Intranet is a Misnomer

On paper, intranets make sense: a private computer network that uses Internet Protocol to securely share any part of an organization's information or network operating system within that organization (from Wikipedia). However, despite using the same protocols and user interface (a web browser) they are incredibly different. Looking at the disparity between the Internet and intranets one can't help but come to the conclusion that they have followed two divergent evolutionary paths. I suppose it makes sense given that one has had the benefit of trillions of hours of cognitive surplus, while the other has been limited by whatever resources the organization has allotted to it.


Here's the Rub

Corporate intranets are largely a collection of static information about the organization and not a dynamic collection of information for use by the organization.

Intranets are where we house our HR forms, mission statements, and org charts. They are usually not all that searchable, are often out of date, incorrect, or simply inconsequential. In fact, the very term "intranet" may be a misnomer, we have failed to link the organization's knowledge base in a meaningful digital way. Thus I am of the opinion that aside from accessing the intranet via a web browser there is nothing "web-like" about them. Perhaps this is why our organizations are struggling to understand the social web. The social web is built on complex and interrelated connections between ideas, actors, and services, things we have yet to connect within our organizations.


A New Vision for Intranets

When I think about what intranets could be, I can't help but feel that perhaps our records and document management systems are to blame. Record keeping is important but doing so in isolation doesn't seem to make sense. How can we build an ongoing knowledge-based narrative when we lock away each page in separate file, with different permissions, and filenames?

Anyone looking at intranet renewal shouldn't be looking at simply modernizing the existing intranet infrastructure or updating out of date content, rather they should be looking at how to weave together a digital narrative of the otherwise siloed and fragmented knowledge that is already being stored within the organization. In short, we need our intranets to be less concerned with the static information about our business and far more concerned with the information we use to conduct our business.

There are a couple of ways in which we can do this:

1. encourage new public servants to take up govblogging so that we may immediately start contextualizing what is happening right now and
2. refocus the energies of our archivists, researchers, policy wonks, and any other story tellers to weaving a digital narrative from the abundant amounts of raw materials sitting idle within our organizations.

Much like open data, digital curation must be done in consultation with stakeholders as we work towards understanding what part of the narrative is of the most value to our citizens.


Final Thought

This type of work should most likely be entrusted to those who understand and have grown up on the web for it is our best chance at passing along a digital narrative that is meaningful to those living on the web today, and in the end, that is what is important.


[image credit: cackhanded]

This was originally published by Nick Charney at cpsrenewal.ca

The Changing Relationship Between Accountability and Responsibility

Collaborative technologies apply flattening pressure to hierarchical organizational structures by diffusing the ability to publish, share and disseminate information. For example consider the action of publishing something to the corporate intranet compared to an enterprise wiki.


Intranet Publishing is a Linear Process

This linear process is designed to ensure compliance with a broad set of interrelated policy frameworks, such as official languages, access to information and privacy, information management directives, values and ethics, etc. It does so by making people along the chain responsible for formally approving the content. These people are gatekeepers, key decision making nodes along the pipeline. While this type of system may ultimately produce compliance, it does so at the cost of expediency and thus perhaps even relevancy. In short, when it comes to internal communication models, many hands don’t always make light work, sometimes they make long work.


Wikis are Different (or at least they can be)

In an open enterprise wiki environment, publishing is unfettered. It can be instantly achieved by anyone in the organization. This means that formalized structures (e.g. linear approval processes) are incredibly difficult to maintain. Since there is no formal chain of command that ensures policy compliance, there are no nodes of decision-making that act as gatekeepers. In this model publishers are not only responsible for production but for policy-compliant production. In short, wikis make for quick publication but at the cost of ensured policy compliance.


How Does This Affect the Relationship Between Accountability And Responsibility?

In an enterprise wiki, publishers may have new found responsibility but the traditional accountability chain (i.e. the hierarchy) remains intact. I can't say for certain what the exact impact of this is on the organization other than it is largely seen as an erosion of power of gatekeepers. Gatekeepers rely on the bureaucratic tradition of:

Power = Knowledge

Where:

Knowledge = Position within the hierarchy x # of direct reports x Information / relative importance vis-a-vis other areas

The reason this equation works is simple: the information/action/work must be routed through the established process. The minute that process changes, say by implementing an enterprise wiki in parallel to a corporate intranet, the power structure implodes. Ask anyone working in these spaces right now and they will tell you that corporate intranets are losing ground quickly to enterprise wikis.


These will be difficult times

This shift – enabled by changes to the relationship between responsibility and accountability – is playing out in the culture right now. It is creating confusion inside organizations, people are unsure where to put information, where to find it, and in some cases which source of competing information is the most accurate.

The underlying question isn't really whether or not we should replace our intranets with wikis but rather what type of culture do we want our institutions to support? The reason there is so much tension around these issues is that the institution isn't designed to work in the ways that new collaborative technologies now enable us to.

We are slowly moving into a way of working, a way of thinking – perhaps even a way of being – that is not conducive with our way of managing, how we create incentives and/or how we create disincentives.

Maybe it is time for a redesign.


[Image credit: chelseagirl]