Continuing from eDMS Roshambo Part 4 | Feedback with the wiki versus the MadPak with Feedback Service.

Wikis clobber eDMS when it comes to collaboration. Wikis are great but getting the end result into a user manual format still requires an external tool.

Rock Paper Scissors (RoShamBo): Wiki vs the MadPak, Analyzer, and Feedback Service

There are strengths to not having a Wiki model introduced right away into a corporation. Dan Ortega mentions corporate policy holding back the anarchy, however it helps considerably when there is a gradual move towards the Wiki model. 

MadCap is halfway through the Wiki model already with just the MadPak. Add to that the Analyzer and Feedback Server/Service’s Web 2.0 features, you’ve got yourself a good step past Wiki as far as maintaining positive control over the content.

With Analyzer you’re looking at a Documentation Manager’s dream package.

I think the key element is… how much time would this all save each role a Technical Communicator has. Let alone the workflow’s editing search and correction time.

Cost - $1200 for the MadPak and $400/quarter for the Feedback Service ($1600/year) so you don’t even need to host a server and stress the IIS configuration. No pricing on Analyzer is yet available. I really should get some sort of Amazon Buy-now button for this stuff.

As far as the industry tools are currently set, MadCap Analyzer could save upwards of $50k - $80k a year in tech writer time and other software. That’s pretty hefty, although at the time I’m writing this MadCap hasn’t set a price for the Analyzer.

Note: Pricing for Analyzer is pretty cheap, as I edit this article I find that it’s only about $200 or so to upgrade.

Updating Any Content Effectively Requires Feedback Data

Wiki strength is that anyone can provide feedback or edit content. The passive feedback of viewed pages falls under another product’s reporting (AWStats or WebTrends to name a couple).

Let’s examine the potential benefits that usage statistics and feedback could make to eDMS and/or wiki content. The two we’ll look at are Adobe RoboServer and MadCap’s Feedback Server.

Both provide feedback about page usage and search terms. This allows content creators and technical writers to evaluate which areas to focus their attention on, sort of like a triage, but MadCap’s goes a step or two farther and adds a Web 2.0 aspect with the addition of Comments pages within the web interface.

Understanding the origins of the RoboServer and Feedback Server comes in handy when comparing their technologies.

Read the rest of this entry »

My methods of technology adoption and selection caused me to closely examine desktop search engines five years ago, prior to Google coming out with their version. It also is why I was so interested in RoboHelp ten years ago. What is there past the usual Help Authoring Tool that can top this?

When it comes to refining a Knowledge Management workflow, I’ve been researching into collaboration tool adoption. I tend to look towards the internet for what the free market economy brings up.

There’s a sweet spot between the user familiarity of an email and the openness and collaboration capabilities of a wiki; I tend to use a DevBlog instead. DevBlogs, or development-based blogging, has an adoption rate of about 60% of my client base and allow remote collaboration and concept review.

Hence the DevBlog concept, and my adoption of the WordPress standard for Blogging. Most people can use the web-based Comments area because they have already adopted the technology by viewing or interacting on other people’s blogs.

I believe this is because of the subject structure, and most importantly, the ability to collate the information by relativism; nesting a family of knowledge within Workflow Collaboration such as this post falls into, allows me to communicate effectively with each part of my team since everyone knows where the related posts are.

Knowledge management could use wikis as a dream tool, however repurposing the content tends to be cumbersome. I expect that the Web 2.0 focus of MadCap Software’s Flare v3.0 addresses this issue nicely.

So the question comes down to whether there a better free tool - in this case a wiki - that can provide what the corporation needs to collaborate and collate information effectively?

Read the rest of this entry »