An online article written by Michael Cheng

Introduction

As wikis grow in popularity, more and more buzz has been generated on the technical aspects of their development and implementation. Relatively less, however, has been written on integration of best practices in corporate strategy with the use of wikis. In fact, a CNET news post by Mike Yamamoto plainly stated that “other than advertising, we’ve yet to see an obvious business strategy for the wiki world” (Yamamoto). An investigation into the strategies of intranet wikis within the enterprise will require consideration of strategic constructs that have been recognized over time as “Best Practices”. Specific to this article, therefore, the Activity System Map (Porter) and the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton) will be considered.

At the outset, it must be stated that wikis are of interest because of their prominence in the broader development of web platforms and channels within the enterprise. Their use, therefore, will not be exclusive or exhaustive to enterprise solutions. Wikis will continue to evolve and most likely be integrated with other applications. Similarly, enterprise solutions will involve integration of wikis with other platforms and channels. Gartner’s 2006 Hype Cycle for Web Technologies predicted wikis to have a target audience market penetration of 1 to 5 percent. Its priority matrix includes wikis at the “moderate” benefit range with an estimate of 2 to 5 years until mainstream adoption. However, the same report includes wikis as facilitating the business impact of Web 2.0 to “significantly enhance employee productivity”. In this integrated context of Web 2.0, its benefit priority jumps to the (highest) “transformational” range with an estimate of less than 2 years until mainstream adoption and a target audience market penetration of 20 to 50 percent (Phifer, G., Kenney, L. F., Genovese, Y., et al). These findings are summarized in the following chart:

Wikis within the enterprise

Value exploration for the use of wikis within the enterprise begins with strategy. At the heart of such strategic consideration is how we keep business initiatives like wiki implementation from being short-term driven and catch-up in nature.

The Activity System Map

The following are actual anecdotes from a recent online discussion at GAIN, Journal of Business and Design of AIGA:

Lest we think these are isolated phenomenon from remote companies, an interview with Sam Lucente, vice president of design at HP, described the siloed innovations within its own design practice—ironic given its brand (“invent”). As part of HP’s transition towards creating “common design signature elements” across its offerings, it pooled together talents from within its design practice. In a period of 3 years, Lucente developed an enterprise workplace where 200+ employees built on and collaborated with each other’s discoveries. Each of HP’s product lines began to emerge with consistency. This was evidenced as HP integrated its product lines and created a common feel
across platforms (i.e. from its digital camera to its printer to its online photo service website). In its software division, it consolidated its 47 help menus within its management software into a single help menu. Its user-centric efforts were reflected in the development of its “Q navigation control system”; this came out of an ethnographic study conducted by observing how users around the world interact with their electronic devices.

Strategy that moves beyond the safe harbors of theory into the unpredictable waves of reality recognizes the interconnectedness of business activities within an organization. Moreover, strategy is most robust when organic reflexes are in place to quickly respond to the dynamic environment. Eric Beinhocker, in his book The Origin of Wealth, characterized the adaptability of an organization as dependent on its “social architecture” with three components: 1) The behaviors of individuals, 2) The structure/processes aligning resources with goals, and 3) The emergent culture from these interactions. (Beinhocker, 350-351). These interactions take place, therefore, within a network of activity system made up of individual behaviors, structure/processes and the resultant culture.
Michael E. Porter originated the concept of activity systems with his landmark article, “What is Strategy?” In it, Porter attributes strategic sustainability to the complexity and density of networked business activities.

An example of such an Activity System Map is shown below, of a firm with central activities (dark circles) and support activities (light circles):

As demonstrated in the above Activity System Map, the company’s complexly dense network gives it its strategic advantage that is both difficult to untangle and tough to imitate. However, this very strength can create challenges for employees to work cross-functionally and in synchronization, overcoming barriers resultant from bureaucracy gridlock, confusion of roles, and tightly guarded innovations.

Strategic consideration of wiki implementation within the enterprise, therefore, must define the greater context of business activities to which the wiki will serve. In order to get to the “how’s” of wiki implementation, the “what’s” must be identified. Define what the core activities are within your organization along with their interconnected networks and their support activities. Perhaps connections need to be made that are not currently in place, or there might be activities that should be redefined because of dynamic connections that are forming but weren’t there before. Tradeoffs and decisions will need to be made in order to define what the strategic landscape is.

Tradeoffs and decisions are also needed to determine what part of the strategic network within the enterprise best fits the culture, structure/processes and behavior interactions involved with wiki implementation. For example, an intranet wiki could be used in a more organic manner within a collaborative context with nonlinear business processes and where interactions are informal and spontaneous. A wiki in this setting will tend to grow organically. By contrast, sometimes processes are linear and interactions are hierarchical; in this setting a wiki could be used to provide depth of support (i.e. data, market information, customer profiles, etc.) for, but without impeding on,personnel autonomy. To use the same technology in mismatched contexts is to create strategic inconsistencies that will create more problems than solve. (See Fuchs-Kittowski & Kohler for an indepth study on the integration of linear prescribed structures of knowledge-intensive processes with non-linear dynamics of social interaction). A consideration of the strategic landscape within the enterprise will therefore help with identifying the context of wiki implementation, the “What’s” of our strategic consideration. Next, we will consider the “How’s” of wiki implementation.

The Balanced Scorecard

According to the July 2006 Journal of Small Business Management, half of Fortune 1000 companies currently use the Balanced Scorecard (Grumbus & Lussier). Robert Kaplan and David Norton developed the Balanced Scorecard more than 15 years ago to translate the vision and strategy of a business to a performance measurement system that complements financial measurement with 3 other dimensions: Customer, Internal Business Process and Innovation/Learning. It must be noted that in order for such a performance measurement system to be effective, it must 1) be shepherded to ensure accuracy and consistency, and 2) have the active support of upper management.
Although many have tried to quantify technological endeavors with isolated financial measures, it is best to treat financial performance measurement within the greater context of the enterprise. Given the network of business activities, it is often difficult to isolate how one single facet can be isolated and valuated to a singular figure. The Corporate Intranets Best Practices Report published by Avenue A | Razorfish explains,

An example of the Balanced Scorecard for wiki implementation is shown below:

In the above example, wiki implementation is most directly measured within the Internal Business Perspective. The amount of hours required for inputting content into the wiki (“In”) is in ratio with the amount of hours required to access the content (“Out”). Over time, this ratio should decrease such that more time is spent accessing the content than revising it. A simpler measure is in determining the scope and scale of wiki use within the enterprise, where “scale” refers to the number of employees accessing the data, and where “scope” refers to the amount of repeat and extended visits.

As established in the previous section, wiki implementation facilitates business activities within a network of inter-related business activities. Just as “wiki-capable” is not a differentiation factor, strategic measures of internal business process, customer, innovation/learning and financial perspectives should be linked through the Balanced Scorecard. Kaplan and Norton’s recent article in the Harvard Business Review interfaced the Balanced Scorecard with its corresponding strategy map and action plan. Following this integrated approach, the wiki, in and of itself is an enabler towards meeting broad corporate goals through the Internal Business Process, Innovation/Learning, Customer Relationships and Financial perspectives.

The above Balanced Scorecard example uses the wiki to empower employees to meet financial goals (of increasing revenue and margins) and by creating value for customers (through increased shares of customer’s financial transactions). Ultimately however, these are predicated upon creating organizational readiness through defining personal goals and incentives to motivate employees, developing new skills and technological capabilities. Collaborative technologies cannot exist without collaborators. Therefore, wiki implementation must be strategically considered within the greater context of organizational readiness. A strategy map for this example therefore might look like this:

Specific decisions need to be made regarding: 1) Identification of broad financial, customer, learning/innovation, and internal business process goals to be accomplished; 2) Sequence predicators for specific goals within a strategy map, and 3) Location of a cluster within the Activity System Map most conducive to the emergence of a wiki community. An action plan would follow, with its initiatives and budgetary requirements. In the following section, three tactical outcomes are given to help initiate the action plan for your organization.

Tactical Outcomes

From the above strategic considerations, here are three tactical outcomes specific to wiki implementation, along with tradeoffs that need to be considered:

1) Consider the short- and mid-term benefits of the features provided with the wiki. What is gained by its immediate ease of use may actually limit its versatility in the mid-term. There are a number of wiki platforms available over the internet, with a variety of features and tools. (See wikimatrix.org for a helpful and comprehensive comparison.) For example, wetpaint.com provides a word-processor user interface that is very usable. However, there is less flexibilty provided for adding APIs. Therefore, versatility needs to be evaluated with its immediate accessibility. It may be more difficult to move users to a less accessible platform than it is to start them on one. However, these characterizations must be considered within the context of
your organization.

Tradeoff 1: Versatility vs. Usability

2) Don’t let the physical constraints of a wiki limit the virtual impact it can have within your organization. What is your most comfortable mode of expression? Is it typing into a word processor? Or is the ballpoint-pen-on-yellow-pad your most
natural platform? Some may find it more comfortable to sketch out meeting ideas on a white board. Speaking out loud works for others, and in many cases, serendipitous “eureka” insights and ideas are captured on the back of a napkin. All these modes of expression can be shared over the wiki. For example, many wikis, like wetpaint.com, have a word-processor like interface. Texts can also be readily copied onto the wiki from any text-based application. Voice recognition applications can capture ideas from your voice, and with sufficient storage capacity, sound files can also be saved and accessed over the wiki as well. Digital cameras can capture notes from white boards and back of napkins. Scanners can also be useful for handwritten notes and graphics. Consider how your mode of expression can best be captured, and then evaluate wiki capability (i.e. versatility and storage capacity) against it.

Tradeoff 2: Storage Capacity/Versatility vs. Mode of expression

3) Let the content drive users to the wiki. The balance between autonomous use and externally imposed parameters is perhaps one of the greatest challenges of wiki implementation. Every organization is unique as are the interactions specific to the
needs of its personnel and processes. Therefore, a decision needs to be made in order to optimize constructive use of the wiki without impeding on individual autonomy. One managing director tried igniting interest in the intranet wiki by sending an email with descriptions about what a wiki is and then encouraged everyone to use it. However, no one did…until he posted the agenda and action items of the next meeting on the wiki, and encouraged people to use it as a forum to discuss and respond. This came as a result of continuous accumulation of email back-and-forth discussions and responses, most of which were not directly relevant to the topic at hand. The wiki helped this managing director reduce the 300 email messages he received each day. (McAfee, 27)

Tradeoff 3: Autonomy of users vs. External parameters of the community

It will be interesting to look back a year from now to compare how technological evolution will affect intranet wiki implementation. The tradeoffs given above will probably be obsolete, and will definitely become more ambiguous. Price may become a significant factor in the selection process. Versatility and capability of wikis themselves will probably continue to improve as cross functionality of applications across and between enterprises will be made readily more available.

A Case Review

The following is a case review of research originally published in the Sloan Management Review (Summer 2000): 69- 80. This article was written by Donald A. Marchand, William J. Kettinger, and John D. Rollins. All interviews below are fictitious and are constructed from the data abstracted from their actual research.

It was in the mid-1990s when Americana Bank (fictitious name as with all names associated with this case review, see “Bank A” of the Marchand, Kettinger & Rollins article) was faced with industrywide challenges stemming from saturation of branch-based national markets. New startups with internet-based models encroached into the market previously dominated by more traditional retail banks. Growth opportunities were declining and intense competition resulted from frequent mergers. CEO Jordan Constantine recalls these challenges vividly, “During that time, we launched a program to focus on ambitious growth targets through an aggressive cross-selling campaign in order to boost our morale, profitability and credentials”.

This campaign would be achieved not just at a local, but a regional and global level as well. “At the heart of this campaign we needed to develop an information strategy and the necessary IT tools to improve decision making at all levels of the company; we needed processes to reinforce effective management, employee/manager training and we needed to ensure that appropriateness of information sharing was happening in a very action-oriented company.”

Americana Bank invested in an IT system that integrated the processes of greeting, servicing and cross-selling to customers in a unified platform. Its goal was to provide employees the necessary tools to improve decision making capabilities in order to respond proactively with enlightened and timely responses. In order to do this, employees were empowered to assess risks, market position and change forecasts based directly on data from market conditions.

IT development was differentiated at Americana according to its Activity System Map: Central activities were developed internally while support activities were outsourced. Allocation of resources followed suit, where IT applications for key business activities were sponsored and discussed across the organization. Support for IT development continued beyond development costs, however. Jordan Constantine remarked,

High priority was placed on the availability of fresh daily data about the bank’s products and customers; data was continuously updated to reflect segmentation further broken down into service offerings. Information maintenance was therefore an important performance measurement. Furthermore, trust is implicit within Americana’s information system. There was an across-the-board
reliance on its formal information source to eliminate re-collecting, reanalyzing and double-checking information in the system. Mistakes and errors were identified as “future opportunities”. This fostered an environment in which information could be shared openly.

By the late 1990s, Americana Bank doubled its business volume and increased its EPS by 131%, with a market capitalization increase of 400%. It has since successfully launched its eCommerce model to supplement its traditional branch business.

References

AIGA. 2006. GAIN: Journal of Business and Design Discussion Forum, March 23-June 1.
http://designforum.aiga.org/content.cfm?Alias=gainjournal&clsid=657335

Beinhocker, E. D. 2006. The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity and the Radical Remaking of Economics. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Cheng, M. 2006. Enterprise Collaboration Unfolds within HP, The Workplace Blog. July 7.
http://www.theworkplaceblog.com/2006/07/enterprise_collaboration_unfol.html

Fuchs-Kittowski, F. and Kohler, A. 2005. Wiki Communities in the Context of Work Processes. WikiSym '05 (October 16-18).

Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. 2006. How to Implement a New Strategy without Disrupting Your Organization. Harvard Business Review (March): 100-109.

____. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review (January-February): 71-79.

Marchand, D. A., Kettinger, W. J., and Rollins, J. D. 2000. Information Orientation: People, technology and the bottom line. MIT Sloan Management Review (Summer): 69-80.

McAfee, A. P. 2006. Enterprise 2.0: The dawn of emergent collaboration. MIT Sloan Management Review (Spring): 21-28.

Phifer, G., Kenney, L. F., Genovese, Y., et al. 2006. Hype Cycle for Web Technologies, 2006. Gartner Research (July 7).

Porter, M. E. 1996. What Is Strategy? Harvard Business Review (November-December): 61-78.

Singh, S., Velez, R., and the Enterprise Solutions Practice. 2006. Corporate Intranets Best Practices Report. Avenue A | Razorfish.

Yamamoto, M. 2006. Wikis vs. Microsoft Office. CNET News.com, http://news.com.com/2061-12572_3-6097774.html?part=rss&tag=6097774&subj=news

(c) 2007 Michael Cheng