Members: Join   Log In
Conv hcpark
Rank_member
re: re: If I were to evaluate the capability of a small company to accept Web 2.0 tech, how would I do so?
Icon-thread a reply to re: If I were to evaluate the capability of a small company to accept Web 2.0 tech, how would I do so?
 Icon-thread in a conversation thread started here

by hcpark on Jun 16, 2008 - 02:35 PM read 82 times
 

Awesome.

Out of curiousity (if you can tell us this) what tech are you using?

I may have mentioned this before.  But you might want to look at http://www.openteams.com/.  Tory is a good friend of ours.

Also, we may be able to open up our platform (but allow for their security), not sure.

  • Conv J Mike Munsil
    Rank_participant
    re: re: re: If I were to evaluate the capability of a small company to accept Web 2.0 tech, how would I do so?
    Icon-thread a reply to re: re: If I were to evaluate the capability of a small company to accept Web 2.0 tech, how would I do so?
     Icon-thread in a conversation thread started here

    by J Mike Munsil on Jun 17, 2008 - 09:06 AM read 82 times
     

    I am using the simplest tech available.  I hosted a project site on my hosting service and installed the Dokuwiki wiki engine.

    Time spent:

    • 5 minutes to set up a new subdomain
    • 45 minutes to install and set up Dokuwiki, inclduing the skeleton of the project site
    • 45 minutes to create the project team users and implement the Access Control List system
    • Since then, about 1 hour a day to administer (that is my minimum daily charge).

    The project site framework is very simple. 

    1. Home Page
    2. How-To Page for using the system
    3. An Uploads/Downloads page for resource documents
    4. A Powerpoint file for navigation/editing the wiki
    5. Discussion areas at the bottom of each page

    The Home Page contains the following:

    1. Table of site backups with date and timestamp.
    2. Table of team members, containing all their contact information
    3. Table of quick links, including:
    • a link to the page that is the text document we are creating for the project
    • a link to a page with directions on how to use the system for this project
    • a link to an uploads/downloads page for project resources
    • a link to download a Powerpoint presentation on how to navigate and edit the wiki
    • a discussion area (topics and replies) at the bottom of the page

    For the page that is our deliverable, I simply pasted in the agreed-to table of contents for the report. Inside each subsection I posted the name of the team member responsible for that section. The wiki engine automatically created a menu with links based on section headings.

    As the text is generated on the wiki (mostly by cut and paste), another person receives an email notification of the changes and proof-reads and edits that section for grammar, spelling, consistency and citations.

    Once the document is complete I will simply cut and paste it into a Word (ugh) document.  I will use a macro to change the headings wikicode to Word styles, generate the TOC, and voila!

    --

    This particular project is to write the detailed scope fo work for a much larger project about US$600k for a construction project (about US$1bilion) that will be completed in-country by locals. We hope to also win the project oversight for the Us$600k project. If we do, we will have even more use for this (or similar technology).  This is a test case to prove my contention that wiki use for specific projects is dead simple and has huge benefits to the project team.

    I am also co-authoring a paper with a client on the use of wiki to manage external compliance audits. We are using the same tech to draft and edit that paper.

    Comments?

     

     

     

Featured

Project ITR
Project CBS
Project LIM
Wiki Archive
Concours Archive

Author Profile

hcpark  Feed_small Secure_feed_16

hcpark

Member Rank_member

Subscribe

Feed for nGenera Community:
Feed_small Public Secure_feed_16 Secure

Why subscribe? What is RSS?