Note: This article appeared in Intranet Professional, prior to its re-launch as Intranets (in 2004).
When the Web and Internet exploded in the 1990s, so too did the tantalizing promise that a corresponding wealth of understanding and communication would be available within private companies. Private companies both large and small were quick to create intranets and extranets to serve their employees, clients, and customers. By 1996, more than two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies had an intranet up and running. But 5 years later, were they working? Not really, according to usability expert Alison J. Head in her groundbreaking research study, "On-The-Job Research: How Usable Are Corporate Intranets?"
Despite early high hopes, few corporate intranets have managed to give employees what they need: clear and accessible information on a daily basis. "So far, the promise of research intranets remains unfulfilled," wrote Head in her study funded by the Special Libraries Association. Poor design, unclear labeling, an inscrutable maze of links, an overwhelming uncategorized amount of information, and simply not giving employees what they need have made intranets unusable, sending workers elsewhere to find answers.
In undertaking her research, Head and an associate, Shannon Staley, gained unprecedented access to seven private companies and their employees in diverse industries, including biotech, energy, high-tech, insurance, and construction. With the aid of corporate librarians, Head and Staley went inside to look at and report on proprietary Web sites and evaluate employee use.
Evaluating Intranet Usage
Head, who has conducted usability testing in high-tech companies like Hewlett-Packard and Sun Microsystems since 1998, wanted to see if what she was learning about their intranets applied to other kinds of industries as well. So she endeavored to find an "ideal client" to evaluate. That ideal client turned out to be many companies in one: Bechtel Corp., Chevron, (now Chevron Texaco), Fireman's Fund Insurance, Gale, Gilead Sciences, Sun Microsystems and Synopsys.
"A lot of usability studies often had a narrow focus and did not look at information-seeking behavior and information-retrieval strategies," Head said. "We combined usability with library science to get our answers."
What she discovered was that none of the seven companies had the perfect intranet or much of the pizzazz that the popular press has heralded for some years. "Intranets aren't just technology solutions. They're communication solutions, too, that help workers be more effective at what they need to get done." Head said. "One of my favorite comments we heard during testing was from an employee who said: ‘There's a bunch of stuff here about my company on this site, but it really doesn't help me function in my job.'" And that, Head said, is the difference between an effective and ineffective intranet—helping an employee save valuable work time.
Among the key findings of the 2001-2002 study are the following:
• A combination of poor layout and jargon-laden labeling on intranets meant that simple and complex research needs were unmet. Often, employees would abandon the intranet altogether, switch to the Web and do a search on Google or Yahoo, or simply turn to their employee neighbor and ask them.
• Sometimes there was just too much content available on the intranet site. Employees who needed something specific subsequently became overwhelmed with all of the similar sources available to them and gave up their intranet search.
• Finding information about competitors was so difficult that "research paralysis" set in, and less than half of the employees tested could formulate a strategy to take that first click needed to find information on their intranet.
• Employees had a tough time doing all types of research on company intranets, from simple, everyday tasks to more complex research that required vendor sources. These included finding simple contact information, phone numbers, or e-mail addressees for fellow employees or clients outside of the company.
• Most workers are not that familiar with intranets, did not use them, and often switched to doing more familiar searches on the Web with sites they frequently used.
Meeting Employee Needs
Head said the study was surprising in revealing how much employees said they needed contact information on almost a daily basis, yet their intranets were unable to serve it up. "The sites failed miserably at times," Head said. "It was really difficult to do a simple task that was so constantly needed. And it pushed people away from the site. Some sites required an average 12 clicks to get that information. Why would anybody use an intranet?" It was surprising, too, how often employees said they wanted maps from the site, something they needed on a regular basis.
The study's general recommendations for intranets included the following:
Find out what workers need from an intranet before designing or redesigning one. Talk to them. Test them. Do an online survey. Keep track of search queries. Collect data from a variety of sources. Don't presume to know.
• Organize and prioritize a site based on what employees need and want to know. Do not give them everything and the kitchen sink. The collection development rule is be selective instead of exhaustive. Make it make sense. Too much content throws would-be intranet users off and pushes them away.
• Forget the bells and whistles and pretty graphic stuff. Just make intranets quick and dirty. Consider chunking sources, or categorizing, by occupational classifications, such as engineering in one bucket and market research resources for another.
Intranets should not try to do it all. Head's study showed that intranets are not the ideal environment for such information as company policies. "They wanted to talk to someone face-to-face or over the phone," Head said. They wanted a real person, a dialogue."
When Head went back late last year to see how the intranets from her study were faring, few were redesigned or had implemented the report's recommendations, although some were trying. Some companies had merged with others, such as ChevronTexaco, and intranet developers were busy realigning content on their sites. Other companies had sold off one of their divisions, such as Gilead Sciences, and developers were busy removing unneeded information from their sites.
No company that Head studied had one person whose sole job was to maintain and update the intranet, and that makes keeping intranets current and useful quite difficult. Nevertheless, Head remains convinced that intranets are essential for both the large company and the small one, helping employees do their jobs without having to get lost and frustrated at their work stations.
"People don't use intranets in isolation but with work distractions and everyday pressures. They are used with ringing phones. They are used with kids who need to be picked up at school 10 minutes ago, with the boss interrupting," Head said. "There needs to be more of an awareness of what employees need and how sites are actually used. The Holy Grail is making a useful intranet."
A summary of "On-The-Job-Research" is available at www.ajhead.com. A copy of the report can be purchased by calling the Special Libraries Association at (202) 234-4700 ext. 673, or e-mailing books@sla.org.