I've given a lot of credit to KnowledgeStorm for the way that they've built their business. And while I know they are not responsible for the content of their clients' white papers, I have to take them to task for one today.
Having received an email from KnowledgeStorm focusing on white papers for Project Management, I chose to download one of them - a paper entitled "Project Management, Cool?" from software provider @task. Now, I've read some pretty lame white papers over the years. I'm used to seeing companies include unsubstantiated claims, repackage marketing collateral and worse under the label "white paper", but this one takes the cake. The best way that I can describe it is that it seems that someone took a bumper sticker and expanded it to a few hundred words.
Here's a brief excerpt from this two-page white paper:
"Imagine if in the late 1870's when the first transcontinental railroad was being built if railroad project managers would have had enterprise software that could have managed the thousands of workers spread out across the country working on various parts of the construction; or if project managers had the ability to integrate operations with shipping to trigger real-time delivery of the enormous amounts of raw materials.
Now imagine if Henry Gantt, developer of the Gantt chart, would have had access to a powerful computer with broad-band Internet access to help the Navy manage ship construction during World War I."
Despite reading through the entire 2 page paper twice, I never found any details on the product itself, the underlying technology, the specific problems that it addresses or anything else that you'd expect to find in a technology white paper.
This is a white paper? What were they thinking?
While I cannot hold KnowledgeStorm accountable for the contents of the white papers they disseminate, they are responsible for their own editorial. And, highlighting this "white paper" as a recommended white paper for project management impacts their credibility as a trusted source of content.
Posted by: |