I seem to recall that Nike was often referred to as someone who had sorted this out a few years back. Maybe someone from that organization can chip in. I think it was called BNX?!?
1 person found this helpful
Oh thanks Ted Hopton
In the past we leveraged Xinet and while it sufficed at the time (2006-2012) it was already long-in-the-tooth architecturally. It had zero capability to integrate into a social system. We retired it. As a caveat, we're a pure digital play company, so no print assets were hurt in the production of this comment.
What we're doing now is fully leveraging Box. We integrate it 3 ways into Jive (iFrame for drag&drop of multiple pieces of content, groups & spaces integration, and just plain old links). Box provides basic metadata and policy management without the overhead of yet-another-system. It has evolved into our content layer, not just a DAM. There might be some interesting things at BoxWorks this year to further the development into a full-fledged DAM.
I agree that this issue is a big one. People hate it when their cheese is in the wrong place. What I see happening is that content layers -- like Box -- become places where the content resides and Jive becomes the context. The main issues for Jive will be how to ensure that the folder-structure world of content can mesh with a muti-headed hydra of groups/spaces/ and projects. I'd prefer to see groups/spaces destroyed and transformed into "areas" that have sub-areas...oh, folders. yeah. That way it would be far easier to match storage structures across areas. The fact is that DAMs or file storage areas ARE recursive in nature and Jive needs to address that issue.
Perfect knowledge management solution in my experience is to use social intranet for collaboration, social interactions, light doc repository esp docs like training docs or guides that user community may need, but to have a solid industrial strength enterprise doc management system, with links between the two.
This was the solution when I was at Cisco - Enterprise Document Management (based on Documentum) and then social intranet (was homegrown but I think now Jive). When people in the social intranet needed a doc that was in the repository, it was readily accessible, almost seamless, through a link.
This fits with what Gerry McGovern said recently in his newsletter New Thinking | Gerry McGovern
- The magical single system that brings everything together is rarely a practical solution either.
- In fact, we don’t need single systems if we can create a common interface and a common language. To do this you need to be a bridge builder and you will need to build two types of bridges....
1 person found this helpful
Like Doug MacKay, we use Box for all "finished" content and Jive for discussion - with Netsuite as our ERP. We're trying to get the triangle perfect though it's not quite there yet. But basically, Jive is the place for discussion and SOPs, things of that sort. One of the many reasons is that to us, it seems to let each system play to its strength - a finished doc (brochure, manual, e.g.) lives in Box and can be shared easily to website and externally, where discussion about that doc would be in Jive (with a link, potentially)
- Engineer finishes mechanical drawing, approved for supplier - it lives in Box, and a link to it populates a custom field in Netsuite where it can be applied to digital POs, or referenced by production crew.
- SOPs for how to create above would live in Jive, with a link to drawing in Box as well (we haven't done full integration because Box doesn't allow access to integrated folders and we don't need matching discussion/commentary in Box)
- Issues are created in Netsuite (for time tracking purposes) but ported to Jive for discussion and resolution
- Box portlets on Departmental overview pages in Jive
Oh - I meant to add, this means we've stopped using some native functionality in NS - like its "file cabinet" which has become redundant.
I like this in that it's well thought out and uses the strength of each system. Most importantly, users know what's where, it's logical, and information is interconnected not stranded islands.
The Gerry McGovern insight I shared earlier jibes nicely with your approach:
- It’s not practical to think that organizational silos will disappear. Technology silo systems will not disappear either. The magical single system that brings everything together is rarely a practical solution either.
- In fact, we don’t need single systems if we can create a common interface and a common language. To do this you need to be a bridge builder and you will need to build two types of bridges.
- Firstly, you need to link up the silos in a logical and intuitive way. The silos can still exist underneath, but on the surface customers need a common, easy-to-use interface. On the network, the interface (look and feel) is the system, the interface is the organization. The interface has no particular place. It exists in the network and connects the employee wherever they need to do work, whether in the office, on the road, or at home. It doesn’t need to belong to one software system or technology.
And ideally the silo bridge will be ready when it's time for me to overhaul our website.
Actually I used to do some work with a company that customized the heck out of salesforce and used Informatica to make salesforce a bridge to different hotel property management systems - and have come across this more lately as I look for other interface solutions. I think there is a recognized need for this - the agreement by different manufacturers to make cell phones use a common usb charger in the last few years gives me hope.
Hi Jim Buck, did you manage to make any progress on this? Such a tricky issue. Feels like being stuck between completely conflicting priorities, especially in a world with not one or two CMSs, but many. Even a technical integration with the external storage framework I do not think solves the core issue, where you are looking to mitigate risk that may exist with multiple versions of content in disparate systems. Folders aren't going to map neatly into groups and projects, and navigation to find content in a hierarchical system will be burdensome to users. You could also simply be creating an easier way to duplicate content inside an external system.
Right now we are facing some pressure to find a solution to this. Hoping to find a middle ground, however my colleagues in Information Management are pushing that zero files should be allowed to be stored in jive, a solution that could be crippling to user adoption. (not to mention would not work as different groups and regions manage content differently)