As a result of this lack of focus, entire crops of portals were lost due to poor requirements and incorrectly set expectations. Portals were all too frequently promised as the panacea that would solve an organization's information management, security or application integration issues in one clean install. Quite contrary to that expectation, portals more frequently ended up shining a light on these problems rather than solving them.
An organization with poorly organized users and groups would end up struggling to provide appropriate access to portlets or accurate customization. An organization with poor taxonomy and metadata practices would import its content only to find it all had illegible titles and search indexes that were worthless. An organization with home-grown applications would build customized portlets that replicated the issues of the original applications, reinforcing vertical barriers to information integration.
This is not to say there weren't successes. We worked with many organizations to design portals with a focus on end users and their needs. Organizations saw major benefits in information findability and knowledge retention, more active collaboration, and improved customer/end user loyalty. Even in many of these cases, however, the technology wasn't where it needed to be. In the early to mid-2000's, portal technology was sorely lacking in workflow, customization and search, to name a few areas. Sure, a user could change the color of his portal, but that didn't impress too many users in the 21st century.
We also found that even these successful portal implementations created a "success disaster" scenario. A successful portal was one where content and functionality was highly available and highly dynamic, with users paving the road for more mature user generated content in the years to follow by becoming content creators and contributors. As a result, successful portals required and received a constant stream of content, with high expectations from users for content and functionality that was new, essential, reliable and dynamic (what I refer to as "NERD content"). Successful portals yielded an administrative burden that many organizations were unwilling or unable to bear, so even many of these portals fell into disrepair over time.
Since then, the portal market has limped along. The major vendors have largely backed off of the term and professional conferences and journals have followed suit. Where portals used to be the headliner, terms like content, collaboration, social media and enterprise information management now often take the lead. In reality though, the need for portals is greater than it has ever been. The amount of content generated by an organization has moved from arithmetic to exponential growth. Only a decade ago, a relatively small set of users were generating electronic content and fewer were responsible for managing that content. With the democratization of content management anyone is a potential content publisher or manager. As a result, the need to effectively integrate, manage and present that content is critical. Equally, with the maturation of search integrators and social media tools, end users have an increased expectation to get it all in one place.
Coming out of the economic down-turn (hopefully), we're seeing a pronounced increase in organizations who are either seeking to reinvigorate their portals or, in many cases, build new ones. In many of these new cases, the word portal isn't even used, but organizations describe a platform that will allow for customization and personalization, integrate stores of content and functionality, and provide for collaboration and social media. Whether it was Plumtree in 1998 or SharePoint in 2011, that is a portal. The technology has changed, but the core concepts and principals of a portal remain and still play an important role in business technology today.
As organizations consider how to reinvigorate their existing portal or start correctly with a new system, there are several simple but incredibly critical focal points. Though each of these is intrinsically linked to technology in the context of portals, they are largely more human and process considerations. First, a successful portal is one that users actually want. No amount of carrot or stick will convince a user to adopt a technology they don't like. Portals must give the people what they want, at least in some reasonable measure. That is why the most successful portal projects I've been a part of have spent at least an equal share collecting requirements and building a dialogue with end users, as on the actual build. Successful portal designs will interact with the user at every turn. Moreover, successful portal projects will continue to build a dialogue with the end user after implementation--consistently seeking and acting on end user feedback.
In addition, portal projects, like virtually all information management technology initiatives, come down to what's inside; the content and functionality must be NERDy as I expressed above. An organization must build a clear scope around what users need and what belongs in the portal, then build clear processes and appropriate resourcing to support that content and functionality. The moment an old copy of a policy, an inaccurate report, or a dead link surfaces is the moment your users will stop trusting the portal.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a successful portal will have clearly defined governance around it. I've seen too many times the Frankenstein portals that can result from conflicting requirements and overly politicized corporate agendas. This can result in a mix of different functionality, mixed user interfaces and mismatched experiences that end up pleasing no one. In order for a portal to be successful, during its design and throughout its life, a portal requires clearly defined goals, roles and responsibilities; policies and procedures; and communication, education, and marketing efforts. If an organization defines these pillars of portal governance clearly and supports them strongly, portals can and will succeed.
---
Autor(en)/Author(s): Zach Wahl
Quelle/Source: Fierce Content Management, 23.05.2011
Bitte besuchen Sie/Please visit:
