Reasons for not having an intranet 1

[chelseatech]

This seemed the best forum to discuss this strategy issue.

While we are a small IT business, we have a small business server and an intranet with a bunch of web pages full of documents, procedures and all sorts of other useful stuff.

However I'm sure some companies out there do not run an internal web server for this purpose. I'm sure they have good reasons for this approach. I'd like to know what those might be.

Editor and Publisher of Crystal Clear

http://www.chelseatech.co.nz/pubs.htm

 

[mrdenny]

Honestly I can't thing of one. Every company I've worked for (from 6 people to 5000 people) has at least one intranet site for staff to use. Some have more than one, others had just one.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

(Not quite so old any more.)

 

[chiph]

The place I'm working at currently has both an intranet and a wiki. The wiki is probably more useful, as it's easier for people to keep it up to date.

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[GwydionM]

I've lived through the transition, and I'd see it as very natural to make use of technology as soon as it is there. An e-mail is often much easier than a phone-call. Having documents on-line is easier than having paper copies - does everyone have one?

If you do need to phone - recomended when you want a more personal or person-centred approach - the intranet should have the phone list. It is also great for finding the exact names and/or job titles - there might be a dozen people called Sam, but if the one you were dealing with was female, that narrows it down.

I used to have to physically photocopy program specifications and then deliver them. Now e-mail does it all.

------------------------------
An old man who lives in the UK

 

[johnherman]

Well, what is an intranet? It's simply an overlay on top of an underlying network which makes it easier for most users to locate what they are looking for. I can imagine development shops where everyone is computer and network savvy having no need for an intranet - the users simply navigate the network using command language.

For most businesses, I believe an intranet is as basic to operations as a telephone system.

-------------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. - George Bernard Shaw

 

[grooke]

Has everyone missed the question?

Most seemed to have answered the question of 'Is Internet/intranet good for you?' The general concensus seems to be 'Yes!!!' with one reservation, that a Wicki is even better.

However, I thought you were asking whether the was any benefit in using Internet as opposed to the Intranet you currently have. The first response covered this, by sasying that he saw no advantage.

My own feeling is that you should not change what you have unless it is crippling. I also dont know of any significant advantages of Internet; there are distinct pros and cons but they usually balance.

If I were thinking of changing, I would follow the advice of Chiph and go for a wiki. I have had very good experiences with a system called 'Confluence' which is excellent. I gather there are others.

Gil

 

[chelseatech]

I may not have made my question clear. It is not Internet v Intranet. Not wiki v web.

It is just the internal side. Why would you NOT run a web server to support internal users? What are the disadvantages of an intranet?

Maybe you don't want any of the HTTP stuff floating around your network. I've heard of a company (ok, they were lawyers) who removed all email access as a company policy. Too much bad stuff, so lets not use the goood stuff either.

Editor and Publisher of Crystal Clear

http://www.chelseatech.co.nz/pubs.htm

 

[damber]

There are always reasons why you shouldn't do something... whatif's can be more of a hinderence than a help in the wrong hands...

---
>> Any server on your network is open to attack by a malicious individual - and not all of these individuals are on the outside of your company walls.

>> Any traffic over the network will either reduce performance of the network (increase latency) or will increase your network infrastructure costs to support the required bandwidth.

>> Any system will require physical real-estate, hardware, software, licensing, support & maintenance and hosting/FM. This will add to the cost of delivering an intranet.

>> Anything that contains information will need management to keep that information maintained and up to date - this again will add cost and risk of inaccuracies.

>> In many companies (regardless of size) the transition to centralised electronic information vs. distributed or paper based information (think telephone extension lists, notice boards etc) is a difficult one to make - this could lead to a perception of failure of the centralised system if this is not managed properly - training and PR is essential, aswell as good requirements analysis.

>> It may also be a 'distraction' to users if it contains 'interesting' information not necessary for their job - newsletters etc (although useful) can get out of hand.

>> Also, single points of failure may be in question if the system is not HA'd in some way - load balancing, HA clusters would help, but you have to consider all the angles, such as power loss to the datacentre, or network failure on the Server LAN/VLAN - or worse, complete WAN failure. Without the information on the intranet site, could the users do their job ?
----

The thing is... this applies to almost any system, and is just part of the due diligence process all new systems should be put through (and much more) to ensure that it will help the business, not hinder it.

Further more, there should always be a business case for doing anything - what is the value proposition of having an intranet ? Why spend thousands or millions on a system that nobody needs?

Having said that... you only asked about why NOT... there are just as many (if not more) why you SHOULD have an intranet - in my opinion these usually far outweigh the potential risks (that can be easily mitigated). Businesses succeed or fail based on the quality of the people and their information - make peoples' jobs easier by making the information more easily available.

First things first - understand the requirements of the business, and then see how you can meet those needs with an intranet type technology - do you need a wiki, forums, notice board, contact lists, document store etc etc..

There are lots of other reasons in both directions.. search for Risk Assesment or Risk Management or look at standards such as ITIL, BS15000 etc to see what is important when providing Information systems, this will take you in the right direction.

Hope that helps

A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!

 

[sggaunt]

We don't have an Intranet, we do have an internal network running with a single server connected to the Internet and running NAT and Mail server software. (the same thing? I don't think so).
We don't have the resources or the requirement for anything more than this. But then there are only 5 of us, but I don't think anything would change if the company doubled in size.



Steve: Delphi a feersum engin indeed.

 

[jrbarnett]

Depending upon what information is planned to go on the intranet, there could be security issues due to sensitive data.
For example, where I work there is a folder for operational ICT staff giving details of the support arrangements for the servers, with make, model, serial number etc.
One page per server, a flat file.

On my manager's recommendation, I wrote a database backend with this information, together with details of applications and linked the two together - so you can go via a server to see what applications use it, and via an application to see what applications rely upon it.

I gave the test URL to my colleagues and it was shot down as "too useful" as "we may end up using this rather than the official system."

The only problem with it is that the server running it is an old recycled system, and while fine for plain HTML files, executing ASP code connecting to an Access database occasionally brings it to its knees. Its fine running on IIS on my PC.

John

 

[dilettante]

One of the big headaches I've run into in large organizations is a lack of infrastructure for anything besides a "Soviet-style, centrally planned" intranet. The upshot is you get an intranet supporting nothing but happytalk from upper management and HR functions and information.

The idea of intranet support for business functions, let alone workgroup support (documentation libraries, internal discussions, etc.) completely escapes the decision makers. The box jockeys ("infrastructure specialists") are uncomfortable providing anything beyond file shares and print services... and of course email.

The result is that most of an organization's "knowledge workers" are locked into 1980s technology. Collaboration consists of a few joint file shares and copies of documents being emailed all over the place.

 

[strongm]

>The idea of intranet support for business functions, let alone workgroup support (documentation libraries, internal discussions, etc.)

Yep. We used to have most of the above until we were bought by a French company - which immediately (or, at least, as soon as they found out about them) had it all shut down since they didn't have any such thing themselves and couldn't see how it could be of any benefit to anyone

 

[dilettante]

We've taken to using "serverless" collaboration tools based upon file sharing services, something we can still get at least.

Here's a simple example: FWDiscus

 

[KuraszJM]

I developed and now manage the intranet at our office (approx. 400 users). It is certainly useful, and I hope to find the time to add more usefulness to it. However, my advice is don't get caught up in the "fun" stuff unless you have time to manage it too! I started a classified section, a section for human interest stories, etc., and I was only blasted by management for spending too much time on non-work-related issues and encouraging employees to do the same!

 

[svanels]

don't get caught up in the "fun" stuff unless you have time to manage it too!

Reminds me of: "When you are up to your ass with alligators, it is dificult to remember that the first objective was to drain the swamp"

Steven

 

[medic]

chelseatech,

Since yours is a small business (at least for now), it makes it easy to justify not having intranet. Maintaining an intranet for a 3-people business (and all works in the same building/room) may not be worth it.

 

[Stevehewitt]

Yep - depends on size. If you've got 10 people, then you probably know extensions off by heart (or even have them on programmed keys!). Handy for more than 10 id say; phone directory, company policies, links to useful sites often used throughout the company etc.

If your on the medium sized / large company then a content management system could be useful if users are having problems finding documents.

Ta,




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson