Subscribe to newsletterGlobal intranets – different challenges, different paths
Following my previous blog post on how intranet and portal landscapes evolve, I will develop 3 evolutionary paths in more detail in this post. (click to enlarge diagram)
Path 1 – The Red Path
This is typical of an enterprise that starts from a home country base or what I call a “single geography” context, and then either acquires other companies or is part of one or more mergers. The comfortable single geography intranet (1A) has now become part of a diverse set of intranets (1B) where it is not longer so easy to find content, to know where to publish, to even know which other intranets exist!
The Center will try to take control of the situation. I’ve seen a wide variety of methods ranging from creating a global intranet team (the white hat approach) to decreeing rules from HQ and sending them out as an attachment to an email signed by the CEO (the black hat approach).
Some of the landscapes will evolve to a more or less standardized family of intranets with agreements on roles and scopes for each (1C). In today’s world of information overload and web 2.0 opportunities, they may eventually move to a single-point of entry, possibly even a truly integrated portal over time (1D) but it will take time.
Other landscapes may stay blocked for years, with frustration felt from the center and from the entities. The breakthrough will occur when they realize that it is the management and people who will make the changes happen, not the technology or the rules.
Path 2 – The Green Path
This is typical of many enterprises born and raised in the US, then evolving into international and eventually global operations. The intranets in the different countries where the enterprise sets up will be built with the cookie cutter approach, or what we can call “cut and paste”, each one being a copy of the home country intranet, give or take a little (2B).
If the enterprise has no acquisitions, participates in no mergers, continues its fairly controlled organic growth, and has a homogenous product or service offering worldwide, it may eventually evolve to an integrated portal, with a high degree of customization per country primarily for HR, administrative and logistical aspects. (2C).
If any of the “ifs” above occur, it will likely deviate through a longer path including phases of the “diverse” model, moving to the “standardized” model before reaching the portal model. It will in fact have followed a path similar to the Red one, but possibly even longer because the “cut and paste” model will have momentarily created a comfortable illusion that “we all do things the same way”.
Enterprises on the Red Path have known for a long time that “we do not all do things the same way!”
Path 3 – The Blue Path
This is typical of an enterprise or holding company created through numerous, nearly simultaneous, acquisitions. The intranet landscape is a mixture of very different, non connected sites, portals, intranets, even Notes databases (3A).
If there is commonality among the businesses, the intranet may evolve to the standardized model (3B) although it will be very hard work.
One day, the organization may decide it needs a single point of entry (3C). However, it is highly unlikely that it will ever become more than a thin portal with news from HQ and the businesses, multiple links to the information resources and intranets of the organization, and a corporate directory (although it will take years to include all the entities). It will primarily be a unifying layer of common information placed on top of the standardized model.
I invite comments from those of you who are on one of these paths, or a different one…
2 Responses to “Global intranets – different challenges, different paths”
Comments are now closed
August 1st, 2007 at 1:22 am
Global intranets – different challenges, different paths
Jane McConnell has written an excellent entry on detailed evolutionary models for global intranets. To quote: The Centre will try to take control of the situation. I’ve seen a wide variety of methods ranging from creating a global intranet team…
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Interesting post! The difference between companies started in the USA wrt intranet evolution is interesting. What is your explanation for this fact? The way US companies are organized? Organizational culture?
My company relates to path 3. We are now working on one global intranet. Why do you say: it is highly unlikely these organisations will do what we are doing now?
Final question: to a large extent I agree with your model. But don’t you think there’s an intermediat step somewhere between 3B en C, or 2B and C etc in which local intranets are migrated one-by-one to one global intranet?