All posts
Published on 1.10.2019
In an interview with COYO, Felix Schröder, head of Team Strategy and member of the Executive Board at the full-service intranet agency HIRSCHTEC, explains why we have to think in terms of scenarios when selecting digital workplace tools and why the traditional “can and can’t approach” isn’t helpful in this process.
Companies often realize that they have chosen the wrong solution shortly after introducing a digital workplace tool. What can cause this to happen?
“This usually happens because a company focuses on just a few tools when making a selection and creates a shortlist very early on without really understanding the respective products. The market for digital workplace solutions is extremely fragmented, so it’s important not to think in terms of individual tools, but rather in terms of different scenarios – in other words, how different tools work together.”
What are the main general criteria for selecting a digital workplace solution?
“On the one hand, you have the functional requirements. This includes a chat tool, a microblog, user profiles – the entire list of required features. Just as important, however, are the underlying technological aspects. The aforementioned tools must also be compatible with the client’s technological infrastructure. This means that you should always consider the requirements (such as the actual hardware used at your company, for example) when making your selection. This also includes asking yourself questions like: Do all of our employees have a smartphone? Do we have a ‘Bring Your Own Device’ policy? Do all of our employees have access to a desktop PC?
Ultimately, the solution must be consistent with the company’s objectives. This includes, for example, the corporate culture. If I want to initiate a change in this respect, then I can’t select a top-down communication solution, but instead need to look for a ‘social intranet’ solution.”
Isn’t the decision completely subjective, for example when it comes to design and usability?
“This is a very emotional subject, which is why conducting an initial analysis of the features offered by the various tools should always be the first step, followed by prioritizing the company’s own requirements.
At HIRSCHTEC, we define the top use cases for our clients and then simulate them using compatible solutions. This gives companies a first impression of which tools best meet their needs.
We then use references from previous projects to provide the client an idea of what the tools look like. The last factor, of course, is our own experience that we have gathered over time. This has shown that introducing a solution like COYO, for example, is much easier than implementing a SharePoint project without any add-ons.”
Because of the design and usability?
“Yes exactly, you are very close to the standards people are familiar with from the Internet. This means that users don’t need to change their way of thinking or learn something completely new, but that everything works exactly as they expect it to.
But even if you run through everything and take all of the different elements into account, it’s still possible that a client will not have a clear preference for a solution. In this situation, where you still have two solutions to choose from and the project team can’t decide, we often conduct user acceptance tests.
In these cases, we set up a test group consisting of other company employees who are not involved in the core project and who ideally represent the entire company (production, management, etc.). These individuals perform a wide variety of tasks, have different opinions, and different use cases. We then have the test group run through the different situations so that they can evaluate the two solutions. Usually this is enough to ultimately reach a final decision.”
How important is it to precisely determine what a company’s needs are with respect to a digital workplace tool? What’s the best way to do this?
“We have a very straightforward process in place for this. This means that we first define the objectives together and prioritize them. Then we go through our entire catalog of requirements. Because we offer so many different solutions, we know what they can and can’t do.
Specifically, this means that we deliberately avoid asking ‘what do you want?’, but instead go through each and every functional requirement together without focusing on a specific solution. With regard to a microblog, for example, this would mean that we ask: What should it be able to do? Should it have @ mentions? Should users be able to add hashtags?
What’s important to mention here is that we no longer proceed based on the “can and can't approach,” since most solutions can now theoretically meet 95% of all requirements. Instead, we compare and contrast tools and say: ‘When it comes to this feature, the tool is the reference and sets the standard, and when it comes to this other feature, it#s not...’. This is how we go through and create a shortlist.”
Do you ignore the company’s corporate culture in this process?
“No, we take it into account when defining the objectives. On the other hand, I can’t just ask a company ‘What kind of culture do you have?’ and immediately start eliminating tools, because maybe the company wants to shift away from that culture.
That is why it’s important to evaluate the objectives and not the current culture. We are familiar with many companies, some of which we got set up with COYO, who originally weren’t looking for a social intranet at all, and had a completely different image in their minds. But since the discussions with them revealed that they wanted the ability to reach all of their employees, and that they wanted to be able to access the system from outside the office, we focused specifically on selecting a solution that best reflected this cultural factor.”
What role does the existing range of tools on the market play in a company’s selection process?
“It is certainly very important, as it obviously acts as a basis for making a decision and contains certain overlaps. Let’s assume, for example, that I use Slack at my company and want to introduce a new system like COYO, then I know that both solutions offer a chat feature. But both chat systems are very different and I will have a hard time sharing news from the top down with Slack, because the tool is not designed for that.”
What are some reasons that a solution might be excluded right from the beginning?
“This could be due to the corporate strategy, for example. If, for example, a company says that it has a Microsoft strategy and that all of its solutions must be from Microsoft, then we respect that. It may also be due to technical limitations, be it in hosting (e.g. a cloud solution is out of the question) or other aspects. But of course it can also be due to the fact that certain use cases are simply not covered by some tools.”
Does it always have to be the right single solution for all of the company’s needs or can a combination of different tools be used?
“Combinations are definitely possible. We tend to think in scenarios where we say, for example: ‘It’s great you have a SharePoint, but let’s use it for what it’s designed for.’ In addition to SharePoint, we can add COYO as an intranet solution, because converting SharePoint would be much more complicated. At the same time, we can use SharePoint or completely different tools for other processes, for example.
Thinking in terms of scenarios is often much more cost-effective and efficient because they have already proven themselves. In short, if you know from the beginning that in one situation you have to drive on a racetrack and in another you have to drive through the mountains, then you’re not going to use the same car for both because obviously one works better for the respective situation. So the best solution is to have both.”
