Messaging News - October 2008 - (Page 21)

access to the workspace can view and use the artifacts in the workspace. Thanks to innovations like security-trimmed search results, if you’re not in the group you have no awareness of even the existence of certain workspaces and the knowledge they contain. Hide and Seek How does an organization do things differently so these default implications don’t apply? And related to that, what do we mean by “knowledge sharing” anyway? With respect to doing things differently, I see three options. The first option is greater openness and accessibility across the board final recommendation—the material in the workspace becomes more widely available. The final reports and the key discussion documents are moved from the collaborative workspace into the corporate document management system or published to the Intranet. This means that everyone in the firm can see the finished work and take advantage of the polished knowledge contained therein, in whatever way makes most sense. A third option is to leave all of the artifacts in the collaborative workspace, and use a search tool that while honoring the specific access privileges of the workspace, will analyze it for key contributions connection to the people with obvious knowledge and expertise in a given area. By implication of their association with a document or recommendation, or a collection of articles about a topic, other people can infer that they are a source of knowledge about an area of interest to them. My sense is that the greatest value collaboration tools offer to enhancing knowledge sharing is in regards to this second option. While knowledge in a document may be perfectly up-to-date at the point of it being authored, that knowledge is going to degrade over time as environmental factors change. It is not going to be the most up-to-date knowledge available because the people who Thanks to innovations like security-trimmed search results, if you’re not in the group you have no awareness of even the existence of certain workspaces and the knowledge they contain. to the contents of workspace sites. This means, first of all, a greater cultural embrace of an open access strategy. Access permissions to workspaces are set at higher levels (rather than small groups of 10-15 people), so everyone within a division can see all of the divisional projects currently underway. Or at the extreme, all employees in the organization can see everything. Limited access privileges give way to near-total or total openness. The second option is to view the use of access-controlled collaborative workspaces as a time-bounded stage in the overall enterprise content lifecycle. Collaborative workspace tools are of great benefit during the content creation stage, and while in this stage, access privileges are restricted to those who are in the core group. This means that the core group has a separate place where they can do their work together without constantly having to explain or defend the in-progress state of their work. But once the creation work is completed—the group has come to closure on the matter at hand and has made a decision or written a that could be helpful. It would then broker a connection between the knowledge-seeker and potential knowledge-providers, hiding from the knowledge-seeker who specifically could help them (to protect the knowledgeable from unwanted interruptions) until the target person agrees to help with the query. In other words, there would be a second type of search result mixed with the standard type, showing the searcher that other knowledge is available and making the offer to inquire if the knowledge-owner is willing to share it. Knowledge Sharing Having outlined the three options to make collaboration tools proknowledge sharing, let’s consider the second main issue, that being the concept of knowledge sharing itself. What is the nature of the knowledge that has the highest utility to the rest of the organization? One possible answer is the finished documents or recommendations that arise from the work of the group. Everyone in the organization is able to access everything through search or browsing. A second possible answer is a authored it will have learnt more and perhaps even reversed their position over time. By revealing who has made a contribution to knowledge in a particular area, the system opens opportunities for collaboration. In the final analysis, all of these are concerns for your governance policy on collaborative tools and their relationship to other enterprise systems, including your records management system. What’s your take? How you are dealing with these knowledge-sharing issues at your organization? Contact me at msampson@messagingnews.com. MS/TMP FOR YOUR REFERENCE Messaging News writer Michael Sampson helps organizations improve the capability of teams that can’t be together, to work together. He writes at www.michaelsampson.net. messagingnews.com 21 http://www.michaelsampson.net http://www.messagingnews.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Messaging News - October 2008

Messaging News - October 2008 Contents Editor’s Note Short Takes Targeting the Technology-Wise Customer The Insider Threat: The New Era of Disaster Recovery Making Collaboration Tools Pro-Knowledge Sharing Botnets Go Marching On Dissecting Email Forensics Next in Messaging News “On Message” with Ben Gross The World is Not the Center of the Universe, and Filters Don’t Stop Email Spam Making the Case Learn More

Messaging News - October 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.