Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
of the content.
This “Three is Company” approach would
encourage authors to have engaged listeners to
keep their content out of limbo. Content nobody
reads and cares about is clutter or “toxic”. This
feature would also drive a sense of responsibility,
ownership, and quality through the community.
The system could directly support working
on the maturity of a document, preferably in the
versioning subsystem. Each version of the docu-
ment would be the base for all the sub-content
like comments, discussion etc).
the various front pages of the repository could
display such prominently. They could be used a
submissions into a “Benchmark of Excellence”
repository, collecting examples of the “shared art”
of the Community of Practice.
Initially, Mary was uncomfortable by the thought
that she could rate somebody's work, and that
others would rate her work as well. This struck
her as rather dangerous to the team cohesion.
After the feature had been around for a time, she
quickly noticed that only the “outliers” actually
received ratings: the outstanding and the obvi-
ously bad.
Bazzar was rather upset that he now needed to
spend time with his peers talking about the con-
tent he posted. He quickly became rather adept
in presenting his technical content in a way that
made it easier for his peers to understand and
review it.
This really helped her accept the feature and
participate. She liked praising people, so rating
exceptional content highly was pleasant. Mary also
realized that it was in her best interest to rectify
quality issues within the team quickly, and there
was no better way to get a potential issue looked
after than through a bad rating. She realized that
she swung a big stick here, used it with care and
measure, and had some successes. When the first
low rating arrived for her work, she looked at the
reasoning and decided that the rating was fair. This
had not been her best work, and she had hated
the topic. Maybe somebody else would be better
suited for the task, or maybe she really needed to
grow up and deliver solid work. Overall, this was
an unexpectedly healthy experience.
“This makes me think, rather than just copy &
paste the data,” he agreed in a team meeting.
“Since the data turns into information by you
guys understanding it, the real value is not in me
posting but in you reading and 'getting' it.”
“Content Rating”
Allowing peers to rate content is a way to let
the repository help identify “excellence in the
craft”. Allowing peers to vote on the quality of
work is one way to collect credible information
about the author's capabilities in a modified 360°
feedback.
This feature is rather challenging to some
team cultures. Anonymous feedback could pose
a challenge, as it opens the door for toxic remarks
without consequences. The author would need to
have a systematic way to challenge ratings, with the
system capturing the resulting argumentations.
Content rating would allow for the selection
of “Best in Class” documents, a further way to
acquire prestige and status in the author's com-
munity of practice. Just like “LinkedIn Answers”,
Front Pages for Topics
Front pages are compelling collections of infor-
mation. They would present the documents of
a specific topic in a way that makes navigation
easier and drives a deeper understanding of the
health and vitality of the repository. Front pages
could consist of:
•
list of documents
resulting from different
searches (most recently changed, most re-
cently posted, most reviewed, orphaned, in
Search WWH ::
Custom Search