Intranet did not die, it only evolved to not be a cemetery of archives
For many years, in the jobs I have had, I used the intranet as if it were a warehouse. There we kept documents, reports, manuals, presentations and materials of the organization. In theory, everything was available. In practice, finding something could become a small archaeological expedition: you were looking for an updated version and ended up opening five files with names like "final", "final_v2" "final_V2-6" and "final_final", not knowing which was the one that was really current but assuming that the one that says final final is the last.
That way of understanding the intranet is changing. That dead archive is becoming a space with a life of its own, where people not only find information, but also relevant news, tools for their work and knowledge that would otherwise be dispersed or unattainable. It is no longer just the place where something is stored, but the place where something is found, commented on and sometimes even built among several.
But change doesn't depend only on technology. It depends a lot on the question that the organization asks itself before building it. For years we have wondered where to store the information. Today it's time to ask ourselves how to get people to find it, use it and recognize it as part of their daily lives. It is an uncomfortable question because it is not solved by buying software, but by understanding how people really work, what they are looking for, at what time of day they are looking for it and what makes them return or abandon the attempt.
That's where many organizations get lost, confusing two things that should be separated. Tools such as SharePoint, Google Sites, Notion or Confluence solve where to put things; but the internal communication strategy, that is, what content is published, how often and for whom, is completely another matter. An organization can have the most expensive platform on the market and still end up with a ghost intranet, because no one thought the content with the same seriousness with which the software was chosen. It is the same mistake as always in knowledge management: you invest in the repository and you forget that a repository without someone taking care of it becomes, sooner or later, the warehouse from which we had been fleeing.
In the end, it's the same gap as always: the difference between what an organization says it values, such as transparency or teamwork, and what really happens in its internal channels. An abandoned intranet, with news from eight months ago and a search engine that does not find anything, communicates more about the real culture of an organization than a list of values stuck on the wall. Employees do not read those values, they live them or they do not live them every day through those small gestures: if the information arrives on time, if someone responds when there is a question, if the space feels cared for or abandoned.
Intranets stopped being just repositories and began to be part of the daily life of workers: news, recognition, access to tools, collaboration between teams. In some cases, even the content changes according to each person's role or area, so someone in finance doesn't have to navigate through HR ads to get what they really need. But when people stop trusting that they will find something useful, they stop entering, and there everything goes back to being a digital warehouse again, although the software continues to work perfectly well from a technical point of view.
That is, perhaps, the most difficult thing to accept for those who decide to invest in these platforms: failure is rarely technical. The tool almost always works. What's wrong is that no one took care of that space still alive after the initial launch. And without that sustained care, any intranet, no matter how sophisticated it is, ends up the same path as the usual wineries.
Comments