You have to create, view and provide interactive timelines for your articles you might try out http://whenintime.com/.
Easy to use and customize with only a few bugs all of them can be easily worked around.
And last but not least the service is free of charge right now... but you should not contribute confidential content.
Showing posts with label Information. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Information. Show all posts
Thursday, November 01, 2012
Sunday, April 08, 2012
how to preserve the value of big data over time....
Today the buzzword "Big data" getting more and more popular. Nice label for a common statement "the amount of data and the valuable usage getting important".
There are millions of information and products out there which promise to help you storing and analyzing those data. But one of the major issues with data is not current usage it is the maintenance of the information over time.
The "Web of Data" is one common example. It is the biggest data store we currently faced with. Pretty simple to access and analyze. So far so good. But there is one maintenance of this data (required?). Collect 100 links to resources on the web today. than 24 month later try access them...how many of those links still work, and if they work the resulting information still using the same semantic as it was once you build up the link?
The "Web of Data" currently decided not to maintain data just provide them now, enrich them and just replace them with different semantic...The Web Wayback machine (http://archive.org/web/web.php) is an approach to help individual users to keep their individual value of data for some scenarios.
Now think about your cooperate information you collect right now. The speed and adaption rate of this data will increase and new demands to enrich the data will appear. Do you ever thought about how you ensure that all that data can be adapt to new needs? Based on my personal experience at least more than 60 % of the over all project costs are related to data migration in IT project dealing with information in a certain domain of the organization. Those costs are related to adapting data to the new tools which maintains the data, converting data between different data models and formats and ensure the quality of the data and their usage in existing business processes.
What does this mean for each IT project dealing with data?
There are millions of information and products out there which promise to help you storing and analyzing those data. But one of the major issues with data is not current usage it is the maintenance of the information over time.
The "Web of Data" is one common example. It is the biggest data store we currently faced with. Pretty simple to access and analyze. So far so good. But there is one maintenance of this data (required?). Collect 100 links to resources on the web today. than 24 month later try access them...how many of those links still work, and if they work the resulting information still using the same semantic as it was once you build up the link?
The "Web of Data" currently decided not to maintain data just provide them now, enrich them and just replace them with different semantic...The Web Wayback machine (http://archive.org/web/web.php) is an approach to help individual users to keep their individual value of data for some scenarios.
Now think about your cooperate information you collect right now. The speed and adaption rate of this data will increase and new demands to enrich the data will appear. Do you ever thought about how you ensure that all that data can be adapt to new needs? Based on my personal experience at least more than 60 % of the over all project costs are related to data migration in IT project dealing with information in a certain domain of the organization. Those costs are related to adapting data to the new tools which maintains the data, converting data between different data models and formats and ensure the quality of the data and their usage in existing business processes.
What does this mean for each IT project dealing with data?
- Initial load is important
You always have to define how to get the data you need for the initial start (and not only during the regular operation of your business process) and how to verify that this data is valid for your future need. - Expandability of your data might be important
You can use static data models and tools (e.g. classical relational data models) compared to more flexible approaches like typed graphs of data where content using different models can simpler coexist. - Adaptability of your IT systems might be important
What happens to your existing data once the model will be extended, changed. Do not only take care of the data itself also take into account the relation to the data. Today you only access a specific level of your data few years later some use-case requires you to access the individual step or introduce an additional level not yet exists. - Ensure the maintenance of your data.
Do not "use" any data which you do not have any value in your primary business process. The usage of information requires the correctness of data. Your data will never be correct if the process creating this data does not have any value out of the data itself. This means that the data will be simple partially incorrect, incomplete.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Valuable Information
Today I stumbled upon the following twitter post:
Sounds interesting and relevant in the context I'm working in. Than I tried to verify the source and basis for this statement.
That is a example of todays most common topic today:
Don't use and post a information which is not verified by at least
Don't forget: It is never cheap to gather valuable information. It was never and will never.
Every human intervention in a business process introduces a 4% chance of error. - B. Beims
Sounds interesting and relevant in the context I'm working in. Than I tried to verify the source and basis for this statement.
- Using google to search for the statement
- Using google to search for the author
- Finding second / third source for this statement
That is a example of todays most common topic today:
- more and more "characters" are accessable and flowing around the world, like "Chinese whispers" posted, re-posted, extended, ....
- less and less of the accessible" information" (in terms of percent based on the complete available total amount of "information") is relevant or valid
- Shorten / context less "information" does not lead to human usable information chain
Don't use and post a information which is not verified by at least
- a second, independent source
or - personal verification
or - background information which provides you with considerable background to trace the information
Don't forget: It is never cheap to gather valuable information. It was never and will never.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
The end of documents....
Assumption
If you have to describe any technical subject you are aware that knowledge is hard to express in a straight linear sequence of information topics. In most cases you have to structure the information into information tropics and semantic connection between those => a network of information topics.
Nothing new and a trivial statement, you might say. All semantic concepts are using those principle buildup.
Yes, but why most technical subjects are still using documents or slide shows to express technical subjects?
Those media formats are linear by design. The reader has to follow the one and only linear flow defined by the author of the document. In the best case the author is able to find one of the sufficient linear paths through the network of information and the reader is therefore able to understand the described subject. But even in this case getting the hole picture, identify ways to extend the provided information, embed it to different subject etc. isn't possible or at least requires to re-construct the information tree in mind.
Ask yourself why you are using
Alternatives?
I'm pretty sure that in the future documents will be replaced with applications which providing a way to describe topics as short topics and makes it easy to connect those topics with semantic links (e.g. depends on, contains, .....). A document in this scenario is just one path through the network of information for one particular use case. This kind of application can replace todays word processing software without loosing any important feature.
In the domain of technical writing topic based authoring (e.g. using DITA information architecture) becomes more and more popular. The main use case there is to (re-)use information as much as possible to reduce creation and information maintenance costs. In my point of view that is "only" a important side effect of having the content defined in a much more usable form. Not a linear sequence of information reflecting a group of authors view but as more or less complete set of information topics linked together. The todays results are still linear documents of some format (pdf, online help formats, ....) but that only corroborate the belief that linear documents are mainstream.
Open Issue
The usability of topic based authoring isn't sufficient today. It is more or less a hand crafted creation of enriched information. To dive into the mainstream usability is the most important factor. The creation and linking of information must be at least as easy as using e.g. Mind Mapping tools (e.g. FreeMind, MindManager) combined with easy to use structured topic content editor (e.g. tools like Xopus or XMAX goes into this direction).
There’s more to come? Lets see....
If you have to describe any technical subject you are aware that knowledge is hard to express in a straight linear sequence of information topics. In most cases you have to structure the information into information tropics and semantic connection between those => a network of information topics.
Nothing new and a trivial statement, you might say. All semantic concepts are using those principle buildup.
Yes, but why most technical subjects are still using documents or slide shows to express technical subjects?
Those media formats are linear by design. The reader has to follow the one and only linear flow defined by the author of the document. In the best case the author is able to find one of the sufficient linear paths through the network of information and the reader is therefore able to understand the described subject. But even in this case getting the hole picture, identify ways to extend the provided information, embed it to different subject etc. isn't possible or at least requires to re-construct the information tree in mind.
Ask yourself why you are using
- A word processing software to define project information (requirements, design specification, test specification, ....)
- Power Point to introduce a particular problem domain
- A word processing software to trace a result of a workshop (also known as workshop protocol)
- ....
Alternatives?
I'm pretty sure that in the future documents will be replaced with applications which providing a way to describe topics as short topics and makes it easy to connect those topics with semantic links (e.g. depends on, contains, .....). A document in this scenario is just one path through the network of information for one particular use case. This kind of application can replace todays word processing software without loosing any important feature.
In the domain of technical writing topic based authoring (e.g. using DITA information architecture) becomes more and more popular. The main use case there is to (re-)use information as much as possible to reduce creation and information maintenance costs. In my point of view that is "only" a important side effect of having the content defined in a much more usable form. Not a linear sequence of information reflecting a group of authors view but as more or less complete set of information topics linked together. The todays results are still linear documents of some format (pdf, online help formats, ....) but that only corroborate the belief that linear documents are mainstream.
Open Issue
The usability of topic based authoring isn't sufficient today. It is more or less a hand crafted creation of enriched information. To dive into the mainstream usability is the most important factor. The creation and linking of information must be at least as easy as using e.g. Mind Mapping tools (e.g. FreeMind, MindManager) combined with easy to use structured topic content editor (e.g. tools like Xopus or XMAX goes into this direction).
There’s more to come? Lets see....
Monday, May 17, 2010
Why, What and How
If you want to define a RFP (Request for Quotation) / RFP (Request for Proposal) or you have to answer those requests you are forced to define or understand requirements for a particular product or solution.
There are lot's of good sources showing how to write and handle requirements. But often they miss one important fact which makes either the creation, prioritization and understanding of requirements much easier. The Why instead of the What.
Rational
What is the rational, the reason for a particular requirement. If you try to understand the Why or if you forced to define the Why the resulting requirements / usage of the requirement are much more valid than without doing this.
The "What" does not tell anyone the real intention of a solution. The why provides the motivation and business value and therefore the baseline for effectiveness which makes or makes not a requirement right to exists.
ToDo
There are lot's of good sources showing how to write and handle requirements. But often they miss one important fact which makes either the creation, prioritization and understanding of requirements much easier. The Why instead of the What.
Rational
- First set the baseline for effectiveness. (Why)
- Than define what you need to be effective. (What)
- And at the end define the efficiency. (How)
What is the rational, the reason for a particular requirement. If you try to understand the Why or if you forced to define the Why the resulting requirements / usage of the requirement are much more valid than without doing this.
The "What" does not tell anyone the real intention of a solution. The why provides the motivation and business value and therefore the baseline for effectiveness which makes or makes not a requirement right to exists.
ToDo
- Before you start to define any requirement try to define the major "Whys" you intent to solve. Keep in mind that there must no requirement which cannot be derived from those high level whys.
- derive each use-case / requirement from one of the major why areas and add a specific rational for the individual use-case / requirement.
- classify / prioritize the requirements based on the rational.
- Derive the "How". In this step the statement of efficiency is the key for selection of the right solution.
- The defined requirements are much easier to understand and alternatives can be much easier identified and qualified.
- Prioritization can be much easier coordinated to management because the consequence of a decision for the "Why" and therefore the company / department goals are always clear even if someone does not have detailed knowledge of the subject matter.
=>ensure effectiveness - Definition of the system requirements / How can focused on efficiency.
=>ensure efficiency
Monday, March 08, 2010
CMS of what kind?
stumbled upon "Microsoft SharePoint: The CMS Killer" blog post. A personal view how MS SharePoint fits for ECMS use cases.
The results might be wrong or write depending on what your understanding of CMS is.
Problem
There is no common understanding of the the term CMS and even not for the derived term ECMS.
Cause
CMS means Content Management System. Based on this definition it is a application (system) to manage content. Thats trivial but what does content really means? Content is all and everything. Most of the content can be managed within IT systems as well.
Illustration
General categories of content maintained by IT applications:
The corresponding consultants knowing the mentioned issue and trying to create domain specific names for specific usage of systems
Examples
This reflects the current state of content management. I expect in the next few years that new and maybe existing systems will move into the semi-structured content area and some of them might succeed. They might reach the final goal that content can be create, maintain, re-purpose and publish based on different user communities from one single source.
Until that stage is reached....coming back to initial "Microsoft SharePoint: The CMS Killer" statement. Ask the author what kind of content use-case he has in mind and you can validate the statement.
The results might be wrong or write depending on what your understanding of CMS is.
Problem
There is no common understanding of the the term CMS and even not for the derived term ECMS.
Cause
CMS means Content Management System. Based on this definition it is a application (system) to manage content. Thats trivial but what does content really means? Content is all and everything. Most of the content can be managed within IT systems as well.
Illustration
General categories of content maintained by IT applications:
- Structured content
Content maintained and structured as a collection of data (order or offer data). Content in this context means a collection of records with given structure
Those type of data are typical maintained with applications called ERP or other kind of systems of this type (e.g. ALM systems). - Unstructured content
Content maintained within documents. The content within the document is not addressable outside the application the document was created with (the semantic makes only sense in one specific usage scenario).
Those type of data are typical maintained with applications called DMS or Web-CMS (maintaining HTML) systems.
- Semi-structured content
Content used to create documents (information products) of some kind. The content within the document is addressable outside the application the document was created with.
OR
Content maintained as system independent instance of data (e.g. order or offer data).
In both cases XML is the common format today.
The corresponding consultants knowing the mentioned issue and trying to create domain specific names for specific usage of systems
- DBMS
Main goal is to maintain relational data and used by dedicated applications on top. - DMS
Main goal is to maintain documents - Web-CMS
Main goal is to maintain intranet / extranet / internet sites - ECMS
Enterprise-CMS
Main goal is to provide enterprise ready workflow and records management on top of DMS feature set - CCMS
Component-CMS
Main goal is to maintain content stored in XML for single-source publishing - ?
anything i missed, of course there are plenty of buzzwords / domains out there describing mixed-scenario usage.
Examples
- a C-CMS vendor might support xml usage and publishing very well but does not scale if enterprise workflow or records management is required.
- a ECMS vendor has enterprise BPM support build in but lacks of sophisticated xml semantic and functions.
- a Web-CMS makes creating your Internet presence easy but lacks the usage of the same content for printed documents
- .....
This reflects the current state of content management. I expect in the next few years that new and maybe existing systems will move into the semi-structured content area and some of them might succeed. They might reach the final goal that content can be create, maintain, re-purpose and publish based on different user communities from one single source.
Until that stage is reached....coming back to initial "Microsoft SharePoint: The CMS Killer" statement. Ask the author what kind of content use-case he has in mind and you can validate the statement.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
(re)use of content
(re)use of content is a common topic in almost each domain has to deal with content. the rational is obvious and easy: use of existing content is faster and cheaper than creating new one.
there are two major requirements to (re)use content:
if existing content is created for the same business object and for the same information type as the new content you have to create.
to extend this scenario you can deviate your content from existing one if either the business object or information type is also derivate from the content you intend to use.
to derivate a test case from corresponding use case is obvious and valid as long as the business object both belonging to are the same. if a certain engine exists in three variants each derivate from a common building block the corresponding content is obvious also valid to use and derivate.
as you see usage of content requires both knowledge and connection to the business and to the content itself.
because of this many (re)use scenario fails in the real world (look into your own domain -- do you satisfy with your content (re)use?)
if you look at the two dimension enables usage of content you might understand that in many cases the usage of content between companies might be higher than the usage of content within one company. in many cases competitors dealing with similar business objects and information types beside different departments within one company might not.
this means that if the information types are not critical for a certain domain cross domain usage of content will become a possibility once the information itself is interchangeable (thats a topic for its own).
usage of translation is one of the most obvious scenario for cross company usage. because translation becomes more and more a cost center but is also a business driver the usage of common translation memories between companies working in the same domain is of course thinkable. content already translated for nokia might be used by sony as well, same is true for BMW and Daimler.
the "Language Data Exchange Portal" shows how this might work. each member provides content and funding and can participate from the complete pool of data available. as better the content is classified as better the results each company has......more to come?
there are two major requirements to (re)use content:
- you need a business object the content belongs to
otherwise it is impossible to identify existing content and determine if this content is worth to use - you need a well defined information type the content belongs to
only if you know what type of content you have to create allows you to identify if it may already exist
if existing content is created for the same business object and for the same information type as the new content you have to create.
to extend this scenario you can deviate your content from existing one if either the business object or information type is also derivate from the content you intend to use.
to derivate a test case from corresponding use case is obvious and valid as long as the business object both belonging to are the same. if a certain engine exists in three variants each derivate from a common building block the corresponding content is obvious also valid to use and derivate.
as you see usage of content requires both knowledge and connection to the business and to the content itself.
because of this many (re)use scenario fails in the real world (look into your own domain -- do you satisfy with your content (re)use?)
if you look at the two dimension enables usage of content you might understand that in many cases the usage of content between companies might be higher than the usage of content within one company. in many cases competitors dealing with similar business objects and information types beside different departments within one company might not.
this means that if the information types are not critical for a certain domain cross domain usage of content will become a possibility once the information itself is interchangeable (thats a topic for its own).
usage of translation is one of the most obvious scenario for cross company usage. because translation becomes more and more a cost center but is also a business driver the usage of common translation memories between companies working in the same domain is of course thinkable. content already translated for nokia might be used by sony as well, same is true for BMW and Daimler.
the "Language Data Exchange Portal" shows how this might work. each member provides content and funding and can participate from the complete pool of data available. as better the content is classified as better the results each company has......more to come?
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Google Wave: backbone for real information collaboration
beside Microsoft still working on getting search on existing information done (last try http://www.bing.com/) Google tries to re-invent the creation, usage and collaboration of information with upcoming "Google Wave".
having a deeper look into the already available information the most interesting part of the design is that the complete architecture is based on hosted information transformation based on a group of humans and automated participants. the overall architecture looks clean and the demo provided here: http://www.youtube.com/v/v_UyVmITiYQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0 looks promising.
such kind of infrastructure has the capability to be used in all kind information centric workflows especially those happens in the "cloud". creation and further development of engineering artifacts from customer requirements to user stories to design documents and testing artifacts up to the usage of the same information in technical docs created for them. such workflow always requires a information object centric architecture and in addition collaboration feature sets.
we have to see if Wave will succeed, means if developer comunity contribute and use the existing extension points if so, i'm looking forward to see what can be done with this promising infrastructure.....
in my point of view the future of information goes away from document paradigm and end up in the a more message oriented paradigm where a group of people work on structured / semi-structured information objects (messages / topics) and assemble them in a final stage in each business workflow to a document, web-page, calculation sheet, ..... this means a document is "just one output for one audience" and describe just one usage of the information at a certain time.
in those days search is still essential but just as one way to navigate through the specific information pool and only if the hits are relevant for further usage (try to search for "Microsoft" on www.bing.com and see if the provided hits are relevant enough for you.....)
see also:
http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/06/wave
http://mashable.com/2009/05/31/google-wave-features/
having a deeper look into the already available information the most interesting part of the design is that the complete architecture is based on hosted information transformation based on a group of humans and automated participants. the overall architecture looks clean and the demo provided here: http://www.youtube.com/v/v_UyVmITiYQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0 looks promising.
such kind of infrastructure has the capability to be used in all kind information centric workflows especially those happens in the "cloud". creation and further development of engineering artifacts from customer requirements to user stories to design documents and testing artifacts up to the usage of the same information in technical docs created for them. such workflow always requires a information object centric architecture and in addition collaboration feature sets.
we have to see if Wave will succeed, means if developer comunity contribute and use the existing extension points if so, i'm looking forward to see what can be done with this promising infrastructure.....
in my point of view the future of information goes away from document paradigm and end up in the a more message oriented paradigm where a group of people work on structured / semi-structured information objects (messages / topics) and assemble them in a final stage in each business workflow to a document, web-page, calculation sheet, ..... this means a document is "just one output for one audience" and describe just one usage of the information at a certain time.
in those days search is still essential but just as one way to navigate through the specific information pool and only if the hits are relevant for further usage (try to search for "Microsoft" on www.bing.com and see if the provided hits are relevant enough for you.....)
see also:
http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/06/wave
http://mashable.com/2009/05/31/google-wave-features/
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
content & service composition: small and simple showcase
if you want to see and learn how easy a information aggregation use case incl. corresponding presentation can be solved take a look at "Make dashboards with XQuery".
this sample is all about composition, from content and service (functional) point of view.
most of the concepts required in the file of information processing are involved. even if the implementation has drawbacks and limitation in several points you see how information centric requirements can be solved.
this sample is all about composition, from content and service (functional) point of view.
most of the concepts required in the file of information processing are involved. even if the implementation has drawbacks and limitation in several points you see how information centric requirements can be solved.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
open usage of sequence of data points
lot of important data out there are simple "Time series" data, means a sequence of one or more data points change over time.
a service to share and use such data is Timetric. currently the amount of user and useful time series are small but in general such pretty platform can deploy common time series from many different domains.
problem
who takes care that the shared data is correct and therefore is valuable to use? all services based on public contribution and usage are faced with the same issue. do you trust the data you see? do you trust wikipedia? in general you should not. you have to double check at least 2 different sources before you use the provided data.
in addition once you double checked your data you have to make sure that the quality of data is guaranteed over time. that is much more difficult.
solution?
if the data is mission critical you should not use data before validating them. in case of non static data you have to validate the data each time they change. this means that you either need more than one data source as service which are not based on same data source or you have to look and buy commercial services takes care of the provided data or you request the service from the organization owns / collecting the data. each of those solution requires special handling for the particular domain.
summary
availability of public data service are promising but i currently do not see a available model to trust in. therefore usage is pretty limited only for some kind of "outline view"
a service to share and use such data is Timetric. currently the amount of user and useful time series are small but in general such pretty platform can deploy common time series from many different domains.
problem
who takes care that the shared data is correct and therefore is valuable to use? all services based on public contribution and usage are faced with the same issue. do you trust the data you see? do you trust wikipedia? in general you should not. you have to double check at least 2 different sources before you use the provided data.
in addition once you double checked your data you have to make sure that the quality of data is guaranteed over time. that is much more difficult.
solution?
if the data is mission critical you should not use data before validating them. in case of non static data you have to validate the data each time they change. this means that you either need more than one data source as service which are not based on same data source or you have to look and buy commercial services takes care of the provided data or you request the service from the organization owns / collecting the data. each of those solution requires special handling for the particular domain.
summary
availability of public data service are promising but i currently do not see a available model to trust in. therefore usage is pretty limited only for some kind of "outline view"
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Information Dynamics
i stumbled over a dissertation which focus on "Information, Their Effects and Management in Supply Chains". unfortunately the paper is only available in German. quotation from the summary:
take the time and read the paper, it provides a interesting view on effect and impact of information in SCM.
I therefore suggest focusing SCM initiatives on information processing and information efficiency in order to enhance overall system behaviour and efficiency.
take the time and read the paper, it provides a interesting view on effect and impact of information in SCM.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
IT centric projects likely to fail
during the last two years many projects around trends like "social networking" / Web 2.0 comes to IT departments. the IT guys reading stories from well known vendors like Microsoft that collaboration and information sharing is one of the most important trends for next years.
they take this input and run to their sponsors (business departments) and ask them if they have trouble maintaining information around in their daily business and surprise, surprise they received a "yes we have problems".
why?
most of todays problems are caused by incufficient information lifecycle. the core buisness assets are more or less maintained by information supporting and guiding the core buisness assets are still not really under control. project teams are not able to share a common view of project / work related information, information get lost from one human interfact to the next. supporting documents are not findable even if they exist somewhere.....
IT trys to fix this
they hire few consultants train them installing the product of interests providing wiki, blog, chat, document managment functionality. if they are smart enough they ask the buisness department for their requirements and now they try to setup a pilot using their product of choice.
great everything works after few days of development.....business departments start to use the good new world....solution gets adapted and released.....
one year later looking back and surprise, surprise the problems still the same just in another layout.
this story happens several times during the last year. Look at the most MS Sharepoint related projects out their -- most of them a great experience for the IT / consultants and developers but few or zero benefit for the business.
why?
its simple and everybody knows the answer. IT systems doesn't solve a problem and on the other hand are not the cause of the problem. the problem is caused and must be solved within the business process itself. IT systems can only provide sufficient support for certain steps in the process if the process and connected process itself is healthy.
example
if business people claim they always faced with outdated information the cause is manifold. there might be no process to update the corresponding information at a certain step in the process. there might be no time to update the known information source, there might be no information which are the relevant information source for other people in the team, there might be redundant information source and the wrong one is used.......
sounds trivial and obvious but....
why we still faced with IT centric projects?
and therefore both parties believe they solve a existing problem but they simple implement a solution to decant the problem into another IT solution.
summary
never try to solve a existing problem related to information management never introduce a IT solution first. enforce the business to solve and describe their problems using the existing tool chain and try to identify the CAUSE of the problem. if this is done and works successful the areas a IT solution can support is easy to identify and now its much easier to identify which IT solutions is the right one to choose....
p.s.
i don't say that the mentioned product MS Sharepoint is good or bad but it is a product IT tend to play with and therefore a good example many working people faced with....
they take this input and run to their sponsors (business departments) and ask them if they have trouble maintaining information around in their daily business and surprise, surprise they received a "yes we have problems".
why?
most of todays problems are caused by incufficient information lifecycle. the core buisness assets are more or less maintained by information supporting and guiding the core buisness assets are still not really under control. project teams are not able to share a common view of project / work related information, information get lost from one human interfact to the next. supporting documents are not findable even if they exist somewhere.....
IT trys to fix this
they hire few consultants train them installing the product of interests providing wiki, blog, chat, document managment functionality. if they are smart enough they ask the buisness department for their requirements and now they try to setup a pilot using their product of choice.
great everything works after few days of development.....business departments start to use the good new world....solution gets adapted and released.....
one year later looking back and surprise, surprise the problems still the same just in another layout.
this story happens several times during the last year. Look at the most MS Sharepoint related projects out their -- most of them a great experience for the IT / consultants and developers but few or zero benefit for the business.
why?
its simple and everybody knows the answer. IT systems doesn't solve a problem and on the other hand are not the cause of the problem. the problem is caused and must be solved within the business process itself. IT systems can only provide sufficient support for certain steps in the process if the process and connected process itself is healthy.
example
if business people claim they always faced with outdated information the cause is manifold. there might be no process to update the corresponding information at a certain step in the process. there might be no time to update the known information source, there might be no information which are the relevant information source for other people in the team, there might be redundant information source and the wrong one is used.......
sounds trivial and obvious but....
why we still faced with IT centric projects?
- IT people are happy to develop new solutions
+ - business people are happy to find someone guilty for existing problems.
+ - IT people don't like to identify the real cause they are mainly focus on the solution.
+ - business people cannot image what a certain IT solution mean for their daily business.
+ - IT people don't understand the CAUSE they only understand the PROBLEM itself (expressed in "requirements")
and therefore both parties believe they solve a existing problem but they simple implement a solution to decant the problem into another IT solution.
summary
never try to solve a existing problem related to information management never introduce a IT solution first. enforce the business to solve and describe their problems using the existing tool chain and try to identify the CAUSE of the problem. if this is done and works successful the areas a IT solution can support is easy to identify and now its much easier to identify which IT solutions is the right one to choose....
p.s.
i don't say that the mentioned product MS Sharepoint is good or bad but it is a product IT tend to play with and therefore a good example many working people faced with....
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
RIA for information deployment
during the last couple of years the requirements to (software) applications changing in many ways:
this in particular means that the information must designed to provide
if we look into the information deployment process (other part of information lifecycle is part of subsequent blog posts) one of the most interesting answers to this question is the usage of RIA frameworks for that purpose.
most promising application looking at information deployment is "Adobe AIR".
why:
next step would be to define a gap analysis which features is missing in Adobe AIR and which buisness goal is therefore not fulfilled based on current available platform. i will do this during the next few weeks...see what the results are.
- from application to solution
=> customer is able to configure a solution based on provided services and corresponding orchestration and configuration - from static deployment to dynamic deployment
=>customer is able to update a bought component via online connection. new solution feature can be added, configuration can be changed based on demand. - from function oriented usage to process oriented usage
=>the application functions are embedded in business tasks reflecting the business process of different user group. different user groups therefore faced with different application behavior.
this in particular means that the information must designed to provide
- size on demand
each information product can be configured to fit one particular product installation. product configuration can change over time - update on demand
information updates can be provided as fast as possible using "online channels". on the other hand content must be available without any "online channel" available. - workflow related content mapping
information must not only map to a particular function of the product as already done with e.g. context sensitive onine helps. the information must be mapped and aligned with the workflow / buisness process the production customer intent to use the product
if we look into the information deployment process (other part of information lifecycle is part of subsequent blog posts) one of the most interesting answers to this question is the usage of RIA frameworks for that purpose.
most promising application looking at information deployment is "Adobe AIR".
why:
- most of the required features are part of the design focus or already implemented
- Adobe has selected information products in mind (using RoboHelp for creating online help for Air).
- DITA user community start development of a corresponding plugin to create Adobe AIR help from content created using DITA architecture. (see http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/dita-users/message/12821
next step would be to define a gap analysis which features is missing in Adobe AIR and which buisness goal is therefore not fulfilled based on current available platform. i will do this during the next few weeks...see what the results are.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Wiki: solves collaboration & information sharing?
i often hear statements that using a wiki platform will solve our company problem in collaboration and information sharing.
based on my personal experience most of the wiki project's seen in reality failing silent, means they start with more or less enthusiasm but end up in either
by the way there are wiki projects out there (internet -> wikipedia, intranet) which are successful.
what makes them successful?
in my personal point of view, each successful "information process" requires at least
the most successfull wiki project Wikipedia provides the mentioned guidlines all in an open and collaborative way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Contributing_to_Wikipedia)
one thing does not work is to setup a wiki platform and post a link to all potential users without any additional hard work.
always remember: providing information not more but not less than hard work. the more value a information must provide the more hard work is required to create them.
based on my personal experience most of the wiki project's seen in reality failing silent, means they start with more or less enthusiasm but end up in either
- content silos with outdated, bad findable information chunks
or - unused part of the companies intranet / IT infrastructure
or - derived by only a handful contributers and users
by the way there are wiki projects out there (internet -> wikipedia, intranet) which are successful.
what makes them successful?
in my personal point of view, each successful "information process" requires at least
- definition of common information lifecycle
- who has to create which kind of information?
- which criteries must be fulfilled to define a information object as usable?
- which kind of subject matter expert must a involved for which kind of information
.... - and common information taxonomie
- what kind of information must be maintained
- what kind of common classification do we use
- best practices for structuring the information
.... - and people who create, maintain and use the information
- training is required
- advantages and usage of information must be part of common understanding => people must see personal benefit in using and maintaining the information
....
the most successfull wiki project Wikipedia provides the mentioned guidlines all in an open and collaborative way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Contributing_to_Wikipedia)
one thing does not work is to setup a wiki platform and post a link to all potential users without any additional hard work.
always remember: providing information not more but not less than hard work. the more value a information must provide the more hard work is required to create them.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Buzzwording continues?
the IT industry is very innovative in creating and consuming buzzwords. from year to year at least one new trend alongside with one or more buzzwords are created.
main reason for that success is the corresponding visibility and based on that the opportunity to get budget. the main characteristic of such terms is that there are no formal definition of what is really the essence / definition of such term but on the other hand everybody seems to have a clear and complete understanding and definition for the term / buzzword.
second characteristic of such terms is that a common trend is associated with those terms.
and last but not least the life cycle of such trends are pretty similar, approx. 1/2 year until everybody is aware of it (through publications, blog posts, articles), 1 year highest awareness incl. associated investments and at the end the trend will be replaced by next one.
that looks pretty similar to fashion industry and in my point of view there is not too much structural differences between a new fashion trend and a IT trend.
just a small list of buzzwords from the last few years:
main reason for that success is the corresponding visibility and based on that the opportunity to get budget. the main characteristic of such terms is that there are no formal definition of what is really the essence / definition of such term but on the other hand everybody seems to have a clear and complete understanding and definition for the term / buzzword.
second characteristic of such terms is that a common trend is associated with those terms.
and last but not least the life cycle of such trends are pretty similar, approx. 1/2 year until everybody is aware of it (through publications, blog posts, articles), 1 year highest awareness incl. associated investments and at the end the trend will be replaced by next one.
that looks pretty similar to fashion industry and in my point of view there is not too much structural differences between a new fashion trend and a IT trend.
just a small list of buzzwords from the last few years:
- ....
- SOA (Service Oriented Architecture)
- xxx 2.0 (esp. Web 2.0)
- Semantic Web
- SaaS (Software as a Service)
- PaaS (Platform as a Service)
- Cloud computing
- .....
- consistent access to required information at the right time at the right place
- get rid of increasing IT complexity
- get rid of proprietary vendor driven information silos
- reduce Total cost of ownership for hosting the available information within a company
- improve collaboration between different business groups
- improve adaptability to changing business requirements
- ....
- usage of dedicated and well defined services for business automation
- pay for usage of a defined service level instead of paying for hardware / software and corresponding maintenance (what really cares is the service that automates a certain business step)
- architecture that adapts fast and controlled to change of business requirements (changed SLA) and not to changed IT requirements
- .....
Saturday, January 03, 2009
xml processing in TecDoc industry
based on my previous talk on German tekom conference the main rational and corresponding issues behind xml / xml processing are defined here. to avoid translation of content i decided to post the content in German. slides are available here.
Warum sollte man sich im Umfeld der technischen Dokumentation mit Pipelinesprachen insbesondere mit XML basierten Pipelinesprachen beschäftigen?
Zwei Thesen zur Begründung
These 1 – Nutzen von Information
Der Nutzen von Informationseinheiten steigt mit der Anzahl der Prozesse, die auf diesen angewendet werden.
Erstellt und liefert ein Unternehmen Gebrauchsanweisungen in Papier für sich sehr stark unterscheidende Produktgruppen in nur einer Sprache, so sind die darin enthaltenen Informationen relativ einfach zu erstellen und verwalten aber der Nutzen der Information für das Unternehmen sehr gering. Die Bedeutung und der Wert der Information nimmt mit jedem zusätzlichen Nutzer der Information (zusätzliche Online Hilfe, Sprachvarianten, Produktvarianten, Nutzung der Information in Produktschnittstelle....) zu.
Zur Nutzenmaximierung muss somit die Anzahl der Verwender einer Information innerhalb der Anwendungsfallspezifischen Rahmenbedingungen maximiert werden. Jede Verwendung von Information basiert auf der Etablierung eines Prozesses zur Verwendung dieser(Erstellung eines Handlungsanleitenden Textes in deutsch, Wiederverwenden von dedizierten Informationsbausteinen einer Sprache, Erstellung einer Variante innerhalb eines bestehenden Informationsbausteines, Publikation einer Online Hilfe, ....). Da jeder Prozess die Komplexität des Gesamtprozesses erhöht steigt der Aufwand über den Gesamtprozess des Informationslebenszyklus mit jedem zusätzlichen Prozess, d.h. mit jeder zusätzlichen Verwendung der Information.
These 2 – Prozesse auf Informationen
Prozesse auf Informationseinheiten sind zum überwiegenden Teil innerhalb eines Unternehmens und sogar Unternehmensübergreifend identisch. Dies bedeutet im Umkehrschluss, das sich die Branche im Umfeld der technischen Dokumentation mit den Auswirkungen von „marginalen“ Unterschieden befasst. Die Unterschiede liegen im Wesentlichen in unterschiedlichen Informationsquellen (Art, Ablage, Format, ....) und den zu liefernden Informationsprodukten(Unternehmensspezifische Styleguides, zu liefernde Formate, ....).
Die Vielzahl von individuellen und spezifischen Prozessen ist weitgehend der fehlenden Zerlegung der Prozesse und der fehlenden übergreifenden Standardisierung von Prozessbestandteilen zuzuschreiben.
Die notwendigen Informationsbestandteile für jedes Kundendokument müssen anhand variabler Eingangsparameter identifiziert und bereitgestellt und schließlich zusammengebaut werden. Das Kundendokument wird mit angereichert, d.h. erhält einen oder mehrere Index mit definierten Anforderungen, ein Glossar, TOC, usw. Schlussendlich erfolgt eine Überführung nach HTML, PDF oder andere Formate. Eine weitere Zergliederung dieser Teilschritte führt für jeden dieser Schritte zu einem grossteil identischer und einer kleinen Anzahl spezifischer Schritte.
Schlüssel zum Erfolg
Um den Nutzen seiner Information nachhaltig zu maximieren muss dies mit einer konsequenten Zerlegung der Prozesse in ihre atomaren Bestandteile und somit der maximalen Nutzung vorhandener Prozessbestandteile (und das zugrunde liegende Wissen darüber) erfolgen. Somit kann der Aufwand und die Komplexität für die Nutzung von Informationseinheiten im Verhältnis zum Nutzen gering gehalten werden.
SMILA (SeMantic Information Logistics Architecture)
"SMILA (SeMantic Information Logistics Architecture) is an extensible framework
for building search solutions to access unstructured information in the enterprise.
Besides providing essential infrastructure components and services, SMILA also delivers
ready-to-use add-on components, like connectors to most relevant data sources."
initiated by German based company empolis this project seems to be promising in solving one common problem while dealing with todays information overflow:
- identification and access to information relevant for a given business task / process
- integration of "unstructured" information in corresponding business process
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)