Subscribe to newsletterYour intranet language reveals your intranet attitude
The words people use when talking about their intranet often reveal more than they realize. At the risk of over-simplifying, I’d like to share some impressions.
1. Which word do you use when talking about your intranet?
(My impressions in parentheses!)
- Users (Sounds passive, very IT-oriented, makes me think of “user manuals”.)
- Clients (“They are outside, we are inside.” “They are separate from us.” IT often use this term to refer to the business managers in their organizations which suggests IT and business do not work hand-in-hand.)
- Staff (I dislike this collective noun - like sugar, coffee, etc. - not a group of diverse, living individuals.)
- Employees (At least is has an ‘s’ on it!, still on the receiving end because opposed to employer, reminds me of now, out-dated B2E portals.)
- Co-workers (We work together. The intranet is for us all. However, disadvantage is that it may exclude management, in which case, it’s not so good.)
- People (Perhaps too vague, but has the advantage of not being limited to employees. It also does not put a label on people. Very appropriate for co-innovative ways of working. I prefer this one.)
2. How do you react if I ask “Do you have any user-generated content on your intranet?”
- You say “no” or “not yet”. (You don’t have social media features yet, which puts you in a very small minority!)
- You say “all content is generated by users”. (You realize that content comes from people, and that everyone is a user in one way or another, but we really know what we mean! It’s clearer to refer to managed and unmanaged content.)
4. Do you have an overall intranet role called ‘”editor” or an “editorial policy” for your intranet?
- Yes. (The intranet is most likely owned and managed by the communications department and positioned primarily as a communications tool. You work in a culture of control, because these terms originated from the world of paper, where it was actually possible to control the message, as well as when, how and to whom it was sent.)
- No, but we have a news section on the intranet with an editor.
(Much better, but hopefully the section is not completely controlled by the “editor”!)
5. Which of the following terms do you use?
- Knowledge management (Long gone in theory, but I still hear it even though most KM initiatives fail. This reflects a top-down philosophy.)
- Knowledge sharing (Definitely better, more horizontal. More realistic, but still abstract.)
- Connecting people (We know this is the way it happens. It’s question of how: how to support people, and how to provide some structure, context and stability to the exchanges.)
Of course, there’s no “perfect language”. Every word has connotations.
What are your likes and dislikes in intranet-speak?
13 Responses to “Your intranet language reveals your intranet attitude”
Comments are now closed
September 20th, 2010 at 7:23 am
Your intranet language reveals your intranet attitude – Jane McConnell…
This article has been submitted to IntranetLounge, a website with a collection of links to the best articles about intranets…
September 20th, 2010 at 7:39 am
Recently, I have been thinking that “users” have some unfortunate
Re. Editors, You’re right about the comms perspective, however, it may not only be about control. It may also be that you have a system which requires more in-depth knowledge (yes, they still exist!), so you need to appoint editors/super users/content responsibles thus creating a more specific role for them.
September 20th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Hah! I like the point about ‘managed’ and ‘unmanaged’ content rather than the whole ‘user generated’ debate
Are we really giving up on Knowledge Management? I’ve never seen it done well (perhaps I’ve never seen it done…) and I can see ‘knowledge sharing’ happening quite naturally, if people are given decent comms tools.
September 22nd, 2010 at 6:23 am
I agree that users may echo the techy origins of the word. I disagree that users are passive (no, they USE the current communication tools, so they are active).
Users is a much better word than audiences, which is currently still the preferred legacy word used in communication policies.
September 22nd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Martin: it’s more the word “editor” that I dislike so much. “Super user”, “content responsibles” are great terms.
I take note that you say this is sometimes because the system is hard to use. Unfortunately, technical issues still block ease of sharing.
Wedge: Ditto re “decent comms tools”. You and Martin are making the same point. Shows how critical the usability of tools really is.
Luc: Absolutely agree that “users” is miles better than “audiences”. The only reason I don’t like “users” is it somehow suggests “receivers”.
Once I tried to get a client to say “user” when we talked about the major stakeholders (HR and Comms specifically) because they definitely USE the system to get their jobs done. The client just couldn’t do it. Users were the employees, using whatever they were given. I’m only exaggerating a little!
September 23rd, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Jane, thanks for the great insights. I actually like the term “editor” (and yes, I come from Corporate Communications). But who else would have the role of collaborating with subject-matter experts to help make their content understandable to non-SMEs? We’ve found that people who are very close to their content (including me) often forget to provide that context, and then people going to their site don’t understand what they’re supposed to do there. Thoughts?
September 24th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Jane,
I think sometimes I use the wrong nomenclature purely out of habit – notably “users”. However I do think hearing these terms can be a good early warning signal that someone is using Enterprise 1.0 thinking in an Enterprise 2.0 world.
Kevin
September 24th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Cheryl, it’s excellent that you have a person or people who are “helping subject matter experts make content understandable”. Many organizations are not able (because of resource limitations), or simply do not do this.
In this context, the word “editor” is much like an editor working with a book author, adding value by providing advice on how to make the content more accessible to non-experts.
I’ve usually seen “editors” on intranets simply write corporate content or correct/adjust what comes from local content providers.
What you’re describing is “facilitating understanding”. It requires a close relationship with the subject matter experts. I don’t have an alternative to suggest for this role.
I’ll think about it more. Maybe someone reading this blog will have an idea? That said, if the word “editor” has positive connotations in your organization, there’s no reason to change it! NO reason to fix what is not broken.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Agree- but it’s difficult to change the language you use when it’s so well established in the organization.
As well as an judicator of attitude it’s a sign of heritage. Users, KM etc are IT words, employees and connecting people are HR words.
In our organization the editor is really a forum moderator- and is well respected by the community. Not like our communications people at all
October 6th, 2010 at 7:13 am
Hi Luke,
Quite a juxtaposition between the title “editor” and the role of “forum moderator”, but if it works, that’s what counts!
Does this surprise newcomers? Or do they even notice?
October 13th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Jane,
Your post really got me thinking. @Wedge – I have seen it work! Which is why I struggle all the more because I’ve also seen social intranets and collaborative communities work – without the KM discipline, editors et al.
So in my experience both approaches can work. Are they necessarily mutually exclusive? In theory surely not. Yet in practice I struggle to blend the two approaches. I’ve posted something on our blog about this (http://bit.ly/bxHgAi). I’m not trying to hijack this post so reply here or there but I’m genuinely interested in whether there is a place for editorialised content on an E2.0 intranet and if there is, how to manage the mix of UGC & edited content.
Kevin
October 20th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Jane,
Really like this post. It is amazing how many people we speak to that use all these different phrases. We have recently changed the name of our employee directory in Interact Intranet to people directory. Although many of our client change this to staff area! (which I don’t like)
KM is an interesting one. I find that different people see this as meaning completely different things. From policies on the intranet to knowledge extraction from the people that use the intranet. I think that it is misunderstood.
Nigel
April 20th, 2012 at 5:25 am
[...] Before I get into the straight links – I love this point. I mentioned Knowledge Management above, but I certainly agree we’re going to be much more about Connecting People in the hierarchy below extracted from http://netjmc.com/intranet-management/your-intranet-language-reveals-your-intranet-culture [...]