Portal in Three Days - Is Such a Thing Possible?
- Keren Trosler
- May 1, 2007
- 9 min read
Written in collaboration with Noga Chipman and Naama Berkovich
The characterization process is one of the most central processes, if not the most central one, that we conduct in any knowledge management activity. The nature of the characterization varies, of course, from one knowledge solution to another. For example, the characterization of an insights repository will include defining the characteristics of the insights. In contrast, the characterization of a knowledge community will include defining the community itself and the complementary discourse framework. This review focuses on characterizing one of the most common knowledge management solutions in organizations—the portal—and offers an innovative approach to its implementation.
Description of the Current Situation
As it currently exists in a significant portion of organizations, the characterization process is complex and lengthy. As one user defined it, it resembles a renovation: "You know where you'll start, but you never know where you'll finish." It typically begins with individual or group interviews with information providers and consumers and, if necessary, user workshops. All the information obtained from these interviews/workshops is processed into a complete characterization document, which is then validated with key users, information producers, information consumers, managers, and more. This document includes the basic assumptions that guided the consultant when writing the characterization, which form the basis of the complete solution concept, and a technical characterization of how the content is organized. The characterization document will be accompanied, when possible, by a demo (the importance of which we have elaborated on in previous articles), which provides a visual representation of the characterization document, which is more technical in nature.
The execution of the various stages is an ongoing process, so a long time passes from the beginning of the interviews to the submission of the final product—the characterization and demo. This situation is not without advantages, as one might suspect since the extended time allows the organization to "digest" the process and create ongoing commitment. However, in our assessment, the disadvantages sometimes outweigh the advantages:
The time between the interviews/workshop and the final product causes users to feel disconnected from the project, making them less willing to promote it. Also, the interviews, workshops, and processing of their outputs take time and involve a not insignificant financial cost to the organization. It's important to know that one-on-one interviews allow for in-depth exploration of details related to a specific area. Still, they provide a less comprehensive horizontal picture, sometimes creating "holes" in the accumulated knowledge. We try to minimize these gaps when we gather users for user workshops. Still, this is sometimes done later in the process when participants are not familiar with what's happening and feel that their influence on the process is limited.
Description of an Alternative Approach to Characterization
Yes, we didn't believe such a thing was possible either. After all, we just mentioned at the beginning of the article that characterization is a time-consuming process. If so, how can a portal be characterized in just three days?
The proposed solution includes an experiential user workshop visually demonstrating a portal. The keywords here are experiential and visual, and we would like to dwell on them before we continue to detail the solution. It is known that an opinion formed about any subject will be stronger and more enduring if it is based on personal experience. The experiential element of the workshop means that participants get practical experience building the portal. This activity moves them from the more passive side of the spectrum (an interviewee responding to questions) to the active side (a builder facing dilemmas and forced to make decisions). Visuality is also important as it allows users to see the product of the process taking shape before their eyes, and as we have said more than once in the past, "Seeing is better than hearing." Strict adherence to these two central elements will allow us to create the added value of the workshop. Another significant principle expressed in the workshop is that it is modular. This workshop allows participants to focus on specific parts of the system, and there is no obligation to implement it fully in all its parts. In addition, one can stop and continue with each unit, as the methodological principles guiding the different characterization stages are explained at the beginning of each unit.
We would like to qualify and say that characterizing a portal in such an accelerated process is possible when mapping has been done, and the topics on which the solution will focus are known. Suppose mapping has not been done and topics have no prioritization. In that case, we recommend the consulting team hold several preliminary meetings to agree on the main topics. It's important to remember that this solution is suitable when it's possible to gather participants in one workshop (of several days!) who constitute "knowledge junctions" in the organization and centralize a lot of knowledge. Concentrating key people in one room creates synergy and gives great power to the group. We are aware, of course, that the process is not always possible due to schedule constraints, especially if key figures in the organization are involved. Let's wait for an opportunity when we can gather everyone together. Our gain might result in a loss, causing a delay of several not insignificant months—months in which we could have advanced the project through more conventional means.
After dwelling on the principles, let's get to the point and clarify what the workshop includes:
The workshop itself is conducted over three concentrated days and is divided into the following units:
Portal goals and homepage
Navigation principles and content tree
Detailed panels and group discussion
Model validation and hot buttons
Design, branding, and marketing
Presentation of outputs and joint discussion
The first three units deal with basic terms in the world of knowledge management, thus constituting "mandatory" units, while the last three constitute "optional" units. Each unit begins with a brief methodological explanation of correct characterization principles while demonstrating them in various portals. After the explanation, each user group is given a blank canvas that serves as the working surface of the future portal, as well as an "assembly kit" that includes "Lego blocks" that they can use during the characterization. The components will appear in different sizes, representing their possible size on the screen and their importance. One side of each component will include its name and a brief explanation. The other side will include additional details, which users will be asked to complete regarding the component: accompanying columns, displays, where the information exists today, update frequency, possible content details for the component, optional name, etc.
At this stage, we can already see how the two central elements we discussed earlier come into play: visuality and users' actual participation in the building process.
To illustrate what we mean, let's give an example from a specific module, referring to the homepage. First, we started with a story about the Levy family, which includes the following family members:
Mom Yardena – an expert in budgets and finances
Dad Shaul – a cooking expert
Daughter Gili – a fashion and clothing expert
Baby Roni – an expert in nighttime disturbances
Grandma Tova – an expert in babysitting
The Levy family decided that it was time to improve communication, cultivate organizational processes, and coordinate the daily tasks required of them as a family. The tool they decided on was a corkboard (which is an analogy for the portal's homepage). At this stage, we presented the participants with a picture of an empty corkboard and asked them what they thought should appear on the Levy family's board. We wrote their answers on sticky notes and stuck them on the board.
We then briefly discussed what made them choose the items they chose (centrality, attractiveness, utility for family members). This discussion led us directly to the comparison between the cork board and the portal's homepage while presenting several central principles important for the homepage, such as dynamism, use of WA (Winner Applications), direct relationship between the size of the window and its importance, placement of visual versus textual items in the space of the page. We checked, of course, to what extent these principles were implemented in the suggestions raised by the participants for the Levy family's homepage. After understanding these principles, we presented the participants with a blank surface on which they had to stick various components they chose from a basket of components given to them (scrolling message board, picture, graph, focus topic, list of links, events calendar, etc.). The components came in various sizes so that participants could decide on the importance and the order in which they chose to display them on the page. The items were also presented in a way that didn't "close" the participants' ability to influence. For example, choosing a graph component left them with the discretion of whether it was a production graph, a sales graph, a stock price graph, etc., all according to the content world the organization deals with. Each component contained a back "pocket" with a detail sheet they had to fill out. For example, group members not only decided they wanted to add a graph but also defined what name they would give the graph, its rotation frequency, etc. Of course, any chosen analogy can be suitable if it is familiar and intuitive to users. This is an example of implementing just part of the first module; each module is built slightly differently to fit the needs.
Before delivering each module, it's important to explain the professional terms and give examples that illustrate it (for example, what a panel is, what types of panels are there, and present examples of common panels). The advantage of exposing the professional terms to the workshop participants is bringing them closer to the subject and turning them into messengers who speak the language of knowledge management even outside the room. This advantage also allows us to break down resistance—it's not reasonable for a user to insist on including ten panels on the homepage when, on the one hand, they are presented with the correct principles, and on the other hand, they experience in practice and see that the space on the surface given to them does not allow it.
At the end of the professional explanation, participants should be divided into small groups according to their professional fields. Each group will discuss the specific content included in the professional topic, on the fixed panels, and on the dedicated panels, and indicate winner applications that will attract users.
Each group will write down its outputs (for this purpose, they should be equipped with flip charts, Bristol boards, and markers) in a visual form, as mentioned earlier. This is the place to let imagination soar and raise the wildest desires while dealing with dilemmas regarding making information accessible to the user. While the first three units form the core of the workshop, the advanced units have a different role:
The fourth unit presents a kind of "envelope" that ensures that all parts of the characterization so far connect and create a unified portal;
The fifth unit offers an enrichment activity, and its role is to get ideas from future users regarding the portal's display;
The sixth unit summarizes what was done in the workshop days and ensures that most needs have been addressed.
Workshop Advantages
User workshops are also held today, but the difference is that these workshops validate and verify information collected in individual interviews, while the characterization workshop allows:
Saving time and money – a concentrated meeting with many factors, a one-time explanation of the process.
The level of processing required to process the outputs of one workshop is lower than that required for several interviews and workshops.
Identifying the "missing link" faster – if a central information factor is missing, the gap can be "discovered" quickly.
The product takes shape during the workshop and doesn't arrive as a finished product, which increases the sense of participation and control.
The process is transparent for users; they join it relatively early and advance quickly.
The meeting's synergy and the group's power fertilize it and raise ideas that wouldn't necessarily have come up in another context.
Illustrating the process to users, even before the implementation work begins. The workshop's visuality shows users what will happen and how it will be done.
Imparting knowledge management methods "on the fly."
Required Resources
After describing the solution and reviewing its advantages, we will move on to the resources required from the organization for this process. As mentioned, this workshop lasts 2-3 meetings, each lasting about 7 hours. To maximize the knowledge stored in each participant, we recommend the presence of a consultant/knowledge management person on behalf of the organization for every 3-4 participants. In addition, one should consider hours for processing outputs and several hours to complete interviews with people absent from the workshop.
When is it recommended?
When it's about a portal in a relatively focused content world
When the organization is willing to allocate its people for several concentrated days
It's important to note that the managers' involvement is also necessary for this type of characterization since the employee spends about three days in the workshop and is required to contribute their professional knowledge and creativity. This is not trivial, and it's important to encourage users and strengthen their participation.
In conclusion, we would like to say that we do not at all dismiss the advantages inherent in the classic method of individual interviews and in-depth examination of each role holder, but rather offer an additional method that can help advance the process and enrich the world of possibilities available to us.
Comments