You are here: Home / Intranets and digital workplace / Best Practices in Corporate Intranets

Best Practices in Corporate Intranets

August 10, 2006 By 3 Comments

intranetThat’s the title of an Avenue A/Razorfish report (you can dowload it here for free) I found more than interesting. There’s so much to say about this report that I will only focus on one two things I’m directly concerned with due to my activity, even if I may come back on the report later and analyze more deeply such or such part of it.

First thing I found interesting is the concept of Intranet Maturity Framewor that helps classify intranets in a few categories, the step from one category to another depending on maturation of tools and needs in the company. I found this model very clear in the perspective of an anlysis based on a “where are we, where do we want to to go, are we ready for that, what to we need to go the next step” reflexion.

I also agree with the part concerning collaborative intranets. I think that web 2.0 tools (or social web tools) will bring them to a real reborn, making them a place for people, information sharing and, so doing, a place for also managing the human side of the company (for example see what I wrote there).

I really liked the way the report gives not only best practices but helps to guide in an intranet problematic with such questions as:

- were are we

- what’s our maturity

- what’s the next step

- are we ready

- what to we need to make next step a success

There’s a lot to say about this report and, since I’m on vacation, I only had a quick look at it and will come back later on the report to see more details about such or such thing.

For french reading people, I wrote a little more about it here…enjoy!

No related posts.

Filed Under: Intranets and digital workplace, Management & HR Tagged With: , , , ,
  • http://theworkplaceblog.com razorfish

    Thanks for your thoughts on the report. As more and more technologies flood the scene, we are working hard to capture those which are most relevant to the enterprise. The Framework itself is US-specific, and your thoughts are refreshing. Thanks again!

  • http://www.duperrin.com/english Bertrand DUPERRIN

    I found your maturity model quite interesting and I find it useful even in an european context…I’ll think about it when I’m back to work ;-)

    What I’d like foreign (and even french) people to tell me is in which measure collaborative intranets have reached their goals so far.

    My idea about that is only a web 2.0 designed intranet will bring those intranet a full efficiency. And, in order to do that, the key factor is working on people behaviors, on social practices beetween people and, only a this time, put an intranet where those practices can take place.

    Web 2.0′s success is not due to tools but to the fact it allows people to behave on the net as they like to do in their “non digital life”: innovating, discutting, sharing, making things together not because they’re asked but because they can create their own opportunities. So company’s have to comply with what you call “burgeoning expectations” in their human side (HR, management) to make those tools efficient.

    Enterprise 2.0 have to precede the tool itself I think.

    I’ll think we’ll have the opportunity to talk about that in the incoming weeks since I planed to make a few details posts based on your report.

    One more thing: thanks for being the first “corporate commentator” on this just-lauched english blog which is a very special experience for me…hoping it will get as much success as his french “helder brother”.

  • http://theworkplaceblog.com razorfish

    Thanks for your continued thoughts on the framework.

    I think you’ve captured an important differentiation point between the nature of collaboration within and outside the US. Here’s a blog that has given much insight into these differences:

    http://netjmc.typepad.com/globally_local/2006/08/report_on_best_.html

    I have also included a comparison between Stage 3 and Stage 4 of the Framework into the wiki (click “compare” on the Stage 4 page). The most similar characteristics, as you’ve mentioned has to do with user experience and adoption. The differences are summarized in chart form within the report.

    Thanks again for your feedback!