More than File Sharing

In Michael Sampson’s blog on 8/7 he brings attention to a blog regarding file sharing and collaboration tools.  These blogs ask “How did we get reduced to file sharing?”  It is correct that a primary issue and focus in many implementations was just simply “we cannot find stuff.”  BUT I have seen organizations and business units also use tools like SharePoint, eRoom, etc as the solution to lack of network drive space.  Many times, in a large organization, a busines unit is responsible for paying for their file share/server on the network.  If a business unit is short of funds or just simply doesn’t see the importance of having a storage solution with disaster recovery, folks simply save stuff on their c:/ drive and email files. 

When SharePoint and other solutions came on board, many organizations implemented them as a “corporate solution”.  When business units saw this, they viewed SharePoint, etc. as the “answer” to their storage problems.  With SharePoint being a corporate solution, the drive space was there for the taking!  No longer did they (the BU) have to figure out the storage problem, it was right there and corporate was begging the BU’s to use it, since they had invested in it, so it seemed to be a marriage made in heaven.

Unfortunatetly for these organizations, no one took the time to see what else SharePoint and other solutions could be used for.  No one did any analysis to see what gaps their were in other processes that these tools could resolve.  So, it got reduced to a storage and file share solution for many organizations.

It all goes back to analysis first, then figure out the solution.  Rather than installing the technology solution and then letting business units figure out for themselves how they will use it.  Identify the person with the need–then the solution.

Happy Collaborating!

Introducing Social Networking at Work Part III (do we need it?)

When you did the analysis of your business processes you may have found that teams are spread out and/or work different hours.  It might look like the company below:

ABC Corp has 2000 employees, 12% of which work remote–meaning at home.  Since ABC Corp is spread out globally, the teams function as remote teams even though these team members are in an office of ABC Corp; some teams also have members from the 12% who work at home.  When looking at processes it is discovered that:

• The manager feels somewhat out of control; he/she is not sure always when his remote team members are on line.
• At home remote workers feel disconnected at times–they feel they are the “last to know” and do not have the same feeling of connectiveness as those in the office do as far as connecting with other ABC Corp employees–even if those employees work for different business units/projects.  It causes a feeling of insecurity within this group of employees.
• Too much email seems to be a consistent theme–since this seems to be the way people share information on projects they are working on, since they are spread out from each other and in different time zones, they email ALOT!  No one is quite sure what the latest document is.
• Expertise is spread out across the organization.  BUT when a team member hits a road block or challenge there is no way to tap into this expertise and to connect with someone that has knowledge in that area.
• There is no process for many things; each area has created their own.  No knowledgebase to research to inquire if another unit is doing a similar process.  So the “wheel is reinvented” over and over again.
• Trust and communication is an issue.  People feel more open to communicate and then to trust if there is face to face connections than when they know nothing about their team member.  Loyalty?  It barely exists.
• Job turnover is high on these remote teams.  Even with the members that like their job, they are not reaping the benefits of connecting with coworkers, so they seek out other job situations.
• It has been difficult in assigning tasks and tracking progress on those.  It is hard to talk to someone across the globe and during the day employees are left wondering what the status on project tasks are.

These are just a few of the things you may have discovered in doing the analysis on the user end.  Many holes and processes that are not quite working.  I am sure you can think of many more!  Share those in the comments and then let’s collaborate on a solution and buy in to that solution!  Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!  Happy collaborating.

Introducing Social Networking at Work Part II

Reread the first entry in this series to refresh your mind dated 7/11.

After doing a little ground work you have now begun to evaluate the need.  You have an understanding of some business processes and you have examined the holes in the process.  Understanding the holes in the process(es) are key.  Without a person with a need there is no business case.  If you have determined there are some people with needs you are ready for the next step on the journey. 

1. Document the “as is” processes that are the focus of this
2. Document the ones that work (everyone can learn from these)
3. Document the processes that don’t work; emphasize the holes in the process, the challenges and the barriers.
4. Review the outputs from the facilitated brainstorming sessions. 
5. Rewrite the “broken” processes in a new way using the ideas that were received in the brainstorming session.

You now have a “gap analysis” done – where we are, where we want to be and some ideas on how to get there.  You have some high level, possible solutions for the processes that need improved. 

Next time, I will give you a case study as to how this might look and we will see what we do next!  Until then Happy Collaborating.