25. Your corporate
Intranet as a
Business
model
Think of your Intranet
project like a business.
Your end users are your
customers. As they don’t
pay you directly using their
very own money take
usage and satisfaction as
your target currency in
addition to the savings you
will generate.
Happier employees lead to
happier customers.
Revenue
More clients faster, customer satisfaction, ROI
Employee satisfaction, loyalty, winning talents
Usage reports
Key
resources
Your project team
Your management
Channels
Intranet & Portals
Collaboration
Digital Processes
Unified
Communication
Cost structure
Costs for internal people, external consultants, training
Licensing cost, Hardware costs
Implementation
Customer
Relations
Workshops,
Interviews
Communication
plan, Surveys,
Trainings
VALUE
PROPOSITION
THE VALUE FOR
YOUR END USERS
Here you need to
be creative and
precise
Key activities
Diverse Team
Measurable KPIs
Keep change in
mind
User Adoption
Key partners
Corporate
Communications
Corporate HR
Corporate IT
External
Consultants
Customer
segments
Your users
Different teams
and departments
Stakeholders
Personas
28. Your winning
project team
• Experts from all areas not only IT
• Diverse group of people from all
genders and age groups
• All key stakeholder and end user
personas should be represented
• Team members a communicators
of your message inside the
company
• Collaborate as a group on
eyelevel
• Give feedback and please praise
success
31. The platitude indicator
• “Collaboration will be encouraged”
• “A best-practice collaboration platform”
• “To provide the best collaborative experience for our
users”
• “It’s a SharePoint project”
Source: Paul Culmsee cleverworkarounds.com
32. SharePoint non platitudes
• “We are proving that through better information
management, we can improve our customer relationship
and trust building without over-burdening our staff”
• “We are proving that we can grow the organisation while
reducing email volumes and centralising document
storage”
• “By building communities of practice, we prove that we can
reduce information overload and allow our users to find
the right expertise”
Source: Paul Culmsee cleverworkarounds.com
33. Key Takeaways
• A platitude is like a mirage. It looks like a goal, but in
reality it is nothing
• Platitudes delude us into thinking that we have an end in
mind when we actually do not
• Don’t confuse the means with the end. Always ask what
difference the means will make, rather than trying to
come up with a universal definition for it
Source: Paul Culmsee cleverworkarounds.com
35. There is no point
in asking users
who don’t know
what they want,
to say what they
want
There is even less point in
thinking that you already know
what they want
38. Do not penalise your team for their learning
For a problem that is novel or requires learning for
participants, they will examine potential solutions just to
explain the problem
Each instance of examining the solution will impact the
understanding of the problem
Source: Paul Culmsee cleverworkarounds.com
39. Key takeaway
• Expect fluid requirements
• Expect scope changes
• Involve stakeholders
• Expect resistance and pullback
• Plan for prototyping
• Be adaptable
• Do not penalise people for their learning
43. Simple example how much every
WTF moment and frustration eats resources
Usually 2 or 3 persons are on the
help. Lost time, effort and
sometimes too much lost
motivation.
Source: happit.com
44. Key takeaway
• Be prepared for changes in moving versions
forward
• Ensure a shared understanding of the problem
among all participants
• Plan for training and onboarding
• Don’t expect everyone to just get it
• Integrate learning into the users daily routine
don’t only do on time workshops
There is no definitive statement of “The Problem.” It is a moving target.
“they don’t know what they want”
The problem is composed of an evolving set of interlocking issues and constraints. Each attempt at creating a solution changes the understanding of the problem.
Therefore, the information needed to understand the problem depends on one’s idea for solving it …
In order to describe a wicked problem in sufficient detail, one has to develop an exhaustive inventory for all the conceivable solutions ahead of time
A number of designers participated in an experiment in which the exercise was to design an elevator control system for an office building. All of the participants in the study were experienced and expert integrated-circuit designers, but they had never worked on eleva-tor systems before. Indeed, their only experience with elevator systems came from riding in elevators. Each participant was asked to think out loud while they worked on the problem. The sessions were videotaped and analyzed in great detail.
The analysis showed, not surprisingly, that these designers worked simultaneously on understanding the problem and formulating a solution. They exhibited two ways of trying to understand the problem:
efforts to understand the requirements for the system (from a one page problem statement they were given at the beginning of the session); and
mental simulations (e.g. “Let’s see, I’m on the second floor and the elevator is on the third floor and I push the ’Up’ button. That’s going to create this situation....”).
There is no definitive statement of “The Problem.” It is a moving target.
“they don’t know what they want”
The problem is composed of an evolving set of interlocking issues and constraints. Each attempt at creating a solution changes the understanding of the problem.
Therefore, the information needed to understand the problem depends on one’s idea for solving it …
In order to describe a wicked problem in sufficient detail, one has to develop an exhaustive inventory for all the conceivable solutions ahead of time
A number of designers participated in an experiment in which the exercise was to design an elevator control system for an office building. All of the participants in the study were experienced and expert integrated-circuit designers, but they had never worked on eleva-tor systems before. Indeed, their only experience with elevator systems came from riding in elevators. Each participant was asked to think out loud while they worked on the problem. The sessions were videotaped and analyzed in great detail.
The analysis showed, not surprisingly, that these designers worked simultaneously on understanding the problem and formulating a solution. They exhibited two ways of trying to understand the problem:
efforts to understand the requirements for the system (from a one page problem statement they were given at the beginning of the session); and
mental simulations (e.g. “Let’s see, I’m on the second floor and the elevator is on the third floor and I push the ’Up’ button. That’s going to create this situation....”).
Wicked problems have no stopping rule
… because (according to Proposition 1) the process of solving the problem is identical with the process of understanding its nature. You can always try to do better as your understanding grows. This leads to the presumption that additional investment of effort might increase the chances of finding a better solution.
You cannot prove that all solutions have been considered
There are no criteria which enable one to prove that all solutions to a wicked problem have been identified and considered There are so many factors and conditions, all embedded in a dynamic social context, that no two wicked problems are alike. Various stakeholders will have differing views of acceptable solutions. It is a matter of judgment as to when enough potential solutions have emerged and which should be pursued
Solutions differ based on interests, values and ideology of participants
Judgements on the effectiveness of solutions are likely to differ widely based on the personal interests, value sets, and ideology of the participants. Since there are no unambiguous criteria for deciding if the problem is resolved, getting all stakeholders to agree that a resolution is ‘good enough’ can be a challenge. Sox clearly to me has been a failure in its intent, given the global financial crisis, but many would argue against my assertion
Some would say that SOX not working is regulation not working and argue for less
Some would argue for more