The key difference between an (old-fashioned) Intranet and a Portal
™
What typifies a modern intranet portal is that there is a standardised user interface ("UI") with a built in system for user authentication. In other words, the user signs in to the portal rather than simply accessing it. This brings us to the key difference; an intranet portal knows who you are, whilst with an old-fashioned intranet, the user is anonymous.
If the user authentication is properly linked to your employee data, then the portal will know things like (a) what grade the person is, (b) which department they work in, (c) what location they work at and (d) what job they do.
If the portal authentication is also liked to a metadirectory (along with the authentication for all the other systems the user needs to use in their job) then the portal will additionally know (e) which applications the user needs to do their job and (f) the rights the user has (from their security profile) to access different application functionality.
Finally, if an infocube-based web statistics package has been installed, the portal will know (a) which areas of the portal are accessed by the user and (b) the frequency and depth of that access.
The opportunity to personalise the portal experience
Clearly, given the knowledge above, it is possible to personalise the UI for each individual user. For example, if the user works in the sales function, then the homepage that greets them upon logon could be the Sales team homepage. If they work in Leeds, the facilities link on their homepage could be to maps, traffic, fire orders, etc. about the Leeds office (rather than anywhere else). If their specific job is as a field sales manager, then field sales performance graphs and management dashboard could be displayed on the homepage.
If the user is of a grade that places them on the company insider dealing list, then additional (price sensitive) real-time data might be displayed on the screen (which other users would not see). If statistics tell us that they are not reading important communications, then messages could be served to them that draw their attention to what they are missing. Finally, if they use functionality from three different (legacy) systems to do their job, then these could be brought together and surfaced via a portlet application on the portal page.
The prize is clearly a smoother and more integrated user experience, with key information "pushed" at the user in a way they can't ignore and always no more than a single click away.
The depressing truth about personalisation today
Many portal vendors have undertaken research with their existing customer base to explore (a) how many customers have made extensive use of personalisation and (b) how many surface key business applications via their portal. The results do not make encouraging reading (with less than 20% achieving much beyond what Plumtree call "the empty portal").
This prompts an obvious question. If the benefits to the user of personalisation are so obvious, why have companies not taken advantage of them? In fact, based on my experience, there are multiple reasons not to personalise, which I group into "bad" and "good" reasons.
Bad reasons not to personalise
There are a number of typical failings that tend to stem from a lack of courage, poor understanding or personal prejudice:
1) Failure to link through to employee data and/or a metadirectory
This can be due to a number of factors, including (a) the costs of software seen as too expensive, (b) a perception that implementation will be too difficult or prone to failure, (c) a lack of confidence in the quality of employee data and (d) realising too late that this work is important and having failed therefore to include in project scope or business case costs
2) Failure of vision and/or lack of confidence in personalisation benefits
Typical problems include (a) a lack of experience of using portals and thus a lack of awareness of the possibilities, (b) a nostalgia for the old-fashioned style of intranet navigation, (c) an unhealthy focus on the intranet simply as a communication channel, rather than as a business tool and - perhaps most interestingly - (d) a perception that personalisation is synonymous with (or otherwise encourages) individuals failing to observe and comply with single, enterprise-wide processes and policy.
Good reasons not to personalise
There are actually several valid objections to personalisation, which you would ignore at your peril. The two most notable are:
3) The whole is more than the sum of the parts
Many portal projects are built on the concepts of (a) increased knowledge sharing between teams, (b) better awareness of the "big picture" of what is happening in the company and (c) a sense of belonging to a single, enterprise-wide community. By personalising teams and individuals into "ghettos" where they only see information and applications directly relevant to them, the opportunity is lost to have them explore the intranet presence of other colleagues.
4) Log-in as a barrier to user adoption
A (valid) concern that requiring people to log-in each time they access the portal will act as a deterrent to them doing so, thereby reducing the portal benefits through a reduction in intranet usage. This has lead to some customers disabling the log-in feature! Of course, such problems can be overcome through the implementation of a single sign-on application, where rights to access the portal (without a separate log-on procedure) are granted when the user logs onto the network. However, companies often fail to plan or budget for such changes.
So is personalisation the right thing to do? If so, how can I make it happen?
On balance, of course, the benefits of personalisation, for most organisations, far outweigh the risks and costs. After all, why buy a Ferrari, then only use it to do the school run? If you were never going to use the portal for these advanced functions, why did you buy one? It would have been much cheaper to invest in your traditional intranet!
If you are looking to make it happen, however, you must recognise the organisational, financial and technical challenges inherent in the work. Firstly, you should ensure that your business case contains the full costs of integrating the portal with employee data and metadirectory capabilities. Ideally, you should also extend this to a single-sign-on solution if you can afford it. Secondly, you should showcase to sponsors what personalisation looks like, so that they can improve their understanding of the opportunity. Finally, you should not underestimate the technical grunt work involved in cleaning up your employee data and systems rights.
Do not neglect customisation
I define customisation as the ability for users to customise their own portal settings and appearance (as distinct from how I am defining personalisation, where the portal provisions information and applications authomatically, based on the user's profile). By letting users "do it themselves" you allow for the possibility that they may wish to share knowledge and collaborate with people outside their immediate role. You can also learn (by observing their behaviour in customisation) where you could improve upon your personalisation.
Some final thoughts
Personlisation should be a key element of your early visioning work with sponsors and drive costs and benefits in your business case. If you find at that stage that the return on investment (ROI) is not there, then you should perhaps question whether a portal investment is really for you! A mini is adequate, after all, for the school run!
Inclusion is 'the right of every child to an appropriate and efficient education in his or her local mainstream school.' The implication here is that there are to be no exceptions in regards to a child's culture, gender, ethnicity, and religion, issues of disability, age or sexual orientation. An inclusive classroom is one in which learning happens in small groups with peer helping and supporting each other, it is also 'student centred with a high sense of respect and community. Students structure the rules and are expected to follow them.They are aware others are doing different things but fairness does not come into question because 'that's just the way it is'. (IDEA)
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the United States, states that all children will be educated in regular classroom unless the nature of their disability is such that education in such a classroom cannot be achieved satisfactorily. All 'schools have a duty to try' to be inclusive. It further went on to highlight that the 'least restrictive environment is one that provide the greatest exposure to an interaction with general education students and persons without disabilities'.
Implications of these statements can be looked at from the perspective of different groups within the school community. These are mainly, parents, teachers /support staff, general student population, and students with special needs.
Mixed gender schools for example may not be the first choice of parents of certain religious faiths because of implications for their religion. For those parents who subscribe to a particular religion, faith school offer the sort of religious grounding they want their children to emulate. While there are religious assemblies and devotions in faith schools and students are expected to conform to the particular ethos of the school, this is not the case for mainstream non -faith schools.
For some teachers the idea of inclusive schools can be quite disconcerting as well. A Muslim colleague who left an all girls school to teach in a mixed school that was conveniently closer to home,became quite unhappy because she felt quite 'intimidated by the closeness' of her male students. Other teachers felt they wouldn't be able to cope as well with boys as they could with girls and vice versa. Therefore while they have the choice they will choose to teach in the school they are most comfortable in. That choice is however taken away from them if schools then move to become 'inclusive'.
A lot of the arguments against inclusive school/classrooms however, will focus on the inclusion of students with special needs. Often parents feel that their child/ren's progress is hindered when the general classroom teacher has to spend a lot of time helping students who are less able. On the other hand a parent of a child with special need may welcome inclusion because they feel this gives their child a greater sense of belonging.
For the teacher /classroom assistant, inclusion has perhaps the greatest implication. On a positive note inclusion may help teachers appreciate the diversity of their classroom while also enabling them to recognise that all students have strengths as well as weaknesses. It therefore increases ways of creatively addressing challenges and can provide the teacher with invaluable experience of being a part of a multi-talented, multi-disciplined team of practitioners. Yet, on the other hand, any teacher within an inclusive environment must be extremely resourceful and committed in order to succeed. For any teacher working in a situation without the right structures in place, the classroom can quite easily turn out to be a nightmare. If there is insufficient support for example, the job of the teacher can become quite difficult as it then becomes impossible to effectively teach and manage the various situations that can likely occur. It is a big misconception that all qualified teachers are equipped to teach pupils with special needs. The reality however is that a classroom practitioner, however confident and skilled must be sufficiently trained in dealing with specific needs of particular pupils in order to teach them effectively. As one educator and specialist in the field of Special education states, 'Without resources, commitment, vision, restructuring and staff development, inclusion won't work.' Many mainstream teachers will attest to the fact that too many schools are insufficiently equipped to deal effectively with inclusion. Consequently this can cause situations that are a hindrance to pupil progress rather than a help.
For too many I also might provide you with key words in Arabic of us the term inclusion is interpreted at face value so as long as students are put together within the context of a mainstream school then we have satisfactorily included all students. A study by G. Lindsay examined how the teaching of the Literacy hour can provide an 'inclusive environment' to students with special educational needs. Yet while the author felt that most students were 'included' there were instances in which a number of pupils had to contend with alternate activities geared at developing their communication skills. This indicates that even while we strive to be inclusive, individual limitations will always determine the extent to which this term can be fully realised.
Undoubtedly there are many benefits and arguments in support of inclusion. A 1999 article from the University of Iowa Department of Special Needs points out that among these are opportunities to experience diversity, appreciation of the uniqueness and beauty of every individual, opportunities to develop respect, sensitivity and tolerance towards others with 'limitations'.
As is mostly the case,state schools have legal 'responsibilities as set out in the race equality duty, disability equality duty and the gender equality duty but private and independent providers are only encouraged to comply with these duties'(CSIE). It is difficult therefore and one might even argue, unfair for parts of the society to conform to inclusion when others are only 'encouraged 'and are therefore not bound to comply. If we are to alleviate problems associated with non inclusive schools then the move need to be toward a common practice for all educational institutions.
References
Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE) UK
Lindsay, G -British Journal of Inclusive Education (2000)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) -1997