Today I had a meeting with a large multinational content and document management vendor (who shall remain nameless). I was struck by how many times they used the word "collaboration" to describe their current software. Collaboration is also a trendy word in the world of social software. But the difference is that social software folks use collaboration in the bottom-up sense - using weblogs, wikis and other new web technologies to empower the users.
Multinational CMS vendors are tacking hard in the other direction - they use the word collaboration (and its derivatives) in a strictly top-down sense. Their push is to target their software to CEO's, Corporate honchos and Legal bigwigs. Collaboration is seen as something to be driven by management - a software solution to roll out to the users.
"OK everybody, here are the tools. Now, er, collaborate! What are you waiting for?" [pokes a user with a stick]
It's no coincidence that the phrase "lockdown" was deployed more than once in today's discussion - referring to IT's ability to force people to use the software. Lockdown is something that IT departments all over the world love, because it gives them as much control as possible over users.
But people hate being controlled...
My own preference is for bottom-up information management software, using weblogs and other pieces in the social software jigsaw. It gives control back to the people who have to use the tools. However I don't blame multinational CMS vendors for targeting the management layer of corporations and organizations. After all, that's where the money is handed out.
It's up to corporations and organizations to trust their staff to make decisions and create content. Unfortunately the kind of top-down Content and Document Management tools hawked by multinational vendors mirrors the management style at a lot of companies. How collaborative is that? Not very.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
That is of course a very one-sided view. A lot of people need and want guidance and are much more comfortable when they have to make a lot less (unimportant) decision and thus can focus more on the actual work they want to be doing. If they want to get stuff done, they don't want to spend time figuring out what person to poke, waiting for a response (possibly forever?) and figuring out how to escalate the issue until they get a response to continue their work.
If there is a transparent process and the software they can use automatically helps that process to be enforced, it means they'll have less hassle.
Of course here we are talking about process/workflow-supporting Intranet-Applications which need a lot more customization and are a lot harder to get right than just a writing Systems for "stowing data away".
And of course I absolutely agree with you, when you say, that software and processes that are created top-down, without interaction and feedback from the actual people involved, will not render the desired result. However letting people freely create their own ways with some very "bare" general applications, is not the solution either (except in some situations). User Centered Design and Change Management are both ideas that take into account the high value of the personnel and try to find solutions "together with" instead of "upon" or "against" employees.
Posted by: Sencer | September 22, 2004 1:47 AM
> That is of course a very one-sided view. A lot of people need
> and want guidance and are much more comfortable when they
> have to make a lot less (unimportant) decision and thus can
> focus more on the actual work they want to be doing.
Yes it is a one-sided view, but I'm trying to restore a little balance to the things I come up against in my 'real world' - which is all about top-down. The point you make above is a good one, but I think it applies to both bottom-up and top-down info mgmt software. i.e. you have to give users guidance on how to use tools, no matter what the tool is.
> If they
> want to get stuff done, they don't want to spend time
> figuring out what person to poke, waiting for a response
> (possibly forever?) and figuring out how to escalate the
> issue until they get a response to continue their work.
Again, this applies to both bottom-up and top-down tools. Perhaps there is a concern about the user-friendliness of bottom-up tools (like weblogs, wikis), which I agree can be difficult for business users to grasp. I've certainly found that to be the case in my company.
> If there is a transparent process and the software they can
> use automatically helps that process to be enforced, it means
> they'll have less hassle.
>
OK here we get to the nub. Yes top-down tools can "enforce" a process. But my question is: is that "collaboration"? You can have 'enforced collaboration' I suppose, in order to try and put some order into content and data. It just seems to me to be against the basic philosophy of the Web... where networks and ideas (even a kind of 'order') flow up from the users in ways we cannot predict or control in a top-down manner. Call me an idealist.
> Of course here we are talking about
> process/workflow-supporting Intranet-Applications which need
> a lot more customization and are a lot harder to get right
> than just a writing Systems for "stowing data away".
>
That's very true. This vendor I'm talking about has an extensive set of software, but it takes *a lot* of custimization to get it right.
> And of course I absolutely agree with you, when you say, that
> software and processes that are created top-down, without
> interaction and feedback from the actual people involved,
> will not render the desired result.
Yes.
> However letting people
> freely create their own ways with some very "bare" general
> applications, is not the solution either (except in some
> situations). User Centered Design and Change Management are
> both ideas that take into account the high value of the
> personnel and try to find solutions "together with" instead
> of "upon" or "against" employees.
>
Yes, but bottom-up tools don't have to be "bare". They do indeed need to be user-friendly and offer a level of automation. I said several times in my post that the object is to give "control" ***back to the user***. To do that, users need to be comfortable using the tools.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | September 22, 2004 8:34 AM
Hi Richard,
> Call me an idealist.
Ok. :D ;)
After you response I think we are not that far apart with our opinions on how Info-Mngm can help users and how it can not.
I assume we are just thinking about different kinds of work. The more creative, idea-oriented and "free" the tasks and artifacts are, the more control should be left to the users one could argue. The more repetitive the tasks are, the stronger the software can and should enforce an agreed-upon process. I guess I just made a few too many implicit assumptions when reading your initial post, which led to interpret it differently from its intended meaning.
Regards
Sencer
Posted by: Sencer | September 23, 2004 2:17 AM