denotes premium content | Dec 3 2008 Feature
posted 1 Apr 2000 in Volume 3 Issue 7
Collective knowledge
In a sensitive
post-merger environment, there are pitfalls and cultural obstacles that can
threaten to undermine knowledge-related initiatives. Using the development of a
corporate intranet at Jones Lang LaSalle as an example, Gillian Westall
emphasises the importance of face-to-face contact among project-workers, even
when the virtual workplace has become an accepted part of business
operations.
Jones Lang LaSalle was created from a merger between Jones Lang
Wootton, the international firm of real estate advisors and LaSalle Partners, a
high profile public company offering a similar range of real estate
services, headquartered in Chicago and with offices in London and in continental
Europe. The merger resulted from several months of detailed negotiation between the
two organisations and was based on what was perceived to be an 'almost perfect' fit
between the two parties in respect of clients, skills and geography. As a result
of the long negotiation process, there seemed to be a clear understanding of how
the two organisations and their respective clients would benefit from the
synergies the merger would deliver.
But despite the careful preparation
and the clear understanding throughout both companies of the potential immediate
and long-term benefits, the merger changed the entire operating environment in
each section of the new company. In London, for instance, the Jones Lang Wootton
network, a closely linked federation of independent partnerships, was superseded
by a major international corporation, which had a more hierarchical approach to
its day to day operations.
At the
most basic level we had a number of infrastructure issues
to overcome: different e-mail systems, different corporate structures, different software
preferences 'Lotus versus Microsoft' and even different time zones. At the complex level 'despite using English
as the common business language' we had different cultures, working practices and
expectations. The Jones Lang Wootton management, typical of a
professional-partnership structure, had tended to practise a hands-off style on
day-to-day matters. Departmental line managers had significant flexibility in
taking operating decisions, so long, of course, that the general direction had
previously been agreed with their managers, and that any budget required had
prior approval and no unforeseen circumstances arose as the project developed.
LaSalle, as a public company, was more aware of its reporting and auditing
requirements and tended to operate with more involvement from senior managers at
all stages of a project.
In their place, both approaches are valid, but Jones
Lang Wootton staff suddenly had to learn what was required of the new public
status, which seemed to involve some vital but frustrating control steps. The impact
on our share price resulting from the release to the USA Securities
and Exchange Commission of statutory 1st and 2nd quarter-end results, was a salutary
lesson of how normal operating practices in the real estate industry 'where operating
income is traditionally in a loss position during the first half of the year as much
of our fee income is back-ended' affects our public image. This situation was a
difficult lesson for the 'freer' Jones Lang Wootton staff to learn, but the
repercussions experienced made us realise that these control steps are often
vital.
The
project to create a single intranet site, accessible to all our staff, was our
first attempt to work together on a knowledge-related initiative, and was almost
a textbook example of how not to run a project. Both organisations had intranets
prior to the merger, but they were conceived as very different types of
facility; one concentrating on information exchange, the other on document
management. In the post-merger environment the trick would be to take the best
from each without appearing to totally replace one with the other.
The initial project work was managed in one of the two main
offices as a standalone exercise, with limited involvement from other parts
of the organisation, where, arguably, the level of intranet expertise was
higher. Then, recognising that things were going astray and in a belated attempt
to be totally consultative, the project generated two parallel teams, one in London and
one in Chicago, but it still failed to reach any sense of being a fully
coherent exercise. For about three months the project see-sawed between being a
global and a local initiative, content was either prescribed or flexible,
suggestions made in one country were rejected by the other sometimes on the
basis of solely local preferences. For example, even agreeing on terms
and definitions for the headings of the 'Corporate Information' section of the project
was difficult, as in another arena many of us were also involved in attempts
to standardise the names of the global business lines 'Agency vs Leasing, Investment Banking
vs Capital Markets' and we all demonstrated significant emotional attachment to
our previous names, despite being 'reasonable and consultative' at all times. As
a microcosm of this sensitive environment, no lasting decisions could be reached
and the intranet project came close to stagnation and failure.
Finally, 6 months
from the project start date, the two teams came together in London. The meeting
was held almost accidentally, alongside a larger conference of the national
chief information technology officers from Australia, Asia, the Americas, and
Europe, where it just so happened that a number of the people involved in the
intranet project were in the same country at the same time, in supporting roles
to their regional chiefs. In three working days we achieved far more than we had
in the previous 6 months. Our opportunistic meeting was attended by our project
champion, in the person of the global chief information officer, who took time
out from a very hectic schedule to make it clear to us that the project was
important and that we had his support and trust.
The teams were then,
effectively, put together in a closed room for two days with a remit to be able to
present an initial project plan with an outline of what we envisaged as
the finished product, along with a schedule of potential delivery dates for
the respective regions, before the CITO meeting broke up. We were also told that - although
it was important to reach agreement and produce the plan - our project champion
would defend us at all times if we discovered that various items from our very
ambitious outline could not be delivered on time. He would give us back-up if we
needed it, but if that situation should arise we would have to be able to
explain to him why it was necessary and have in place clear and achievable
proposals to rectify the slippage.
Within a matter of hours, joint and
separate responsibilities were agreed, a technical architecture was outlined,
with one cross-border group being given the task of completing the final
technical specification, while another similarly mixed team was made responsible
for deciding the initial content structure and establishing global editorial
ownership. We also had the opportunity to learn together about parts of the
technical architecture that was new to both teams, which gave an excellent basis
for everyone starting part of the project from the same point. Before the end of
the two days, we had prepared the required project outline and received
provisional support from the CITO team. In addition, a programme of regular
weekly teleconferences was established where the current work programme is now
agreed and actions reported, and where opposite members of the two teams
communicate on detailed issues via e-mail and one-to-one calls.
As ever, what made the
difference was the brief, albeit in this case accidental, investment of time to
bring the teams together in the same physical location. We were able to
demonstrate actual examples of the concepts we had been unsuccessfully trying to
describe in the virtual environment. Almost as important, we spent time together
to create the team on a personal and informal level, getting to see each others
strengths and weaknesses, as well as finding out about our respective families,
hobbies and other outside interests.
Since that first meeting some of us
have had the chance to meet together in Chicago, and again in London, but while
most of the work has reverted to the virtual environment, we continue to make
steady progress. We have had one or two minor communication breakdowns since
that first meeting, but we are now close to delivering a new corporate intranet
which, although not perfect, more than meets many of the day-to-day requirements
of our staff, and which has the potential to develop. From day one it will
provide a seamless mechanism for global corporate communications and information
exchange and it will be there to facilitate and consolidate the concept of
building and reinforcing the global Jones Lang LaSalle brand throughout the
organisation. By next year we will also be using it to deliberately deliver and
exchange knowledge.
The final product will have an ambitious portal-type structure, which will allow
us to reconcile the two initial, separate approaches. We will be able to deliver
corporate information to everyone in the organisation at the same time via
some mandatory Information Capsules , but will also support local
customisation by offering teams a menu of other information options, some of
which will be created at the local or even the business unit level, while others
may be purchased from commercial news feeds or other information sources. A
range of security and contribution attributes have also been designed to support
document management requirements, to both protect confidential material from
being accessed by staff outside a particular team or project, but also to target
non-confidential material at the most appropriate audience. Staff will also be
able to access the global staff directory and the office location list from the
site, together with access to central image libraries and core marketing
material.
In this
way, we will have a mixture of high level corporate information for everyone to
access, but will avoid information overload as far as is possible in a global
organisation with a real need for co-ordination and communication. We are keen
to introduce discussion forums to support some of our distributed teams, and
also to have some leisure-related areas, for example by giving direct links to
the internet sites for major sporting events (such as Euro 2000 or the Super
Bowl), to travel-related sites, or even to include some theme-days to celebrate
local public holidays.
We plan to have the intranet open as part of the
PC start-up process and, as we will also be able to launch desktop applications such
as Word and Excel via the intranet toolbox, we hope our users will stay
in the intranet environment for their entire working day. Our one outstanding issue
is to decide on a site name! Our previous Intranet names - JLLWeb (originally
JLWeb) or LaSite - were rejected early on as not being in the spirit of the
merged organisation. Other suggestions thus far have either been too 'cutesy', have
been discovered to be the existing names of other real-estate-related commercial
sites or have been associated with what are considered to be inappropriate
Internet chat-rooms.
I do not pretend that this example is unique, or that it is anything
other than an example of implementing basic project management skills. But in
the knowledge management environment, where we are constantly reminded that
culture is the single most important factor in achieving successful outcomes for
our K-initiatives, it is important to recognise that this applies as much to the
members of the knowledge team as it does to the ultimate end users.
Gillian Westall is
information manager for Jones Lang LaSalle in London. She can be contacted
at:gillian.westall@eu.joneslanglasalle.com
