Measuring the Flow of Information in the Enterprise

Photo by Eric Ziegler

In my previous post I talked about the idea of trust enabling the flow of information in a closed system like the enterprise. Continuing these thoughts, I conjecture that if there is trust which enables the flow of information, that these two items will make the workforce of an organization more effective. Assuming each of these things are true, how can you tell that an organization is becoming more effective? One way of determining this is to poll or survey the organization to see what people are saying related to trust. Gallup has a survey that is related engagement. a similar poll/survey could be used to determine the level of trust within the organization.

There are most likely other ways to measure effectiveness of an organization. For example, if you know that the flow of information is also correlated to trust and effectiveness, you might be able to measure the flow of information to gain insights into the effectiveness of the employees in an organization. And the great thing is, that by measuring it through this measure, you can obtain a second and different perspective on the level of trust and effectiveness in the organization.

So by measuring the participation between employees, where participation is not just the one way push of information, but the interactions between employees and the amount of collaboration between employees, you can start to get a picture of how much trust there is between employees in a company and you can measure the effectiveness of the organization. Going back to the big picture, if employees trust each other, they will start listening to each other, and the work force of an organization will become more effective. And going back to Ramanathan's statements, a closed system like the enterprise needs trust to occur to enable the flow of information.

This note was inspired by +David Amerland 's book, Google Semantic Search - Amazon location 1678.

Trust in the Enterprise Enables the Flow of Information

Photo by Benjamin Ziegler

In David Amerland's book, Google Semantic Search, he references a research paper, Propagation of Trust and Distrust, by Ramanathan Guha. In the research paper, Ramanathan notes in his summary of results that "Typical webs of trust tend to be relatively 'sparse': virtually every user has expressed trust values for only a handful of other users." In closed environments there is a real need for wholesale participation in the system because that provides the connective matrix that helps generate trust.

Am I mistaken when I say that the enterprise is a 100% closed environment. Using Ramanathan's thoughts from his research, it is pretty easy to see that if you want information to flow in the enterprise, you have to build a level of trust within the enterprise between employees. As trust levels increase, flow of information between employees occurs at higher and higher effectiveness levels.

This concept does not just apply to Enterprise Social Networks (ESN) but it applies to the analog world and other technology systems. Obtaining 100% participation is easy when employees are in close proximity to each other but when people are spread across multiple floors, buildings and countries, obtaining 100% participation and building trust is much harder.

So if your employees need to trust people that are one floor above them or across the world, companies need to approximate close proximity. One of the best tools to use to enable improved communication through a trust network is an ESN built around virtual communities. Communities are places where people can go to share information about a topic of interest. These virtual communities can be for a topic like Java development or it could be about a project.

This note was inspired by +David Amerland 's book, Google Semantic Search - Amazon location 1680.

Trusting intranet sites to improve search results

Photo by Eric Ziegler

Authority of a site or page is crucial for determining how a page or a site will show up in search results. That is the case for the internet and that is the case for enterprise intranets.  So, how do you measure the authority of a page or site in an intranet? Can the interactions of employees on sites help determine the authority of a site? How much does trust play in the role of authority? If the employees trust the page, should that have an impact on the authority rank of the site? Can you measure how much employees trust a site?

My opinion? Yep.  

And in many cases there are ways to systematically determine the authority of the site because of the actions of the employees on the site. One way of determining if a site is trust worthy is to measure the frequency of employees viewing a site. As enterprises embrace social though, there is the huge potential on how improving intranet search results.

David Amerland's book, Google Semantic Search, talks specifically about the internet and the influence of social on search results. Specifically, he states that based on individual interactions (social included) the search results are influenced. The ideas discussed in David's book easily translate to an enterprise intranet that has an Enterprise Social Network (ESN). David's list of influencers include:

• Commenting in a blog post on the website
• Responding to comments on a blog post on the website
• Commenting about a website in social network
• Responding to comments about a website in social networks 
• Resharing the content of websites and adding a comment to the reshare
• Resharing the content of websites without adding any comment
• Following websites that have a presence on a social network
• “Liking” or “+ 1-ing” the content of websites
• Interacting with the social network posts of websites

Why is this list so important? Because the list provides a way for people to show that they trust the content. And if they show they trust the content, than the there is a higher chance that the page or site should have an increased authority.  And if the content has a higher authority rank, then it should show up higher on the search results.  Without this type of interaction, enterprise search will continue to fall short.  

This note was inspired by +David Amerland 's book, Google Semantic Search - Amazon location 1560.

Trust and Authority of Intranet Sites to Improve Search

Photo by Eric Ziegler

My trek reading through Google Semantic Search book continues with some insights into trust and authority of pages and sites. I continue to see search engine optimization similarities between what happens in the internet and what should be happening in the enterprise. For instance, in this note, the idea of a page or site being authoritative can be applied directly to helping employees find content in sites that are created in a company intranet.  

Inside the enterprise, often there are many different types  of "sites". These sites range from sites or pages for policies, sites where projects occur, reference material sites, self help sites, business procedures sites and community sites. And for each of these sites, the level of authority of trust associated with each site varies. In addition, these trust scores vary based on the subject or topic of the site.

For example the policy pages/sites should have a high trust/authority score, since they are basically the rules the company and employees need to follow.  A site for a project should have a much lower trust or authority score. Project sites typically are working on future state ideas, and do not represent the current state.  Just imagine what could happen if an employee were to read and use content on a project site to answer an customers question.

Similarly, sites that are for communities of practice should have a higher trust / authority score for the subjects they are centered around. The Java community site should have a high trust / authority score on the Java topic. The customer support community should have a high trust / authority score on customer support. etc.

By improving the authority of specific sites, especially around subjects, the findability and discoverability of sites increases, making every employee's life in the enterprise that much better and makes each of them more effective.

This note was inspired by +David Amerland 's book, Google Semantic Search.

Speed of Trust - The impact of Enterprise Social Networks

Photo by Eric Ziegler

Information in the internet flows along the path of trust.  Do I trust the person that shared that piece of information with me?  Yes? Than I trust the information they shared with me. And the interesting thing is, the internet is not even necessary, but the internet provides extra "grease" to make that flow of information happen faster.  

Similarly, information flows in the enterprise along the path of trust. This is true when there is technology involved (e.g. Enterprise Social Networks(ESN)) and when technology is not involved (the water cooler, break room, etc.). And just like in the internet, technology like an ESN provides the "grease" to allow the information to flow even faster. 

Why is this possible? Because the technology increases the reach of one message from a small group of people to a large group of people. And within the enterprise, trust of another employee is high that people will naturally trust what others say, even if they shouldn't.

This comment was inspired by +David Amerland 's book, Google Semantic Search.

Engaging employees by empowering them through authority

Photo by Eric Ziegler

Still on the SEO spin.

This time around though, SEO techniques (new and old) have the potential to have positive impact on employee effectiveness.

By promoting individuals to build their authority (author rank) related to a company product or topic or even just the company itself is brilliant. Why? If author rank (even the defunct version) is built based on the social aspects of the individual, allowing them to post ideas, thoughts, etc. is a way of empowering the employee.  And by empowering the employee, leads to a more engaged employee which leads to a more effective employee.

This comment was inspired by +David Amerland 's book, Google Semantic Search - Amazon location 1471

The Personal Touch of an Individual

Photo by Eric Ziegler

As I read through different books, each books gets me thinking and the note I create might not make perfect sense.  And sometimes when I review my notes, a note causes multiple thoughts to occur that are really not related. Yesterday's and today's post are both the outcome of the same note from the same location in David's book.

Enterprises are often very quick to use organizational or departmental names when posting an article or piece of content, instead of posting the content with an individual's name. While this is viable and there can be argued some great reasons to do this, there are definitely reasons to minimize the approach of using the non-descript, non-personal organizational name.

Using an individual's name and associating it with the content provides that personal touch that an organization name or identity does not. And if you do it correctly, the arguments for using an organizational name becomes less of an issue (not going into the details on that subject here). As a company creates content and applies a person's name to the content, the person becomes a voice of the department or organization, and the individual becomes the voice and authority on the subject or topic.  In addition, the employees will embrace and interact with the content more often because they feel a person is talking to them, versus some non-descript organization.

This comment was inspired by +David Amerland 's book, Google Semantic Search - Amazon location 1457

Multiple Authors, Authority and SEO

Photo by Sarah Ziegler

As I read through different books, each books gets me thinking and the note I create might not make perfect sense.  And sometimes when I review my notes, a note causes multiple thoughts to occur that are really not related.Today's and tomorrow's posts are both the outcome of the same note from the same location in David's book.

One of the issues with authorship occurs when more than one person is responsible for the blog post, document, wiki page. This is especially exposed when the last person that modified the document appears as the author of the document or content. Thankfully in the enterprise, there is a solution already in place to help resolve this issue (at least in most instances). Most internal collaboration and intranet systems include a mechanism identify each of the authors via history and versioning. Based on this history, the content can be attributed to each of the authors.

Enterprise search systems can use this extra meta data to increase authorship rank, trust and authority of that person on the subject while also influencing the page rank of other content from the same author on the same subject.

This comment was inspired by +David Amerland 's book, Google Semantic Search - Amazon location 1457

Page Rank, Authority and Enterprise Search

As explained in David's book, authority is used to help determine the rank of a piece of content.  And page rank is most likely influenced by using the items that David highlights in his book. Specifically:

• Who created the content
• What else that person has created in the past 
• The content creator’s social media connections
• The content creator’s online activity with further content
• The content creator’s interaction with other people
• How the content this person created was received in a social media setting
• The content’s quality, authority, and originality.
• The content’s stylistics (language level, reading difficulty, paragraph length, use of headings and subheadings, overall length, embedded links, supportive links in footnotes, citations, images, and any multimedia embedded in it.

I am not willing to completely read between the lines on this, but I sense that there could be a hint of not only knowing what content was created in the past by the person, but actually what content has the person created on the same subject in the past. If I do or do not read between the lines, I am thinking that authority can be taken to an extra layer of granularity within the enterprise.  What I mean is, authority can actually be assigned to employees for a specific subject area.  

Even in the enterprise, a page rank on a subject can still be applied using the bullets above with a couple of small adjustments.  Page rank would be influenced based on the person's previous content created on the subject, including both writing and social interactions on the subject.  

So, by building on the original thoughts in David's book, the ideas on determining the rank of a piece of content depends on not just the general authority of the person that created the content, but can be strengthened based on the authority the employee has on the subject the content is about.  (btw, I could have completely gone down the path that page rank should be based on the subject of the page, so it becomes more granular and is a subject page rank - this concept is much more difficult to do).

This comment was inspired by +David Amerland 's book, Google Semantic Search - Amazon Location 1351

Enterprise Identity is not a Differentiator in Enterprise Search

Photo by Eric Ziegler

As I read David Amerland's book, and I learn more and more about how semantic search works, I start to get a better understanding of how semantic web and semantic search might work within the enterprise.  

In the David's book, he refers to identity as being very important for building trust, authority and reputation.  As I think about the enterprise, all content has an author associated with it, especially when the enterprise has a collaboration system like Jive or SharePoint. In addition all content on the intranet portal like the news and policies have an author.  So in the enterprise, identity is almost always associated with content.

As David explains, identity enables authority which enables trust and builds a persons reputation.  So the question that I asked myself is, if identity is critical for authority, trust and reputation.  And if all content in the enterprise has an identity associated with it, what is the differentiator that builds authority and trust?

The differentiator that I came up with is ... identity is not a differentiator but rather the differentiator happens downstream where reputation is built based on the person's ability to become an authority on a subject.

This comment was inspired by +David Amerland 's book, Google Semantic Search - Amazon Location 1261

Enhancing the Enterprise Community via Search and Social

Photo by Eric Ziegler

This comment was inspired by +David Amerland 's book, Google Semantic Search.

David mentions that communities back in the day numbered in the 100's and that in those communities it was easy to reach out and contact another person since most people knew each other.  In many companies (not all) the same thing happens, employees are numbered in the 100's. While companies can and are in many cases similar to the the small communities mentioned in David Amerland's book, it doesn't mean that employees can just go over and talk to another person to get the answer. Employees do not know everyone in the enterprise as they would in a community.  The dynamics in the enterprise is different than a community. So, some of the best ways of getting answers to question employees don't know is to use search and to use social.

And if that is the case, what are you doing to ensure that search is built in a way that finds useful information and how are you preparing your organization to embrace social?

Reducing the Gap through Semantic and Social

Photo by Eric Ziegler

This comment was inspired by +David Amerland 's book, Google Semantic Search

As I think about semantic search and the value it can provide to an enterprise, I realize very quickly that enterprise semantic search is all about reducing the gaps and the distance between employees, groups, teams, departments, divisions. And combining the power of enterprise social with semantic search is even more powerful that either on their own.  These thoughts lead me to believe that it is all about getting people to realize and recognize that interacting, finding, discovering and interacting again is all about reducing the gap.

SEO won't fix a site that sucks

Photo by Eric ziegler

As I stated in my last post, my plan is to regularly post short little notes I created as I read books. My expectation is that the posts will come in spurts, based on my ability to find time to read the book I am reading. As you will find, my notes are typically caused by the book and are not notes directly of or from the book. 

A couple of ground rules. I will always reference which book I was reading which caused the thought. If I can, I will reference where in the book I was when I wrote my comment, but there are times where it just does not make sense and the only reference you will see is to the book.  The notes I am posting could be as short as sentence or they could be longer. I will not be posting more than one note a day, but there could be many days between posts.

This comment was inspired by  +David Amerland 's book, Google Semantic Search

Remember, if people find the site through search or other means and the site sucks, you are going to do more harm than good. 

Collisions of Change

Photo by Sarah Ziegler

I have been in the midst of several small changes recently. I have a new position at work with new responsibilities, I have realized the beauty of using a task oriented system to keep me organized, and I have gotten back to reading both for pleasure and for growing my mind.

These last two items are colliding in a great and spectacular way. Well maybe that is a little bit of an exaggeration....  What I mean is that with my reading, I have found that taking notes has done me wonders in helping me think through the thoughts that come up while I read them. And my method of taking these notes have caused them to start showing up in my task management system. My intention is to share these notes on my blog as a form of #workingoutloud (ala +Bryce Williams and +John Stepper of +Change Agents Worldwide ).  

The goal is that if I share these out loud, others might learn from what I see within the text and what I see beyond the text.  Hope you enjoy the series.

-eric