Archive

Archive for the ‘Home’ Category

UK Government website spending

July 10th, 2010

Hearing about how our government spending tax payer money are juicy topics to share. I was staggered after reading this article from BBC after recent stories about government website spending and iPhone apps, and I thought I would share it for the fun reading.

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk £105m for 3 years with only around one million unique visitor a month

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk £35m a year

http://www.nhs.uk £21m a year with six million unique visitor a month

Home , ,

Are today’s static corporate websites the mistrusted adverts of tomorrow?

July 5th, 2010
  • How do you select applications in the Mac apps store?
  • How do you select books to buy online?
  • How do you chose a hotel?

If like me – and almost everyone else – you flick to the reviews then you are an advocate of social media and a natural believer in the wisdom of crowds. As I am sure you already know.

The depressing thing is the low number of UK B2B company sites that directly give these kind of potential customers the information they so obviously look for when making purchasing decisions.

There are several possible reasons :

•    The company has so little traffic that the minimal level of engagement would actually influence such buyers in a negative way. No feedback looks to impatient prospects like bad feedback.

•    Engagement takes energy – but recession and continued political incompetence in the area of encouraging business has hit energy levels hard in the UK.

•    Engagement takes a strategy – but the whole world of corporate social media is too unfamiliar for most UK SME companies to set strategies for engaging with it.

•    They don’t have an appropriate technology platform.

•    They are genuinely a local business – anything more than a cursory presence on the internet is perceived as a distraction.

•    Companies are just too afraid of what the public will say about them.

I am sure there are others, and I look forward to any comments and suggestions,  but is the last one that I want to focus on – fear of opinions. In general I have noticed a hierarchy of comfort across the main audience lines as follows:

•    Intranets – companies allow engagement provided this is moderated by a ‘manager’ – which amounts to paying lip service to engagement and frustrating contributors.
•    Public – companies remain scared of negative perceptions on lead generation
•    Extranets – marketing view : our customers are the most important assets we have and we will totally control that space to make sure all content is on message.

Modern intranets are at least some way down this path of increasing user engagement, even though very few employees are comfortable engaging with blogs on the corporate intranet compared with the large number that are interested in reading them.

I have already posted on the depressing lag in the UK compared to the USA in adopting openness and engagement, so I will refrain from comparing engagement levels across these spaces. But for interest, in the best of the USA extranets the customers are welcomed to provide feedback precisely because they are the most valued asset – the company wants to learn to do a better job and has identified senior staff ready to engage with and work through any negative feedback in exactly the same public arena.

Lets go back to my original point. We use reviews. But the truth is we also use the content. We look at photos of the hotel, a location map and then read the comments. We know of an author, find their books, then read the reviews. It is a question of balance.

Balance

Balance

This is how it should be in corporate B2B websites and extranets as well as intranets – and not just in public large scale e-commerce B2C sectors. The information and the interaction both have an important role to play, but should be directly complimenting each other – and for that reason products like Claromentis Innovate are of great interest. When you can follow a document that is actually in your own corporate infrastructure, and by doing so extend the information layer seamlessly – the results are much greater participation and increased innovation.

In my view significant interaction through corporate social media but without adequate information is just as useless as lots of marketing information with no interaction. Both are increasingly liable to generate a cynical response from the visitor.

The companies that develop strategies to balance the two in a truly integrated environment will provide not just a more engaging and informative online presence, but  generate significant innovation benefits that will ultimately feed through into higher margins and increased sales.

Home, Prod-Intranet, Solutions , , ,

I am utterly confused, it just doesn’t work.

July 5th, 2010
Frustrated Woman

Frustrated user

Does it sound familiar? It’s a human reaction when we encounter a system which is difficult to use or doesn’t work as we expected it to.

When usability touches a personal level the effect of a simple usability error feels like it has been multiplied tenfold. This post reminded me of one of the best usability books by Steve Krug “Don’t Make me think”. Usability is simple, it’s just common sense yet it’s also an incredible form of art.
I’ve spent more than 8 years working as an Information Architect, designing complex web-based software and many times I feel that I am still learning. Things that are obvious and logical from a technical point-of-view may be totally wrong from the novice users perspective.

We’ve just completely revamped our holiday planner application and one of our clients is currently running a beta test for the application. From a technical point-of-view the new holiday planner is much better than the old one. Some of the new features include an interactive holiday calendar, overview screen, automatic calculation, and a team/manager dashboard.

Apparently things are not going so well with our users. They don’t appreciate all of these wonderful features, what they care about is one thing and one thing only “Their holiday allowance”.

Here is a snapshot of the screen showing a user booking a half-day holiday.

file_download

Holiday request

Taking a closer look you might notice several things:

  1. The icon representative a half day holiday is correct, a half red square indicating that the user only booked a half day holiday.
  2. Duration is shown as 0.5 day, which is correct but in brackets (1 calendar day) which is causing major confusion.
  3. Users are very sensitive to their holiday allowance, when they book a half day they only want to see a half day, without any reference to calendar days.

Here are some reactions from the users:

  • “Why is duration showing 1 day, I booked a half day only”
  • “What is calendar day? How’s that different to a normal day?”
  • “Does it mean if I took a half day off, the system took 1 day from my allocation?”

Again, from a technical point-of-view, the reason we display calendar day is simply to give useful information about the overall duration of a users holiday.  For example you may have booked 2 half-day holidays, which means 1 day has been taken out from your holiday allocation. But you may want to know that you have booked 2 calendar days with each half-day holiday.

I can see this piece of information is actually quite useful but having to display both day types has caused major confusion to the user, after all, when a user books their holiday the only thing they care about is their holiday allowance.

Home , , ,

Choosing the best intranet technology to meet a need

June 30th, 2010

The functionality of the solution set in Claromentis intranet framework are so large now that we often spend considerable time during projects, and especially at inception – in choosing from various options in order to meet a business need.

Since the Claromentis business framework also includes a complete intranet API, we also need to consider whether a bespoke application to meet the client need is the best solution, as opposed to the superficially ‘easier’ route of configuring an existing application to meet the requirement.

This is particularly the case with e-forms, which for many simpler business needs can indeed be configured to meet a requirement as initially expressed to us.  This is basically because many small applications are based on collecting data, moving along a process and notifying participants of significant events that need their attention – exactly the space Process Manager occupies.

When we are making these decisions we are in general terms trying to balance 3 disparate needs :

  • Project risk – configuring and localizing an application is a relatively simple and certainly time limited process that does not involve scope creep, whereas developing a bespoke intranet application takes time and resources.
  • Budgets – applications need to be licensed, this might be commercially inappropriate for the number of users that need access.
  • Flexibility as a solution for future requirements – we have learnt that there is always a phase 2, and after using the solution in phase 1 the client may well drastically change the application requirements – it is so much easier to evolve a bespoke application.
Technology selection factors

Technology selection factors

What we are finding is that we are emphasizing flexibility more and more as we continue to engage with intranet clients around the world. And because we can now give so many examples and speak with the confidence that comes from working in this space for 10 years now, we are noticing that clients are increasingly listening to us.

The result is that they do take slightly longer to get to phase 1, they take more risk, and generally may spend slightly more to get to the first release  – but the platform for their success is built on the solid foundation of an intranet application that was built from the ground up to meet the need, and can grow without constraints to continue to serve the client well.

If, as is so often the case – phase 2 is considerably different to the initial requirements – the client in the end saves money as well as getting exactly what they need – since the changed specifications do not require us to start again.

In the fast moving web based intranet world where there are almost no technological limits, building for possible feedback and change requests is basically too important to ignore.

So in the longer term it seems that time and time again actually focusing on flexibility can minimize budget and project risk, rather than increase them. Another great lesson.

E-form Services, Home, Products , ,

Innovative display of CRM relationships

June 29th, 2010

I previously posted on the use of Process Manager to automate sales lead follow ups as part of a sales management process.

Recently we have improved the sales manager product with an innovative use of a tag cloud to indicate the staff in our own company who have the closest relationship with a customer contact, for various types of information.

Tag cloud in CRM

Tag cloud in CRM

The TAG cloud is built automatically by the sales manager software as staff contribute information to the customizable tabs of meta data. Instantly the TAG cloud shows who has provided the most information – and by clicking on the persons name the software filters all the tabs to only show information from that contact.

Of course the software also provides a one click link to contact information on the member of staff concerned, to ask any questions and clarify any information that might help in the sales process.

For companies with multiple people in touch with client accounts through a long sales process and ongoing into the customer relationship, this is an innovative and intuitive way to capture that information.

Home, Prod-Sales , ,

Thank you Zizzi Brighton!

June 23rd, 2010
Free Zizzi Pizza

Free Zizzi Pizza

Zizzi (our favorite Italian restaurant in Brighton) ran a competition to win a selection of their outstanding Rustica Pizzas for businesses around the UK.

Claromentis were fortunate to win the competition, and have just been enjoying 8 of the finest Pizzas that have ever been consumed within the Claromentis office.

So even if England lose the football today, the Claromentis team still gets a result!

Thank you Zizzi!  You make amazing pizza’s!




This is also a great example of Corporate Social Networking. The result being free Pizza and happiness.

Free Zizzi Pizza

Free Zizzi Pizza

Home

The right tools for collaboration

June 21st, 2010

Every morning Claromentis Brighton staff have a meeting that helps us to stay on track, be aware of any high workload concerns or potential deadline issues – and generally keep each other informed of what’s happening. On Mondays these meetings are necessarily a little longer – most days they can be done and dusted in 30 minutes.

What interests me is that as a company that actually creates information management software and collaboration frameworks we still seem to need a multiple of formats, environments and tools to keep track of everything.

1. We start the meeting around a large screen format of our own intranet calendar for the week, going through client visits at our office, who’s out and related time bound events that calendars were designed to show. On the agenda AOB allow each person to add anything for discussion.

2. We then move over to 2 whiteboards that use felt pens and magnets to summarize on one board all the new intranets and systems we are installing, and on the other all the bespoke development projects we have ongoing with our clients. This is strictly a stand up meeting, which is very helpful to keep things fast moving and focused. As each project is summarized it gets a physical magnet in column one – colored according to a simple traffic light system. Other columns reflect responsibilities, alpha and beta deadlines, urgency levels for priority task selection and a whole host of other data.

collaboration meeting

collaboration meeting

Often people will refer to our project management software to get deadline and assignment information as needed in the meeting.

3. Before concluding each person gets about 30 seconds to say what they are doing today, and request cooperation from anyone else.

When necessary we will have our colleagues n Russia and Australia join us on video conference, but 99 percent of the time this is a fairly local event.

So my observations are :

1. Its an evolving meeting, everyone can suggest better ways to do things and I think that’s very important – no-one should view themselves as a prisoner, and everyone finds them useful.

2. We seem to need one part when we are sitting down, then a second part when we are all standing up. I have no idea why.

3. We require our calendar ( software ) , whiteboards ( hardware ), pens, magnets, erasers and project management software to get the job done. Together with blank notebooks.

4. Everyone turns up with a pen and paper, hardly anyone writes anything down.

5. Some people bring task lists from their own desks, which often seem to be quite literally written on the back of an envelope.

6. Even though we are all really busy and all trying to collaborate – some people just talk more than others.

So my question is – is this meeting format, which we have evolved into over a long time – simply a good way to deal with the fact that all people are different both in the way they absorb information and interact with others? After all our own project software has Gantt charts, document management, assignments and traffic lights – but you can’t stick magnets on it and if you talk to it it doesn’t answer back.

Our meetings are designed to request and receive participation – you do have to say what you are working on, and everyone will certainly listen to you. Maybe that’s the point – anyone can look at a programme plan and miss a lot of pressure points that the people will chose to talk about when given the opportunity. And that is what collaboration is all about – helping each other through issues, communicating with clients and getting the job done to the highest possible standard given the available resources and time lines.

And I enjoy them!

Home, Prod-Project, framework-bus ,

The importance of intranet localization

June 14th, 2010

I would like to discuss the importance of intranet localization from 3 different perspectives:

  • Consumption according to Language
  • Changing the framework of an intranet process
  • Changing the purpose of a bespoke intranet application

Consumption according to language

The most common meaning behind content localization is to allow companies to present menu systems, commands and content in multiple languages – and to have the intranet system automatically set those according to the users preferences.

Content Localization

Content Localization

Changing the framework of an intranet process

The Claromentis Process Manager is fully localized at the project level. So an e-form process on the intranet that deals with time cards can say “Enter a New Time Card” and not ‘New Ticket”. This is separate to language localization – we are using localization at the application level to configure a process that makes sense to the user.

Localized e-form

Localized e-form

Changing the purpose of a bespoke intranet application

In the same way as we localize a process through configuration at the project level, we can use the abstracted visual interface to change an entire application. For example we recently created a version of Policy Manager – which normally manages policies and procedures – to instead manage examination questions for the Royal College of Surgeons.

Indeed in this example we also used the fact that Policy Manager allows custom images to categorize categories of policies – or in this case categories of examination questions – to great effect.

Question Categories

Question Categories

Summary

Although the expense of producing a completely localized intranet codebase from the ground up is far from trivial, localization at all these levels is a fantastic way to focus content and processes to the optimal benefit of the users – without writing a line of additional code at the business logic level…

Home, Prod-Process, Services

Getting valuable feedback through page comments

June 9th, 2010

Every organisation understands the value of instant feedback. It promotes continuous improvements and creative discussion. Some say it is what makes a business ‘tick’.

Working on a communication software platform, we want to facilitate this positive feedback culture.

Pages or web pages is one of the largest type of content of an Intranet along side with Documents and News. In Claromentis we already have comments for News as well as Document and to complete the whole picture we are now introducing comments for publish page.

Here is the anatomy of commenting:

publish_comments1

Home, Solutions , , , , ,

What really is a legitimate boundary for intranet software?

June 7th, 2010

We have had so many discussions recently about how to establish legitimate boundaries for modern intranet software.

At a recent vision setting meeting at Claromentis we did decide that we would never produce accountancy software – but the only reason seemed to be because Nigel thinks its boring and no-one else in the room understood much about it. Hardly a valid rule for deciding when business functionality should be excluded form our product set looking out beyond Claromentis 6.0

If you think about it, as well as the API for bespoke applications, we now have major application sets for:

Information management across every imaginable file type through to online
Collaboration and Innovation
Sales Management
Project Management
Image Management
MarComms
Across the board Quality Management solutions

As we move into a world where it seems the browser can deliver just about anything to the desktop and client software is dying faster than newspapers, it seems that at Claromentis the only rules we can find for a product line in our intranet system is :

It makes a difference to a business
It is aesthetically beautiful and highly usable
It leverages the permission system

Can anyone come up with a better rule for helping us not to deliver accountancy software as part of an intranet? Seriously – where should we stop? How can we say – “but that is just not what an intranet should do”?

Home, framework-bus ,