View
214
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
1
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing NetworkAPQC’s Knowledge Sharing NetworkAPQC’s Knowledge Sharing NetworkAPQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
KnowledgeNetsKnowledgeNets
May 8, 2003May 8, 2003
New York, N.Y.New York, N.Y.
Farida HasanaliFarida Hasanali
KnowledgeNetsKnowledgeNets
May 8, 2003May 8, 2003
New York, N.Y.New York, N.Y.
Farida HasanaliFarida Hasanali
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
2
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
American Productivity & Quality Center
• Founded in 1977 with $10 million from 100 corporations
• Annual revenues $12 million and staff of 95– Membership– Research & Publications– Training & Consulting
• Non-profit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization• No government support; no endowment• Board of Directors
– 55 senior executives from corporations, education, and government
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
3
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
APQC Mission
…to work with people in organizations around the world to improve productivity and quality by:
• Discovering, researching, and understanding emerging and effective methods of improvement;
• Broadly disseminating our findings through education and advisory and information services; and
• Connecting individuals with one another and with the knowledge and tools they need to improve
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
4
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
American Productivity & Quality Center – The APQC
• Membership• Research and Advisory Services• Knowledge Management • Performance Excellence • Networking• Training and Conferences
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
5
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Building APQC’s Capabilities to Help
Building on Learning
Competitiveness: Productivity & Quality
Systemic Quality and Process Improvement (MBNQA)
Benchmarking & Best Practices
Transfer of Best Practices
Knowledge Management
1977 Present
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
6
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Membership
• APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network™• Member discounts• Qualitative and quantitative benchmarking
studies • Proven tools, methodologies, and templates • Metric databases • Organizational assessments • Publications• Computer-based, on-site, and public training• Networking
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
7
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Definition of a CMS
• Content Management is a system to provide meaningful and timely information to end users by creating processes that identify, collect, categorize, and refresh content using a common taxonomy across the organization.
• A content management system includes people, processes, technology, and most importantly, the content itself.
CMS is the enabler that provides the right
information to the right person at the right time
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
8
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Phases of a CM Approach
• Phase 1: Develop the Business Case– Identify strategic rationale– Estimate costs and benefits
• Phase 2: Plan and Design– Analyze requirements, current processes and systems– Conduct a content audit, develop a taxonomy, vendor
assessment and selection, and project design
• Phase 3: Implement– Refine and deploy the CMS– Change management
• Phase 4: Maintain and Upgrade– Evolution of processes, technology, and roles over time
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
9
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
KSN Timeline
Better understanding
of what we wanted,
assessed three vendors,
selected one
Looking for an answer:
Assessment of existing processesAssessing
vendors with new ideasResult: We knew what we did not want to do
May-Sept2001
Oct-Dec2001
January2002
February2002
March2002
April2002
May2002
Phase 2Support
Elaboration of user
requirements and
strawman
Design and Develop
wireframes and conduct
content audit
Construction and content
input
April 15, Launch
Identifying requirements for
Phase 2 and focusing on clean
content
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
10
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
APQC’s business case for the KSNOpportunity Statement:
To provide Members with what they are asking for:
• better access, personalized content, people to people, and people to expertise connectivity
• we will be able to provide more value to the membership, increase the renewal rate, and get a better understanding of member needs in order to target products and services that will meet and exceed their expectations.
As a non-profit, we know we still must grow in order to remain viable and add value to our
members.
Phase 1
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
11
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Solution EnablersSolution EnablersSolution EnablersSolution EnablersIssuesIssuesIssuesIssues
BenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefits
Our members continually tell us they value:
• Access to content• Access to each other (networking)• Access to expertise
OpportunityOpportunityOpportunityOpportunity• Harvest content (slice & dice)• Better position APQC expertise & services• Automatically index, and filter content• Track customer interests• Member networking platform• Enhance membership renewal rate and grow
membership
• Better APQC branding on processes and functions & repeat traffic to the Web
• Real-time trend analysis and personalized customer interest information
• Enhance APQC position as recognized SME in the mind of our members
• Internal document management• Security and multiple access levels• Match interests to taxonomy & deliver
personalized, individualized content• Identify other members with similar
interests & connect online• Identify & contact Experts• Dynamic web pages
Business Case for the KSNPhase 1
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
12
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Structure and Roles within APQC
• Core Team– Executive Sponsor – Ron Webb, Director– Program Manager, Farida Hasanali– Subject Matter Expert– Portal Administrator – business side– Content authors (3) – information research
specialists– Editors (2)
• Additional support as needed from within APQC
Phase 2
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
13
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Understanding User Requirements
• Cross-functional user groups– Representative of each product and service group– Core CM team– SME conducted preliminary user requirements
sessions
• Formulated a list of functionalities that APQC wanted to deliver
• Took that list to several vendors for bid
Phase 2
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
14
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Making decisions
Business Case
Project Vision
Critical SuccessFactors
Business Requirement 1
Business Requirement 2
Business Requirement 3
Business Requirement 4
Business Strategy ScorecardFilters - used to define
the scope and directionof the project relative to
the broader strategy
Core Requirements Set - Drives the implementation
Strategy
FunctionalityRequests
Requirements Set
Use Case SurveySupplementary SpecWireframes/Nav Map
Phase 2
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
15
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Requirements Management
1 The Standish Group International, Extreme CHAOS 20012 Rational Software Corporation, 19963 Raytheon Corporation
• 78% of all software projects fail to deliver expected features on time and on budget1
• The average project only delivers 67% of planned features1
• The average project runs 45% over estimated cost1
• The average project over runs schedule by 63%1
• Requirements errors are estimated to be 40% of all software project errors2
• Rework from requirements errors account for 50-85% of total project rework costs3
Poor Requirements Management is universally regarded as a major cause of each of these issues!
Phase 2
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
16
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Taxonomy and Content Audit• Existing site had taxonomy, but was inconsistent and
redundant• 1st tried to get buy in on a new structure from the
executive team• Failed – too many opinions – did get a barebones
agreement• Took taxonomy creation offline and worked with KM
SME to get it done• Content audit was cumbersome and time consuming,
found we could make same decisions directly during content input rather than twice
• Probably worked only because we are a small group
Phase 2
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
17
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Lessons Learned: Design and Implementation
• Creating and Acquiring Content– Conduct a content audit: prune ruthlessly– Authors own the content– Publishing tools must be “ridiculously easy to use”
• Content Management Processes– Spend enough time creating business rules– Maintenance is as important as creation– Create content stewards in each domain / unit– Allocate enough time to these roles
• Content Delivery – No dead ends; always have a help desk somewhere
Phase 2
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
18
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Lessons Learned: Design and Implementation, Cont.
• Taxonomy and metadata– Reflect the user’s view of the world
– Use SMEs for a first pass; validate and expand with user groups
– Provide templates and wizards whenever possible
– Taxonomy comes before technology – usually
Phase 2
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
19
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Assessing Vendors
• Decided we needed to assess at least 3 vendors
• Provided list of functionality to all three and asked to propose solutions– Vendor 1 – custom solution based on software they
had developed for other customers– Vendor 2 – Fatwire for content management,
Autonomy for a search engine and, custom portal for Web delivery
– Vendor 3 – Interwoven for content management, Verity for searching, and ATG for portal
Phase 2
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
20
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Selecting Vendors
• We decided to go with vendor 3– vendor understood what we were looking for,– vendor assumed some of the risk,– solution was within our budget,– solution met our needs, – APQC/Vendor team gelled early, – solution was proven, and – vendor was experienced in solution.
Phase 2
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
21
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Elaboration
• A week long series of understanding user requirements
• People in the sessions depended on the functionality being discussed
• Marketing was invited to all sessions• Core team was present at all sessions• At the end of elaboration, we had a set of
wireframes and a detailed outline of the functionality of the site
Phase 3
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
22
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Construction
• Developers constructed modules and got feedback as they went along
• First module to be installed was Interwoven so we could start entering data
• Then came the staging environment with the templates so we could see how the real data looked on the site
• The production site is a mirror image of staging• Verity functionality was built to enable browsing
using the knowledge trees
Phase 3
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
23
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Deploy and Transition
• Original launch date was set to April 8• Decided to do a soft launch on April 8 – invited
selected members to test the site• Moved full launch to April 15• New functionality rolled out April 29, 2002• Vendor transitioning knowledge of system to
internal APQC application support person
Phase 3
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
24
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Lessons Learned
• Measure twice, cut once• But don’t get caught in analysis paralysis
– Make the best decisions you can with the data you have
– Its all about mitigating your risks not getting it “right”
• Get an SME, its worth it• Don’t forget the people aspect• Pay attention to the amount of content you
have to put in the system– Don’t let the “code freeze” get you
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
25
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Lessons Learned (contd.)
• Negotiate with vendors– Give and take normally works better than constant
conflict– Important thing of course is to know when to give
and when to take
• More than one vendor on the project is both good and bad– shared accountability between vendors does not
work
• React quickly to changing situations• Divide, conquer and, monitor EVERYTHING!
© 2003 American Productivity & Quality Center
26
APQC’s Knowledge Sharing Network
Some Measures To-Date• Went live on April 15, 2002• Registered Users
– Over 12000 registered users
• Content Items– Over 6,200 different content items loaded
• Active Sessions– Peak has been at 600– Average 50 – 60
• Busiest Times– Business Hours, Sunday afternoons– Thursday
• Customer Feedback– Membership response has been very favorable– Two formal customer satisfaction surveys deployed – focus changing
from want content to want communities
Recommended