.

We will cover more about SharePoint in our next post in this series. Please visit Michael Sampson‘s recent slides where he takes you through strategy, planning, governance and user adoption for collaboration!
Please join our Live Stream on YouTube the 20th November 8.30AM – 10AM Central European Time
View Fredric Landqvist's LinkedIn profileFredric Landqvist research blog
View Mark Morrell's LinkedIn profileMark Morell intranet-pioneer

The Curator – how to cultivate the habitat

This is the fourth post in a series (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7) on the challenges organisations face as they move from having online content and tools hosted firmly on their estate to renting space in the cloud.  We will help you to consider the options and guide on the steps you need to take.

In the first post we set out the most common challenges you are likely to face and how you may overcome these.  In the second post we focused on how Office 365 and SharePoint can play a part in moving to the cloud.  In the third post we covered how they can help join up your organisation online using their collaboration tools and features.

In this post we will cover engagement and how sorting and categorisation of artifacts, according to a simple-to-understand and easy-to-use standard, will form the bits and parts of the curation and cultivation process.

CultivationAll document libraries should have one standard listing of all items – with two very distinct audiences: being either actors within the habitat or the people contributing, acting and joining the daily conversation; and secondly, those visitors who pass-by the habitat to collect, link and act upon the content presented within the habitats realm.

This makes it very easy for visitors to find their way around a habitat, if the visitors’ area (business lounge) is pretty much aligned to the overarching theme of the site… and all artifacts that the project team like to share wider, have been listed in a virtual bookshelf, with major versions only. The visitors’ area, has all the relevant data, presented upfront. Basically the answers to the questions set when starting the project. The visitors’ area shouldn’t be a backdrop, but rather a storefront. The content has to be of good quality. Then there should be options to engage with the inner-living-room of the habitat, and enter the messy on-going conversations, depending on access-rights. But the default setting, should always be open for unexpected “internal” (within the realm of the organisation) visitors. If the visitors’ area is compiled in a nice and easy to use manner, most visitors are just happy to pick the best-read from the bookshelf, or at least raise a questions for the team! The social construct for this is “welcoming a stranger”, since that visitor might link to your team’s content, cross-linking into his social-spaces.

The habitat’s livingroom and social conversations, will address new context-specific organising principles. A team might want to add new list-items, sort categories or introduce very local what-goes-where themes. This may be especially so when the team consists of actors who have different roles and responsibilities with regard to the overall outcome. And because of this, there may be a certain mix of tools or services in this one habitat of many, where they hang-out for project tasks.

The contextual adjustment is where the curator has to work on a cultivation process that glues the team together. The shared terminology within a group conversation, is what match their practices together. At inception, the curator picks a bouquet of on-topic terms from the controlled vocabularies. Mixing this with everyday use, and contributions from all members, this can be the fruitful and semantically-enhanced conversations with end-user generated tags or “folksonomies”. The same goes for interior design of links, tools, chosen content types and other forms of artifacts that the team will be needing to fulfill their goals and outcome.

The governance of the habitat, leans very much on the shared experiences in the group, and assigned responsibilities for stewardship and curation – where publishing standards, guidelines and training should be part of the mix.

We will cover more on governance and how content should be managed in the cloud in our next post.
Please join our Live Stream on YouTube the 20th November 8.30AM – 10AM Central European Time
View Fredric Landqvist's LinkedIn profileFredric Landqvist research blog
View Mark Morrell's LinkedIn profileMark Morell intranet-pioneer

Housekeeping rules within the Habitat

This is the third post in a series (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7) on the challenges organisations face as they move from having online content and tools hosted firmly on their estate to renting space in the cloud.  We will help you to consider the options and guide on the steps you need to take.

 In the first post we set out the most common challenges you are likely to face and how you may overcome these.  In the second post we focused on how Office 365 and SharePoint can play a part in moving to the cloud.  Here we cover how they can help join up your organisation online using their collaboration tools and features.

Habitat

When arranging the habitat, it is key to address the theme of collaboration. Since each of these themes, derives different feature settings of artifacts and services. In many cases, teamwork is situated in the context of a project. Other themes for collaboration are the line of business unit teamwork, or the more learning networks a.k.a communities of practice. I will leave these later themes for now.

Most enterprises have some project management process (i.e. PMP) that all projects do have to adhere to, with added complementary documentation, and reporting mechanisms. This is so the leadership within the organisation will be able to align resources, govern the change portfolio across different business units. Given this structure, it is very easy to depict measurable outcomes, as project documents have to be produced, regardless of what the project is supposed to contribute towards.

The construction of a habitat, or design of a joint workplace, all boils down to pragmatic steps that are aligned with the overarching project framework at hand. Answering a few simple Questions (Inverted Pyramid):

  • Who? will be participating, who will own (organisation) the outcome from the joint effort pulling together a project (dc.contributor ; dc.creator ; dc.provenance ) and reach ( dc.coverage ; dc.audience )
  • What? is the project all about, topic and theme (dc.subject ; dc.title ; dc.description, dc.type )
  • When? will this project be running, and timeline for ending the project. All temporal themes around the life of a project. (dc.date)
  • Where? will participants contribute. What goes where and why? (dc.source ; dc.format ; dc.identifier )
  • Why? usually defined in project description, setting common ground for the goals and expected outcome. ( dc.description )
  • How? defines used processes, practices and tools to create the expected outcome for the project, with links to common resources as the PMP framework, but also links to other key data-sets. Like ERP record keeping and masterdata, for project number and other measures not stored in the habitat, but still pillars to align to the overarching model. (dc.relation)

When these questions have been answered, the resource description for the habitat is set. In Sharepoint the properties bag (code) feature. During the lifespan of the on-going project, all contribution, conversations and creation of things can inherit rule-based metadata for the artifacts from the collections resource description. This reduces the burden weighing on the actors building the content, by enabling automagic metadata completion where applicable. And from the wayfinding, and findability within and between habitats, these resource descriptions will be the building blocks for a sustainable information architecture.

In our next post we will cover how to encourage employee engagement with your content.

Please join our Live Stream on YouTube the 20th November 8.30AM – 10AM Central European Time
View Fredric Landqvist's LinkedIn profileFredric Landqvist research blog
View Mark Morrell's LinkedIn profileMark Morell intranet-pioneer

Wagon Trains to the Cloud

This is the first post in a series(2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) on the challenges organisations face when they move from having online content and tools hosted firmly on their estate to renting space in the cloud.  We will help you to consider the options and guide you on the steps you need to take.

In this first post we show you  the most common challenges that you are likely to face and how you may overcome these.

A fast migration path, to become tenants in a cloud apartment housing unfolds a set of business critical issues that have to be mitigated:

  • Wayfinding in a maze of content buckets and social habitats.
  • Emerging digital Ghost Towns due to lack of information governance.
  • Digital Landfills without organising principles for information and data.
  • Digital Litter with little or no governance or principles for ownership, with redundant, outdated and trivial (ROT) content.
  • With no strategy or plan, erodes any possibility to positive business outcome from moving to the clouds.

WagonTrn.jpg
WagonTrn” by Tillman at en.wikipedia – Transferred from en.wikipedia by SreeBot. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

The way forward is to settle a sustainable information architecture, that supports an information environment in constant flux. With information and data interoperable on any platform, everywhere, anytime and on any device.

You need to show how everything is managed and everyone fits together.  A governance framework can help do this.  It can show who is responsible for the intranet, what their responsibilities are and fit with the strategy and plan.  Making it available to everyone on the intranet helps their understanding of how it is managed and supports the business.

The main point is to have a governance framework and information architecture with the same scope to avoid gaps in content being managed or not being found.

Both need to be in harmony and included in any digital strategy.  This avoids competing information architectures and governance frameworks being created by different people that causes people to have inconsistent experiences not finding that they need and using alternative, less efficient, ways in future to find what they need to help with their work.

Background

Building huts, houses and villages is an emerging social construction. As humans we coordinate our common resources, tools and practices. A habitat populated by people needs housekeeping rules with available resources for cooking, cleaning, social life and so on. Routines that defines who does what task and by when in order to keep everything ok.

A framework with governing principles that set out roles and responsibilities along with standards that set out the expected level of quality and quantity of each task that everyone is engaged and complies with, is similar to how the best intranets and digital workplaces are managed.

In the early stages with a small number of habitats the rules for coordination are pretty simple, both for shared resources between the groups and pathways to connect them. The bigger a village gets, it taxes the new structures to keep things smooth. When we move ahead into mega cities with 20+ million people living close, it boils down to a general overarching plan and common infrastructures, but you also need local networked communities, in order to find feasible solutions for living together.

Like villages and mega cities there is a need for consistency that helps everyone to work and live together.  Whenever you go out you know that there are pavements to walk on, roads for driving, traffic lights that we stop at when they turn red and signs to help us show the easiest way to get to our destination.

Sustainable architecture and governance creates a consistent user experience. A well structured information architecture that is aligned with a clear governance framework sets out roles and responsibilities. Publishing standards based on business needs that supports the publishers follow them. This means wherever content is published, whether it is accredited or collaborative, it will appear to be consistent to people and located where they expect it to be.  This encourages a normal way to move through a digital environment with recognizable headings and consistently placed search and other features.

This allegori, fits like a glove when moving into large enterprise-wide shared spaces for collaboration. Whether it is cloud based, on-premises or a mix thereof. The social constructions and constraints still remain the same. As an IT-services on tap, cloud, has certainly constraints for a flexible and adjustable habitual construction to be able to host as many similar habitats as possible. But offers a key solutions to instantly move into! Tenants share the same apartment building (Sharepoint online).

When the set of habitats grow, navigation in this maze becomes a hazard for most of us. Wayfinding in a digital mega city, is extremely difficult. To a large extent, enterprises moving into collaboration suites suffer from the same stigma. Regardless if it is SharePoint, IBM Connections, Google Apps for Work, or a similar setting. It is not a discussion of which type of house to choose, but rather which architecture and plan that work in the emerging environment.

Information Architecture for Digital Habitats

If one leans upon linked-data,  linked-open-data, and emerging semantic web and web of data standards, there are a set of very simple guidelines that one should adhere to when building a Digital Village or Mega City. The 5 stars, our beacon of light!

All collections and shared spaces, should have persistent URI:s, which is the fourth star in the ladder. When it comes to the third star of non-proprietary formats it obviously becomes a bit tricky, since i.e. MS Sharepoint and MS Office like to encourage their own format to things. But if one add resource descriptions to collections and artifacts using Dublin Core elements, it will be possible to connect different types of matter. With feasible and standardised resource descriptions it will be possible to add schemas and structures, that can tell us a little bit more about the artifacts or collection thereof. Hence the option to adhere to the second star. The first star, will inside the corporate setting become key to connect different business units, areas with open licenses and with restrictions to internal use only and in some cases open for other external parties.

Linking data-sets, that is collections or habitats, with different artifacts is the fifth star. This is where it all starts to make sense, enabling a connected digital workplace. Building a city plan, with pathways, traffic signals and rules, highways, roads, neighborhoods  and infrastructural services and more. In other words, placemaking!

Placemaking is a multi-faceted approach to the planning, design and management of public spaces. Placemaking capitalizes on a local community’s assets, inspiration, and potential, with the intention of creating public spaces that promote people’s health, happiness, and well being.

We will cover more about how this applies to Office 365 and SharePoint in our next post.

Please join our Live Stream on YouTube the 20th November 8.30AM – 10AM Central European Time
View Fredric Landqvist's LinkedIn profileFredric Landqvist research blog
View Mark Morrell's LinkedIn profileMark Morell intranet-pioneer

Video: Introducing Hydra – An Open Source Document Processing Framework

Introducing Hydra – An Open Source Document Processing Framework from presented at Lucene Revolution hosted on Vimeo.

Presented by Joel Westberg, Findwise AB
This presentation details the document-processing framework called Hydra that has been developed by Findwise. It is intended as a description of the framework and the problem it aims to solve. We will first discuss the need for scalable document processing, outlining that there is a missing link between the open source chain to bridge the gap between source system and the search engine, then will move on to describe the design goals of Hydra, as well as how it has been implemented to meet those demands on flexibility, robustness and ease of use. This session will end by discussing some of the possibilities that this new pipeline framework can offer, such as freely seamlessly scaling up the solution during peak loads, metadata enrichment as well as proposed integration with Hadoop for Map/Reduce tasks such as page rank calculations.

Architecture of Search Systems and Measuring the Search Effectiveness

Lecture made at the 19th of April 2012, at the Warsaw University of Technology. This is the 9th lecture in the regular course for master grade studies, “Introduction to text mining”.

View more presentations from Findwise