1) Intranets remained stubbornly not dead. There seemed to be a rash of articles by people writing headlines “the Intranet is dead” and then saying why it wasn’t. Unfortunately the meme that leaked out was the ‘dead part’ (e.g.  Death of the Intranet, Reports of Intranet’s Death Are Greatly Exaggerated,  Death of the Intranet: ‘The Times They are a-changin’ ‘)

2) Digital workplace concept grew steadily.  Use of ‘Digital Workplace’ as a term grew progressively, significantly with Jane McConnell changing her Annual Trends report  from ‘intranets’ to ‘digital workplace’,  and IntraTeam (including my own Digital Workplace Model), Gerry McGovern and others all picking up the term.  It’s fair to say though that the idea is growing far faster than that specific label, with the Netherlands having a “New Way of Working” week, and the UK and Belgium holding  a “National Working from Home Day”. The trend looks to be accelerating for 2012 driven in part by the growth of “Bring your own device” (BYOD) and expectations of remote access, and government moves to promote Anywhere  Working (e.g. in the UK). Collaboration, as a component of the digital workplace idea, also seems to be gaining traction.

3) SharePoint 2010 was the default choice… for intranets and sometimes it felt like everything else too.  2011 was the year that many organizations bit the bullet and switched from earlier platforms (e.g. OpenText’s survey of over 2000 organisations  found 49% used SharePoint 2010 as their primary platform). In Russia it SharePoint was marvellously advertised as the in perfect solution for when “office plankton is driving crazy“

4) SharePoint dissatisfaction grew too. Almost inevitably alongside the success, many SharePoint Intranet managers started to feel that SharePoint 2010 out of the box was already looking dated, particularly its social features. 2011 was a great year for add-on vendors, with Newsgator in particular coming out with some strong case studies. Harmon.ie and Attini also showcased some neat ideas.

5) Office 365 went live.  Microsoft launched their cloud-based SharePoint and Office solution, though awareness outside SharePoint die-hard circles seemed relatively low. I hope to see some decent case studies in 2012 (and not just the same old BPOS ones rebranded).

6) Lync lauynchd. To me the most exciting component of Office 365 is the inclusion of Lync, and this deserves much more recognition than it has had so far. The promise of mode-switching collaboration (e.g. chat to voice to document sharing) has been around for a long time, but Lync seems to be the first to really do it seamlessly enough that the technology doesn’t get in the way.

7) Social grew; Yammer was oddly antisocial. 2011 was the year that everyone wanted twitter on their intranets. Yammer was the leading light, with their ease of sign up leading to many ‘unofficial pilots’, though this viral approach meant that Yammer conversations often happened in quarantine from the rest of an organisation’s digital workplace. Despite this, there’s clearly a useful role for microblogging (e.g.  study of Yammer use at Cap Gemini by University of Sydney)

The social media theme also trundled on, with ‘internal social media’ becoming ‘social intranets’, becoming ‘social business’. I do see ‘social’ fatigue setting in now so perhaps we could talk about ‘business’ and ‘intranets’ going forward? Many intranet managers seem to have tried the social element and are now either just getting on with it or have hit cultural brick walls. If nothing else,   News seems to be finally losing its stranglehold on the homepage, with some good examples of more balanced approaches from e.g. IBM’s new intranet design.

Gamification played up. I’ve had my doubts about gamification on intranets, but it at least got people back into thinking that the workplace could be a pleasurable, even fun experience. Rypple have been working on Enterprise Gamification for some time, and their acquisition by SalesForce has potential to make them more mainstream. However, the cloud based approach makes it ever more likely that companies will rush in with a software deployment rather than getting their heads around the real issues of getting gamification right.

9) Governance (again).  This could be a permanent feature on any annual intranet and always sparks discussion in the intranet and SharePoint training courses I do. The governance issue was helped by Martin White’s excellent Intranet Manager’s Handbook coming out, but the shift to user-generated content and consumerization are both sparking new bush fires as soon as others are put out.

10) Adoption is being fostered. This is probably next on the list of recurring themes, though for 2012 love is in the air, with IBF running an “Intranet Love Affairs” campaign and I too will be speaking on “Loving the Intranet: Re-thinking Employee Adoption” at IntraTeam 2012 in Denmark.

Clearly the shift is away from internal communications as content creators and owners and more towards comms as facilitators.  Many of the big changes have been covered elsewhere – see the table below for a summary. The devil’s-advocate position, then, is that if everyone can publish, will internal communications go the way of the typing pool as being an unnecessary intermediary? One participant in the meeting summed it up beautifully:  ” it’s their channel not ours, and sometimes we have to stop comms from using social media to make announcements”

I think the counter-argument is that as the volume of content rises, the need for professionals that really understand that issues increases. Just as Front Page didn’t make us all web developers (and if anything made the amateur appreciate that it is harder than it looks), there’s more to it than access to the tools. There will still be a role for ‘broadcast’ IC specialists and for coaching managers in effective approaches, perhaps even tackling the issue of how to scale this up as a more widespread service rather than something one-to-one for the elite.

What is likely is that we may see a more specialised variant of the internal communications professional that is more along the lines of Community manager (see also What Does it Take to Manage a Community?). From a professional development perspective what strikes me is that there are few real opportunities to learn appropriate new skills. Most people seem to learn on the job, but this requires an environment that is forgiving of mistakes, whereas in many cases communicators are also working hard to demonstrate social media success to gain further buy-in. What’s needed is a training ground for these softer skills. Hearing from peers is useful, but you still need personal practice to fully understand the dynamics. And don’t think you can easily recruit for this, because you’ll be competing with well-funded external communities.

There is still an ownership void when it comes to cultivating collaboration too: IT tends to stop short of addressing adoption needs; HR seem to rarely be showing leadership so often it falls to Comms to be the drivers. Although Comms are well-equipped for managing launches, long-term it is not a comfortable strategic fit and it may well be that collaboration branches off as a new sub-species of internal communicator.

Thinking wider, the growth of the digital workplace and BYOD (bring your own device) is going to call for refined skills in understanding mobile and flexible work patterns. This isn’t just about designing for a small screen, but also for more urgent consumption; stripping back to critical tasks and capitalising on the ‘killing time’ use case that Jakob Nielsen described as the “killer app” for mobile.

Apple is famous for usability but doesn’t listen to users.

 In a great blog post, Jane McConnell made a knowingly-provocative comment on how this relates to intranets:

“User research is not necessarily the best way to take your intranet to the next level. I’ll get hit for saying this, but there are lots of things we know today that we do not need to research…Great IA and UX people can create and satisfy user desires that even the users would not know how to formulate”
(See blog: Four ways Steve Jobs influenced intranets)

And yet there’s lots out there about user-centred design for intranets that advocates working closely with users. So what’s going on? I’ve tried to sum it up as:

10 Principles for involving users in intranet design

1. User’s can’t specify what they want.

They know it only when they see it (and sometimes only once they’ve tried it out). Sometimes what they do ask for is inconsistent. I’ve had surveys that simultaneously say “we want less email but more emails informing us what’s going on”. It’s the intranet designer’s job to work out what the underlying need really is.

 2. User’s do know what their pain points are

Intranets that can fix problems in this category are more likely to be adopted

 3. …but not everything is a pain point

Some things just introduce whole new opportunities.  Think live pause on TiVo \ Sky+ or Yammer in the workplace. 

 4. You can’t improve everything just by optimising how people work now

This is where the breakthrough leaps come in: the iPod wasn’t just a better Sony Walkman.

People often have work-abounds that are so deeply ingrained they become invisible, so all you’ll do is make the work-around more efficient. You see this on intranets where people complain they can’t find the paper forms for HR processes, so the intranet creates an easy-to-navigate forms library, when a workflow approach would be so much better.

6. You can’t be sure you’ve fixed a problem until you’ve seen it in real use.

You need to do user testing to validate that. David Snowden used to tell a story of how sewage workers were given Psion PDAs as a better solution for scheduling jobs. Technically it was much more efficient, but using a tiny keyboard with rubber gloves and freezing hands…

 7. Where there are significant and fundamental problems work on improving the overall service

If, for example, there are widespread problems with collaborating, connecting or findability, it makes sense to put in place a measures that raise the floor for everyone, rahther than trying to design per-problem solutions. Produce something that is attractive and easy to use, and and then suport the  business in finding good ways to exploit it. This is the iPad route – people find their own way to apply it to their needs

8. Not all users are equal – the business should set the priorities.

Although we shouldn’t let senior managers dictate how a solution works, they should steer what matters most.

 9.  Intranets are not a consumer product.

 If a product is a hit with 40% of the marketplace, that would be considered a huge commercial success. But for an intranet that means 60% of your employees hate it, and unlike consumer goods they rarely have an alternative. Once you have the big plan, you still need to work with users to nail the details and try to satisfy as many as you can. This may mean making the majority mostly happy rahter than a minority wildly happy.

 10. Not everyone is a great designer.

As Jane said, “Great IA and UX people can create and satisfy user desires…” But average designers will come up with something much better if it is user-driven than just thinking they know best.

Conclusion: think step change, but validate

PS. I don’t think any of the above disagrees with Jane’s points; I just thought it raised a great question to explore.

 Firstly, one person’s freedom is another’s chaos, so there needs to be something that helps preserve findability.  A chaotic intranet doesn’t get better with a chaotic wiki on top.

Secondly, leaders often fear that social tools will create a “wild west” of unbridled usage, but often what you get is a ghost town because nobody is sure what the purpose is.

Thirdly, having three tools to collaborate sounds like freedom, but is less productive than everyone using the same tool. It used to be hard to find something in an email, but now that something could be on email, SharePoint, a microblog or instant message.  This isn’t just about technical standards but matching working needs of employees across locations, cultures and generations.

Organisations need to have a strategy that focuses on the problems they want to solve, or to put it another way, the capabilities they want to support. They then need to be experimental in seeing what works best; not just tools but approaches to how they are governed, what is communicated, training and incentives for use. Like evolution, each company is its own ecosystem and what you’re looking for is the ‘fittest’ solution.

By thinking in terms of capabilities, we also start to think about how elements of the digital  workplace join up. The strategic perspective should look at how people work and provide a roadmap for coherence. For example, what happens when teams go from brainstorm mode to operational mode? How do they transition their online environment to support this? How do you widen involvement as an idea scales to a product, but keep the governance coherent? What happens when you cross boundaries of HR policies or employment cultures?

There have been a number of other good posts on intranet and gamification such as:

• Alex Manchester:  Enhancing the intranet with game theory and gaming mechanics
• Scott Hitchins on Interact: The power of ‘Game Theory’… in your intranet?
• Steve Bynhall sounded a more cautious note on the IBF blog: Gamification and intranets: from passing fad to permanent feature?

These are interesting illustrations, but but most of them boil down to is:  points and badges.

I’ve been reading Dan Pink’s book “Drive” on motivation (there’s also  great video animation summary of the core concepts of drive). But points and badgest are a very basic “carrot” approach. Pink says that in the main carrots and sticks don’t work except for basic repetitive tasks where there is little intrinsic motivation. For anything involving knowledge or creativity, what matters is:

• Autonomy – deciding how and when to do things
• Mastery – the reward in gaining a skill and learning
• Purpose – the sense that the task is part of a greater goal.

What concerns me is that points and badges are none of the above, they are just  extrinsic motivation. Where extrinsic motivation is offered, this actually lowers creativity. So in adding gaming, we may be damaging the real value that an intranet could bring:

1. Generally, when simple rewards are offered in return for acts that should have intrinsic rewards, people start to forget the real reason they are sharing and optimize their game-based scores instead. For example, instead of giving 1 comprehensive answer, they give 3 partial answers for 3x the points. Or people may withhold answers until they can maximize their points – ceasing to co-operate.
2. Differentials in reward can de-motivate the many to the benefit of the few. Just as high salaries for the top 5% can breed resentment in the other 95% and make them less productive, so can an element of competition can switch off the masses who feel their efforts won’t make a difference to the leader board, even if it would have made a difference to  the real-world problem on the Q&A forum.
3. Usually games are rewarding for a while and then people tire of them – they hold limited appeal for mastery. If you’ve made it central to your collaboration approach and this happens, then what?

So why are there gamification success stories on intranets? There aren’t many good case studies yet, and the Accenture figures are not that compelling: 50% of employees have filled out personal profiles (good, but no better than intranets without games as an incentive) and a 0.4% contribution rate to blogs is way behind somewhere like IBM. However, Pink’s book indicates that there are circumstances where it works:

1) Making intrinsically dull tasks more interesting. Steve’s IBF blog cites Zappo’s, who “have a “Face Game” facility which requires users when logging on to to match the correct name to one of five random photos of employees.”  For one-off activities where you want participation, gamification can be fantastic.

2) Where mastery developed in the game is a re-usable skill. People devote hours to winning video games for no other reward. If you want employees to develop these skills, it can be far more effective than traditional training. When Microsoft first developed Windows, for example, they included the Solitaire card game because it trained users on every possible mouse gesture of double clicking, drag and drop etc.

3) Where the only purpose you can offer is recognition. In certain areas getting ‘guru’ status can be highly motivating (as for Amazon book reviewers). For expert domains if someone wants to progress their career, then having a recognition system can help drive knowledge sharing, provided that the recognition is linked to quality and the points are transient.

It’s early days yet, and to be fair to Accenture, the team recognize that what they do should link to ‘Purpose’ as an employee drive too. I hope as the field matures some good case studies emerge, but for now  if you want employees to share knowledge or collaborate more effectively, then games are low on purpose, irrelevant at best to autonomy (and at worst they may get in the way) and may also suppress creative thinking.

Photo: Calvin Dellinger http://www.flickr.com/photos/cstreetus/3381285097/

For many years the mantra in knowledge management, and more recently in collaboration circles, has been:

“We need to break down silos”

Yet silos are so common that I’ve been wondering if they have a role to play, or if they’re an unfortunate side-effect of something else? Here, then, is my list of 5 great things about silos:

1. They can foster collaboration. When you need a group of people to work together effectively, they need a common world view. Even better if they have shared values, terminology (read: jargon) and approaches. A tightly-knit department will have all of these characteristics. The very unity of their thinking is what makes them more silo-like. If it’s a hospital team doing an operation or a sales team completing a bid, work goes more smoothly with these things in place. When people say silos are a barrier to collaboration, what they mean is specifically cross-silo collaboration and quite often really what they mean is innovation. In that context, then yes, silos are an issue for efficient working, but the bringing together of different world views is very good for innovation…eventually.
2. Belonging. We naturally like to identify with a ‘tribe’. Often this is defined by context. Abroad I might bond with anyone British, in Britain I might identify with a fellow Yorkshireman, but take us both to Yorkshire and we might find we’re from ‘rival’ towns. Within organisations, silos reflect a tribe that is an important part of belonging. In corporate speak we’d celebrate thsi as “employee engagement”. Dunbar’s number implies that tribes have natural limits, so if it gets too big we end up splitting it – making a new silo.
3. Filtering. As Clay Shirky pointed out, often the issue isn’t information overload but a failure of filtering. By working within a silo, we are using the people around us to help filter out irrelevant information and highlight what’s important. This works well 90% of the time. The issue is that when something important comes along that doesn’t register with the common world view of the silo so it gets filtered prematurely (as was the case with Frank Whittle’s jet engine when first presented to a disinterested RAF in 1937).
4. Trust. Related to #1. One of the reasons experts don’t like to share is that they fear their knowledge will be mis-used by people not equipped to apply it. Electricians may know short cuts that are safe “if you know what you’re doing” but which they’d never advise a member of the public to do. Having a silo creates a trusted environment where such knowledge can be shared because you can assume competence.
5. Direction. When a silo has a cohesive sense of purpose then it reduces the inertia to action. In effect clear boundaries mark the edge of where a group can act without further consultation. It is very hard to grow or manage a group above a certain size, which is why federated / franchise / hub-and-spoke models are so common. Without silos we’d grind to a halt in endless consultation with people who are not sure if they’re in or out.

Postscript: I just read useful distinction between collaboration and teamwork by Andrew Campbell. Although I dont’ agree with how narrowly the author defines collaboration, it helps clarify my first point – silo’s are great for teamwork, but a barrier to external collaboration as Andrew defines it.

Sometimes people stand on a card because the Intranet Team sit that department, but the head of that department has no active involvement. Getting somebody senior to be an intranet sponsor, owner or champion can be challenging. Getting them to be proactive in that role is harder still.

When we discuss what makes a good sponsor, people talk about enthusiasm, understanding and promoting the vision of the intranet, rather than just giving funding. That, for me, is the crucial difference between a real sponsor and someone senior that happens to have the intranet in their portfolio.

Evolving intranets require real leadership. Sometimes I hear from intranet teams that have been asked to make a business case for their intranet, or, even worse, show a return on investment (ROI). The team duly goes through the financial obstacle course to produce some numbers, get ritually mocked for saying time savings have monetary value, and at the end may get money for the platform but nothing else. They are unlikely to succeed.

There’s nothing wrong with ROI being a component of the decision-making process, but if it is the only process then all that comes out of it is money, not support. For an intranet to fly, it needs the emotional input of senior people too: they have to understand the vision ahead of everyone else because it isn’t practical to explain the benefits of the end-point to everyone up-front; they have to promote it so that it gets attention as a project; and they have to stand firm when there are obstacles or nervousness (the first outspoken discussion board comment, for example). This is leadership; the rest is merely management-by-accounting.

Related Posts:

The Digital Workplace: Think strategically, act tactically

The Changing Role of Internal Communications

What does an intranet strategy look like?

Building an intranet roadmap

Photo by Christiano Betta

Since Apple launched its App Store, over 1bn applications have been downloaded. This year, it expanded the idea to cover its Mac computers and sold 1 million apps on its day of launch. Given such unequivocal success, are there things that we might learn for the intranet world? The idea could be translated several ways. Perhaps intranet interfaces should look more like a collection of apps than a web site? Or could it be a way for employees to create a personalised experience? Both of these have merit, but what I feel has most potential in the near term is a third version: an app store for intranet site owners.

The intranet as a collection of apps

Around 10 years ago when everyone was talking ‘portals’ the vision for intranets was not dissimilar to an app-based interface created from a collection of portlets. Portal home pages were going to be a ‘one stop shop’ to meet all your needs, not just for information but transactions too. However, integration proved costly and the business case for replacing the native software interface was often unclear.  As a consequence, portals and intranets have often lapsed back into doing the basics of information dissemination, and transaction needs are poorly met by links to native applications. This in turn has hampered usability, with each application having its own interface and learning curve.

Apple’s App Store demonstrates that software companies will adapt their interfaces when the demand is clear, but it would probably require the critical mass of a single platform like SharePoint to make it a tempting proposition. Microsoft has been talking about this for quite some time and there appears to be plenty of interest from the SharePoint community. However the makers of larger enterprise transaction systems have been slower to show the same enthusiasm.

The App Store for Employees

The second way we might think of an intranet App Store is as a service for employees: a place where they select the applications that most meet their needs from those available internally. This sounds promising as people clearly embrace the idea as a way to add services to their phones and Facebook accounts. Again, many portals included this feature with users able to configure portlet collections to personalise their home page, much like iGoogle or Netvibes.  In practice though, tailoring in the intranet world only rarely seems to take off. When companies do offer it, the uptake is usually less than 10% and most people leave their pages exactly as they were set up on day one.

When you ask employees why they often say that they are too busy, or they expect someone to do it for them. This isn’t unreasonable: if an intranet team knows there’s an app that would be of use to a segment of their workforce, why wait for them to find it rather than pushing it out there?  The App Store can’t do this because it doesn’t know what you do and it is a competitive marketplace where there are multiple solutions for the same problem. An intranet can because it knows its users and no rational business would develop more than one solution for a given need.

The App Store for Site Owners

This brings me to the final interpretation: that an intranet app store is a place where site owners go to select content and features. For small intranets this may be redundant, but for larger sites, where there are multiple communities with different needs, it makes more sense. Here the role of the site owner is someone who knows a community intimately and can build a site to meet their specific needs. In that sense, the whole intranet can be viewed as a marketplace. Just as an iPhone user will select apps and customise their pages to meet their needs, so the site owner should select content and functionality from across the intranet and assemble an experience that is tailored to their community.

Sadly, few intranet tools at the moment offer such an internal app store equivalent, but there is no reason why central intranet teams can’t build such an experience aimed at site owners rather than everybody.  This combines the versatility of an apps approach, without the shortcomings of expecting employees or third parties to make the first move.

[This post origianlly appeared as a column in Intranets Magazine, March 2011]

In my previous post, I discussed “what does an intranet strategy look like?” and said there should be a section on implementation. The roadmap depicts implementation against a specific timeline and shows the intermediate steps that may be needed to an end goal. For example, technical upgrades that may be needed before blogging can be introduced. It doesn’t need to show every step, but it needs to show enough to:

1. Help people see what is coming: Often enthusiastic employees set up ‘rival’ services like Yammer because they’re frustrated that their intranet can’t do something they see as important. Having a roadmap can buy you some patience, or even better, allow you to bring early-adopters on board at the pilot phase and turn them into advocates.

2. Show some of the dependencies: Intranets span so much of an organisation, and rely on technology, process and people elements, that it can be helpful to have something that reflects how they all fit together. Sometimes it may feel like an organisation is always waiting for the ‘right’ IT to come along, but too often after a technical go-live nothing happens because the content process and governance aren’t ready either.

How you visualize a roadmap depends on what you want to communicate. At ClearBox Consulting we use the 7 streams of our intranet framework to balance strategic, technical, process and feature changes. An example is shown below for a one-year plan (but I’d go for longer if strategy and sticky-tape allow).

An example intranet roadmap

An example intranet roadmap

Mastering Intranet Management

If you’re an intranet manager tackling questions like this, ClearBox’s three-day intranet masterclass will equip you with the right skills and competencies. Run in association with Melcrum, it offers a structured syllabus for acquiring the essential skills to manage corporate intranets, frameworks and practical ideas that can be immediately applied, and an opportunity to learn from your peers.

Find out more

How should how traditional intranet and social intranet approaches co-exist? Many organisations have invested heavily in highly structured and well governed
intranets, but they also struggle to get regular, widespread content contributions. A social approach offers the promise of higher engagement levels and more dynamic content, but such tools are often introduced in tension with the existing intranet. This leads to concerns that there will be a loss of content control, or a loss of structure as topics get duplicated on different systems. Both of these ultimately threaten to degrade the user experience.

Citizens and consumers

This tension arises because it forces organisations to reconcile two different world views: the Employee as Citizen vs. Consumer.

The “Employee as citizen” view is commonly ascribed to executives who see their role as setting strategy and direction. An inevitable consequence of strategy
is that employees need to know things top-down to do their job, and it is important that they get clear, consistent messages about what’s going on. Traditional intranets support this approach and promote content on the basis of perceived importance by leadership.

The “Employee as Consumer” view positions the employee as a partner to the organisation. As knowledge workers, it is the individual who is best-placed to decide what they need to know and what they should communicate. This is similar to a free-market economy where consumer power dictates how things are shaped. Much of the internet social media activity is styled around this – allowing everyone to decide what is important. Additionally, the facilitation of micro-supply and micro-demand for niche information serves a long tail need for specialists that is rarely met by an intranet when content is architected top-down.

 Potential drawbacks of social intranets

Despite the internet success of social media on the internet, when applied to the intranet context there are potential drawbacks:

• Choice is not always desirable as it leads to inefficiency , duplication and indecision.
• Information overload has a direct cost to the organisation in employee productivity: socially-driven surfing is not alwasy the most efficient

Four guiding principles

The challenge then, is to access the benefits of a social intranet without the drawbacks and without undermining the benefits of the more controlled, traditional intranet. Four guiding principles can help you do this:

1.  Design your intranet around communities. When intranet sub-sites are structured around what the information has in common (e.g. everything about Pensions) or what the provider has in common (e.g. everything from HR) then it becomes hard to augment it with information produced bottom-up and organically. Instead sub-sites should be structured around communities of people (e.g. everyone who works in HR or everyone in the Manchester office).
2. Let the community decide what adds value but provide manageable frameworks. The community will be best-placed to decide what it needs to know and the tools to use, but
   within that there should still be direction from that community’s leader to preserve navigation and make high-value content prominent (content curation).
3. Blend content on the community from all levels. The community can be seen as an audience. Content should mix top-down and bottom-up so long as the origin is clearly marked, just as the BBC Website mixes authoritative journalism with reader comments.  Mark Morrell has blogged about how this is done at BT How users can tell it is social media content
4. Use appropriate governance for each content type. Governance doesn’t have to mean control – it means making an explicit decision that some areas (e.g discussion forums) will generally be unedited, whereas others will continue to be tightly controlled (e.g. financial results). The same applies to IT – the fluidity of social media means that not everything needs to be industrial-strength initially, so long as users know this up-front.

Mastering Intranet Management  Course

If you’re an intranet manager tackling questions like this, our three-day intranet masterclass will equip you with the right skills and competencies.  It offers a structured syllabus for acquiring the essential skills to manage corporate intranets, frameworks and practical ideas that can be immediately applied, and an opportunity to learn from your peers.

Find out more

See also:

• The Thought Farmer blog has a good summary of “What is a social intranet“
• Ragan has a good article on Content curation: 5 ways to filter social media’s information overload