Curated for content, computing, data, information, and digital experience professionals

Category: Collaboration and workplace (Page 44 of 97)

This category is focused on enterprise / workplace collaboration tools and strategies, including office suites, intranets, knowledge management, and enterprise adoption of social networking tools and approaches.

Welcome Larry Hawes – yes another one!

I am happy to announce that Larry Hawes has joined us, starting today, as Lead Analyst, Collaboration & Enterprise Social Media Practice, along with Geoff. This has been an important area of coverage for us since we started writing about enterprise use of wikis and blogs over 4 years ago – it is hard to believe how unusual such a thing was then. Not so now, and it is great to have Larry aboard to help IT and business managers understand the role of social media tools in corporate and government applications.

Larry has most recently spent 6 years with IBM Global Business Services as a Consultant and Program Manager in collaboration and knowledge management, focused largely on public sector clients. Larry also spent 3.5 years at Delphi Group as an analyst and consultant where he worked with both vendors and enterprise customers. Larry’s bio has not been posted on our site yet, but can be found at: http://lehawes.wordpress.com/about-larry-hawes/, and of course on LinkedIn.

Larry’s email is: larry@gilbane.com and his phone extension is 154. You can follow Larry on Twitter at:
http://twitter.com/lehawes

Welcome Larry!

Welcome back Kaija

Our colleaugue, Kaija Pöysti, has posted mostly on the content globalization blog, but also here in 2007-08. She took some time off to move back to Finland, get re-engaged with board work, and write a book on corporate use of social media with co-author Leenamaija Otala. She is now back and will be posting on both globalization and social media topics. Welcome back Kaija!

Enterprise Search and Collaboration, or is it Compliance?

For two weeks in a row I have been struck by the appearance of full page ads on the inside cover of Information Week for Autonomy ControlPoint. For a leading search vendor, this positioning is interesting and raises a number of rhetorical questions about Autonomy’s direction and perhaps even the positioning of search in the marketplace. Top of my mind are these:

  • How will Autonomy be viewed by IT folks, whom I assume are the principal readers of Information Week?
  • Is this a shift away from an emphasis on search as “search” by Autonomy?
  • Is Autonomy just expanding its range to broader business interests to gain better enterprise penetration?
  • Will their deep technical competence in search be as rich in the areas of governance and compliance?

To try to get a handle on all of this, since the second ad had no URL, I went to the electronic version online at Information Week archives but discovered that the ads don’t appear in the PDF. No problem; I went to the advertisers’ index and clicked on the Autonomy link, thinking that the link would take me to the ControlPoint pages on their Web site. It only took me to the main page for Autonomy where there was nothing referring to ControlPoint, compliance, regulation or governance (all words prominent in the magazine print ads). I tried the drop-down for Products; nothing there either. At least Autonomy uses IDOL as its search engine on its own Web site, so I tried it. Yea! ControlPoint appeared in the results; the first entry got me to a page describing it.

But what else did I learn by following the breadcrumbs? A step back to the “products” level brought me to an Autonomy Electronics Records Management description and I began to notice the logo in the upper right said “Autonomy Meridio.” Lots of clicks later, I discovered that Meridio was acquired by Autonomy in 2007, which I probably would have known if I had paid more attention to “non-search” stuff. ControlPoint belongs in that family of products. When I clicked on this sidebar link, Autonomy ControlPoint: Information Governance for SharePoint and this one, Meridio eDRM for Microsoft Office, more questions came to mind:

  • Is Autonomy, the search company with its Meridio and Interwoven acquisitions, having a serious run at Microsoft by entering their traditional markets?
  • If an office tools software company like Microsoft slides into the search market by acquiring FAST and then leverages its great success with SharePoint by making FAST its default search offering, why shouldn’t Autonomy turn the tables?
  • By appealing to IT professionals will Autonomy be able to gain mind share that pits them directly against Microsoft with language like “Named Email and Compliance Vendor of the Year by Financial-i” and “Is SharePoint enough?”

Yes, we are going well Beyond Search, aren’t we?

EPiServer’s New Relate+ Incorporates Social Media Features and E-Mail Marketing into Websites

EPiServer announced the general availability of EPiServer Relate+ – a new package which combines the latest social media and web 2.0 features with EPiServer’s web Content Management System (CMS). Relate+ provides combines community building, email composition and maintenance, and a CMS in one package. EPiServer Relate+ contains a template package in the form of a ready-to-use community, inspired by Facebook, which can be adapted to customer-specific needs. You can now mix controlled content from EPiServer CMS with the dynamic and user-generated content which will appear in EPiServer Community. http://www.episerver.com

Government confronts the new information world

With the rise of Web 2.0 and 3.0, growing Internet traffic, social networking and a host of other technologically driven applications and appetities, government at all levels is confronting the burgeoning changes in its role and participation in the society around it.

An important part of this process is the separation of the paths down which technology is taking society at large from the paths government should and should not follow in performing its essential functions. Experience has shown that not every tool, functionality and resource available to and used by citizens should become part of the governance process. The quandry is deciding up front which is which. This quandry can be seen in the very definition of government being used to described the future: “connected government”, “open government”, “participatory democracy”, “transparent government” are just some of the terms being used to describe what their users think government should be.

The core challenge, it would seem, is to develop an approach that makes government at once more effective in discharging its myriad day to day duties, more open and responsive to the honestly held beliefs and concerns of its citizens, yet still fully capable of discharging its constitutional responsibilities without infringing on or abrogating the rights of its citizens. History shows that this:

  • Will not be an easy process
  • Will not lend itself to a solution based solely on availablle technnology
  • Is likely to be tried unsuccessfully (or disastrously) more than once before we get it right.

This would seem to dictate that, whatever the technological imperatives, government should be changed carefully, in small steps and with well-considered fallbacks from the paths that turn out to be ineffective or dangerous to our liberties. One way to do this, for instance, would be to focus on those government functions we know are broken and understand how to fix (yes, there are such things.)  Then we could focus on applying new technology in areas where the target is familiar, the outcome more easily measured and the impact is less likely to spin out of control.

Structured Editing & Wikis

If you know me you will realize that I tend to revisit XML authoring tools and processes frequently. It is one of my favorite topics. The intersection of structured tools and messy human thinking and behavior is an area fraught with usability issues, development challenges, and careful business case thinking. And therefore, a topic ripe for discussion.

I had an interesting conversation with a friend about word processors and XML editors the other day. His argument was that the word processing product model may not be the best, and certainly isn’t the only, way to prepare and manage structured content.

A word processor is software that has evolved to support the creation of documents. The word processing software model was developed when people needed to create documents, and then later added formatting and other features. This model is more than 25 years old (I remember using a word processor for the first time in college in 1980).

Of course it was logical to emulate how typewriters worked since the vast majority of information at the time was destined for paper documents. Now word processors include features for writing, editing, reviewing, formatting, and limited structural elements like links, indexes, etc. Again, all very document oriented. The content produced may be reused for other purposes if transformed in a post process (e.g., it could output HTML & PDF for Web, breaking into chunks for a repository or secondary use, etc.), but there are limits and other constraints, especially if your information is primarily designed to be consumed in print or document form.

It is easy to think of XML-structured editors, and the word processor software model they are based upon, as the most likely way to create structured content. But in my opinion, structured editors pay too much homage to word processing features and processes. I also think too many  project teams assume that the only way to edit XML content is in an XML document editor. Don’t get me wrong, many people have successfully deployed XML editors and achieved targeted business goals, myself included, but I can point out many instances where an alternative approach to editing content might be more efficient.

Database tools that organize the information logically and efficiently are not likely to store that data as documents. For instance, you may have an financial system with a lot of info in relational fields that is extracted to produce printable documents like monthly statements, invoices, etc.

Or software manuals that are customized for specific configurations using reusable data objects and related document maps instead maintaining the information as static, hierarchically-organized documents.

Or aircraft information that needs to match the configuration of a specific plane or tail number, selected from a complete library of data objects stored centrally.

Or statutes that start formatted as bills, then later appear as enacted laws, then later yet again as published, codified statutes, each with their own formatting and structural peccadilloes.

Or consider a travel guide publisher that collects information on thousands of hotels, restaurants, attractions, and services in dozens of countries and cities. Sure, the content is prepared with the intent of publishing it in a book, but it is easy to see how it can be useful for other uses, including providing hotel data to travel-related Web sites, or building specialized, custom booklets for special needs (e.g., a local guide for a conference, guides to historical neighborhoods, etc.).

In these examples of what some might call database publishing, system designers need to ask them selves what would be the best tool for creating and maintaining the information. They are great candidates for a database, some application dialogs and wizards, and some extraction and transformation applications to feed Web and other platforms for consumption by users. They may not even involve an editor per se, but might rely entirely a Wiki or other dialog for content creation and editing.

Word processors require a mix of skills, including domain expertise on the subject being written about, grammar and editing, and some formatting & design, use of the software itself, etc. While I personally believe everyone, not just teachers and writers, should be skilled in writing well and making documents look legible and appealing, I realize many folks are best suited for other roles. That is why we divide labor into roles. Domain experts (e.g., lawyers, aircraft engineers, scientists and doctors, etc.) are usually responsible for accuracy and quality of the ideas and information, while editorial and product support people clean up the writing and formatting and make it presentable. So, for domain experts, it may be more efficient to provide a tool that only manages the content creation, structuring, linking, organization, etc. with limited word processing capabilities, and leave the formatting and organization to the system or another department or automated style sheets.

In my mind, a Wiki is a combination of text functionality and database management features that allow content to be created and managed in a broader Web content platform (which also may include static pages, search interfaces, pictures, PDFs, etc.). In this model, the Web is the primary use and printing is secondary. Domain experts are not bothered with concepts like page layout, running heads, tables of content generation, justification & hyphenation, etc., much to the delight of the domain experts!

I am bullish on Wikis as content creation and management tools, even when the content is destined for print. I have seen some that hide much of the structure and technical “connective tissue” from the author, but produce well formatted, integrated information. The blogging tool I am using to create this article is one example of a Wiki-like interface that has a few bells and whistles for adding structure (e.g., keywords) dedicated to a specific content creation purpose. It only emulates word processing slightly with limited formatting tools, but is loaded with other features designed to improve my blog entries. For instance, I can pick a keyword from a controlled taxonomy from a pull-down list. And all within a Web browser, not a fat client editor package. This tool is optimized for making blog content, but not for, let’s say, scientific papers or repair manuals. It is targeted for a specific class of users, bloggers. Similarly, XML-editors as we have come to know them, are more adept at creating documents and document chunks than other interfaces.

Honestly, on more than one occasion I have pounded a nail with a wrench, or tightened a bolt with the wrong kind of pliers. Usually I get the same results, but sometimes it takes longer or has a less desirable result than if I had used a more appropriate tool. The same is true for editing tools.

On a final note, forgive me if I make a gratuitous plug, but authoring approaches and tools will be the subject of a panel I am chairing at the Gilbane San Francisco conference in early June if you want to hear more. </>

JustSystems Updates Content Contribution Capabilities in XMetaL Reviewer

JustSystems announced XMetaL Reviewer 5.5, the latest version of the company’s collaborative XML document reviewing software. Reinforcing the central role of document review and collaboration in the overall authoring process, XMetaL Reviewer lets subject matter experts and others contribute content directly to the documents under review. The latest version of XMetaL Reviewer also gains usability, connectivity, integration, and administration enhancements. XMetaL Reviewer moves the document review process beyond a read-only exercise that prevents reviewers from suggesting detailed edits to the documents being reviewed. Now, reviewers can actively contribute new content and rewrite entire sections of a document. Using the addendum editor, XMetaL Reviewer users with no knowledge of XML can contribute structured content, insert images, and create lists, tables, and whole sections for consideration as document modifications. In addition to harnessing the expertise of document reviewers, XMetaL Reviewer offers users a consolidated view of all their suggested changes which are displayed to all reviewers in real time, as the changes are being made. An audit trail tracks all document changes, and an inline chat feature lets reviewers discuss content changes in real time. XMetaL Reviewer 5.5 is available today with prices starting at $15,000 for the server and five concurrent user licenses. Additional concurrent licenses are $2,500 for five users. http://www.justsystems.com

Gilbane Group’s use of Twitter

We’ve started using Twitter in multiple ways, and while our use of it will certainly evolve, I thought it would be helpful to point how what we are doing with it. (I’ll save thoughts about how it could or should be used for another time.)

Any suggestions on how else we might use Twitter?

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 The Gilbane Advisor

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑