© 2007 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.The information contained herein is subject to change without notice

Peer-based EnterpriseDocument Workflow

John RhotonMaster TechnologistHP Services

Outline• Enterprise Content Management

−Formal vs. Informal

−Managing Cost and Speed

• Adaptive Workflow Framework−Peer driven quality control

−Adaptive workflow paths

• HP Knowledge Brief Viewer−System Architecture

−Framework in Action

2 April 8, 2023

3 April 8, 2023

Enterprise Content Management

• Formal Content−Established quality control

−Lengthy process

−Cost of service

• Informal Content−Speed of information

−Diverse structure

−Lack of quality standard

Formal vs Informal Content

Knowledge Culture

• A knowledge culture is where everyone understands their responsibilities to contribute to our collective knowledge−Technologists generate, refine, and

contribute knowledge

−Managers encourage their teams to contribute

−Everyone takes pride in what they contribute

−Everyone has something to share

• Today, we have too many “knowledge absorbers” and too few “knowledge generators”

• Progression through technical carreer requires people to become knowledge generators

HP Knowledge Brief ProgramA case study

• Response to need to get technical knowledge out quickly

• Technical Paper publishing, integration with−Professions

−Technical Career Path

KBsBreakthrough

Technologist

Wider audienc

e

TCP review board

Profession

Objectives of Knowledge Briefs• Capture field knowledge and experience in a modular

and systematic fashion• Provide HP technologists with a way to publish

information and grow writing ability• Not a replacement for patents or white papers• KBs:

−Cover a wide variety of focus areas

−Range from conceptual primers to how-to guides and case studies

−Are easy to read and easy to write

−Ensure reasonable accuracy and relevance through peer-review cycle

−Are HP internal documents and not available to customers without prior approval

Costs-benefit AnalysisHours required to generate a KB 32

Time for Review/Tech-edit/Publication 8

Cost per hour (estimated worldwide average) $100.00

Total KBs generated 3’689

Total cost of KB generation $14’756’000

Total cost of staffing for KB system (since 2001) $2’000‘000

Cost of KM systems deployed to support KBs $500’000

Total Cost of KBs $17’256’000

Number of downloads 1’284’179

Hours saved by HP staff per download 0.2

Hours saved through KBs 256’836

Total Benefit (at hourly cost of $100) $25’683’580

ROI: 48%

Incentives• Reuse of Intellectual Property• Increased visibility within community/profession• Can be included as evidence of continuity of

contribution in promotion packages• Publication Experience – something that leading

technologists should consider• Knowledge Brief Awards

−Frequent Contributors (Bronze, Silver, Gold)

−Technical Journal Selection

−Most Popular Downloads

Metrics drive behaviour!

Reviews• Provide an additional perspective • Help to catch any errors• Facilitate inter-organizational collaboration• Improve overall KB quality• Author selects peer reviewers• We identify technical/editorial reviewers• Publication involves final copy-editing – but

not a complete rewrite

10 April 8, 2023

HP Labs Social Networking

• Identify and Display Subject Matter Experts• Identify Document Clusters• Identify User Communities• Recommended KBs you haven’t yet read• Focus Area Experts

Integrating with Enterprise Content Management Framework

Popularity brought issues

Pre-workflow data

Co-ordination effort

1 FTE

Non-reviewed KBs

10%

Technical Reviewers 50Editorial reviewers 5

• Increasing volume • Hard to find

qualified reviewers• Lack of Review

Tracking• Draft content

invisible• Reviews relied on

same people• Quality concerns

Old review process

Draft KB Submission

Technical Reviews

Publication

Bottlenecks slow process, impede scalability

Reviewer assignment is not optimal, appears inconsistent

13 April 8, 2023

Our Solution

• Platform for structured and unstructured reviews−Formal review process with designated pool of

reviewers−Informal review process with invited experts

• Peer driven −Leverage collective talent of the enterprise−Example: HP technical community

• Quality without sacrificing cost−Distributed reviewer load−Few dedicated “content masters”

• Transparency

Heuristic Document Workflow System

KBv3 Review Process

ReviewersSeniorReviewers

SeniorEditors

Editors

Review

Sign-off

Approve

Publish

15 April 8, 2023

HP Labs Social Networking

• Automated Technical Reviewer assignment−Suggests subject-matter experts

• Weighting of Technical Reviewers−Based on correlation of past ratings

• Content-based Analysis−Key phrases and words

System Architecture

16 April 8, 2023

• Based on SharePoint Portal Server 2003

• Custom Extensions added to enable a Workflow

Knowledge Brief Document Workspace

17 April 8, 2023

Knowledge Brief My Site

18 April 8, 2023

Alerts & Reminders• Alerts for uploaded KBs

−In Progress, Review or Published KBs

• Alerts based on Author’s properties (Practice, Country, Business Unit, etc…)

• Weekly KB Newsletter−Latent Semantic Indexing to find document similarities

−Social Networking history to determine users interests

• Reviewing reminders−Author

−Registered reviewers

Work in Progress• Transition to MOSS 2007 Architecture• Integration with external sources• Wiki-integration• Offline Viewer

• Synchronizes selected Focus Areas

• Records KB reads

• Integrated Full-Text Search

• Offline Reviews−Mail-in and Mail-out functionality required

20 April 8, 2023

KBv3 Code Reuse• Code written to be configurable

−Web Parts

−Web Services

−Some Console/Windows Application, ASPs…

• Potential reuse in other internal KM systems

• Components available for Customer projects−Code reuse

Achieved so far

Pre-workflow Workflow

Coordination effort 1 FTE 0.5 FTE

Non-reviewed KBs 10% <1%Technical Reviewers 50 525Editorial reviewers 5 26

All-time Q1FY07

KBs published 3689 155KBs downloaded 10,948,636 469,677Distinct Authors 1070 58Reviews unknown 659

Summary• Enterprise Content Management dilemma

−High investment vs. Low quality (low reuse)

• Resolution is possible−Requires executive commitment

−Careful design of process and technology

• If successful the value proposition is compelling!