Date post: | 18-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | john-rhoton |
View: | 857 times |
Download: | 1 times |
© 2007 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.The information contained herein is subject to change without notice
Peer-based EnterpriseDocument Workflow
John RhotonMaster TechnologistHP Services
Outline• Enterprise Content Management
−Formal vs. Informal
−Managing Cost and Speed
• Adaptive Workflow Framework−Peer driven quality control
−Adaptive workflow paths
• HP Knowledge Brief Viewer−System Architecture
−Framework in Action
2 April 8, 2023
3 April 8, 2023
Enterprise Content Management
• Formal Content−Established quality control
−Lengthy process
−Cost of service
• Informal Content−Speed of information
−Diverse structure
−Lack of quality standard
Formal vs Informal Content
Knowledge Culture
• A knowledge culture is where everyone understands their responsibilities to contribute to our collective knowledge−Technologists generate, refine, and
contribute knowledge
−Managers encourage their teams to contribute
−Everyone takes pride in what they contribute
−Everyone has something to share
• Today, we have too many “knowledge absorbers” and too few “knowledge generators”
• Progression through technical carreer requires people to become knowledge generators
HP Knowledge Brief ProgramA case study
• Response to need to get technical knowledge out quickly
• Technical Paper publishing, integration with−Professions
−Technical Career Path
KBsBreakthrough
Technologist
Wider audienc
e
TCP review board
Profession
Objectives of Knowledge Briefs• Capture field knowledge and experience in a modular
and systematic fashion• Provide HP technologists with a way to publish
information and grow writing ability• Not a replacement for patents or white papers• KBs:
−Cover a wide variety of focus areas
−Range from conceptual primers to how-to guides and case studies
−Are easy to read and easy to write
−Ensure reasonable accuracy and relevance through peer-review cycle
−Are HP internal documents and not available to customers without prior approval
Costs-benefit AnalysisHours required to generate a KB 32
Time for Review/Tech-edit/Publication 8
Cost per hour (estimated worldwide average) $100.00
Total KBs generated 3’689
Total cost of KB generation $14’756’000
Total cost of staffing for KB system (since 2001) $2’000‘000
Cost of KM systems deployed to support KBs $500’000
Total Cost of KBs $17’256’000
Number of downloads 1’284’179
Hours saved by HP staff per download 0.2
Hours saved through KBs 256’836
Total Benefit (at hourly cost of $100) $25’683’580
ROI: 48%
Incentives• Reuse of Intellectual Property• Increased visibility within community/profession• Can be included as evidence of continuity of
contribution in promotion packages• Publication Experience – something that leading
technologists should consider• Knowledge Brief Awards
−Frequent Contributors (Bronze, Silver, Gold)
−Technical Journal Selection
−Most Popular Downloads
Metrics drive behaviour!
Reviews• Provide an additional perspective • Help to catch any errors• Facilitate inter-organizational collaboration• Improve overall KB quality• Author selects peer reviewers• We identify technical/editorial reviewers• Publication involves final copy-editing – but
not a complete rewrite
10 April 8, 2023
HP Labs Social Networking
• Identify and Display Subject Matter Experts• Identify Document Clusters• Identify User Communities• Recommended KBs you haven’t yet read• Focus Area Experts
Integrating with Enterprise Content Management Framework
Popularity brought issues
Pre-workflow data
Co-ordination effort
1 FTE
Non-reviewed KBs
10%
Technical Reviewers 50Editorial reviewers 5
• Increasing volume • Hard to find
qualified reviewers• Lack of Review
Tracking• Draft content
invisible• Reviews relied on
same people• Quality concerns
Old review process
Draft KB Submission
Technical Reviews
Publication
Bottlenecks slow process, impede scalability
Reviewer assignment is not optimal, appears inconsistent
13 April 8, 2023
Our Solution
• Platform for structured and unstructured reviews−Formal review process with designated pool of
reviewers−Informal review process with invited experts
• Peer driven −Leverage collective talent of the enterprise−Example: HP technical community
• Quality without sacrificing cost−Distributed reviewer load−Few dedicated “content masters”
• Transparency
Heuristic Document Workflow System
KBv3 Review Process
ReviewersSeniorReviewers
SeniorEditors
Editors
Review
Sign-off
Approve
Publish
15 April 8, 2023
HP Labs Social Networking
• Automated Technical Reviewer assignment−Suggests subject-matter experts
• Weighting of Technical Reviewers−Based on correlation of past ratings
• Content-based Analysis−Key phrases and words
System Architecture
16 April 8, 2023
• Based on SharePoint Portal Server 2003
• Custom Extensions added to enable a Workflow
Knowledge Brief Document Workspace
17 April 8, 2023
Knowledge Brief My Site
18 April 8, 2023
Alerts & Reminders• Alerts for uploaded KBs
−In Progress, Review or Published KBs
• Alerts based on Author’s properties (Practice, Country, Business Unit, etc…)
• Weekly KB Newsletter−Latent Semantic Indexing to find document similarities
−Social Networking history to determine users interests
• Reviewing reminders−Author
−Registered reviewers
Work in Progress• Transition to MOSS 2007 Architecture• Integration with external sources• Wiki-integration• Offline Viewer
• Synchronizes selected Focus Areas
• Records KB reads
• Integrated Full-Text Search
• Offline Reviews−Mail-in and Mail-out functionality required
20 April 8, 2023
KBv3 Code Reuse• Code written to be configurable
−Web Parts
−Web Services
−Some Console/Windows Application, ASPs…
• Potential reuse in other internal KM systems
• Components available for Customer projects−Code reuse
Achieved so far
Pre-workflow Workflow
Coordination effort 1 FTE 0.5 FTE
Non-reviewed KBs 10% <1%Technical Reviewers 50 525Editorial reviewers 5 26
All-time Q1FY07
KBs published 3689 155KBs downloaded 10,948,636 469,677Distinct Authors 1070 58Reviews unknown 659
Summary• Enterprise Content Management dilemma
−High investment vs. Low quality (low reuse)
• Resolution is possible−Requires executive commitment
−Careful design of process and technology
• If successful the value proposition is compelling!