Are we Getting Closer to True Knowledge Sharing Systems?

knowledge-systems

(image credit: https://mariaalbatok.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/religious-knowledge-systems/)

First generation knowledge management (KM) systems were essentially re-labelled content stores. Labelling such content as ‘knowledge’ did much to discredit the whole Knowledge Management movement of the 1990s. During this time, I commonly referred to knowledge management systems as needing to comprise both “collections and connections”, but we had forgotten about the “connections”.  This shortcoming was addressed with the advent of Enterprise Social Networking (ESN) systems like Yammer, Jive, IBM Connect and now Workplace from Facebook. So now we do have both collections and connections. But do we now have true knowledge sharing?

Who do we Rely on for Knowledge Based Support?

A common occupation for KM professionals is to try and delineate a boundary between information, that can be effectively managed in an information store, and knowledge, which is implicitly and tacitly held by individuals. Tacit knowledge, arguably, can only be shared through direct human interaction. In our Social Network Analysis (SNA) consulting work we regularly surveyed staff on who they relied on to get their work done. We stumbled on the idea of asking them to qualify their selections by choosing only one of:

  • They review and approve my work (infers a line management connection)
  • They provide information that I need (infers an information brokering connection)
  • They provide advice to help me solve difficult problems (infers a knowledge based connection)

The forced choice was key. It proved to be a great way of delineating the information brokers from the true knowledge providers and the pure line managers. When we created our ‘top 10 lists’ for each role, there was regularly very little overlap. For organisations, the critical value in these nominations is that the knowledge providers are the hardest people to replace, and therefore it is critical to know who they are. And who they are, is not always apparent to line management!

So how do staff distribute their connections needs amongst line managers, information brokers and knowledge providers? We collated the results of several organisational surveys, comprising over 35,000 nominations, using this identical question, and came up with the following:

work-done

With 50% of the nominations, the results reinforce the perception that knowledge holders are critical to any organisation.

What do Knowledge Providers Look Like?

So what is special about these peer identified knowledge providers? Are they the ‘wise owls’ of the organisation, with long experiences spanning many different areas? Are they technical specialists with deep knowledge about fairly narrow areas? We took one organisation’s results and assessed the leaders of each of the categories of Approve/review, Information and Knowledge/Advice looking for their breadth or diversity of influence. We measured this by calculating the % of connections, nominating them as an important resource, that came from outside their home business unit. Here are the results:

external-links

As we might anticipate, the inferred line management had the broadest diversity of influence. The lowest % being for the knowledge providers, suggests that it’s not the broadly experienced wise old owls, but those specialising in relatively narrow areas, where people are looking for knowledge/advice from.

Implications for Knowledge Sharing Systems

We have previously written about our Network Performance Framework, where performance is judged based on how individuals, groups, or even full organisations balance diversity and cohesion in their internal networks:

personal-networking

The above framework identifies ‘Specialists’ as those who have limited diversity but a strong following i.e. many nominations as a key resource. These appear to be the people identifying as critical knowledge providers.

The question now is to whether online systems are identifying and supporting specialists to share their knowledge? At SWOOP we have aimed to explore this question initially by using a modification of this performance framework on interactions data drawn from Microsoft Yammer installations:

performance

We measured each individual’s diversity of connections (y-axis) from their activities across multiple Yammer groups. The x-axis identifies the number of reciprocated connections an individual has i.e. stronger ties, together with the size of their personal network, identified by the size of the bubble representing them. We can see here that we have been able to identify those selected few ‘Specialists’ in the lower diversity/stronger cohesion quadrant, from their Yammer activities. These specialists all have relatively large networks of influence.

What we might infer from the above analysis is that an ESN like Yammer can identify those most prospective knowledge providers that staff are seeking out for knowledge transfer. But the bigger question is whether actual knowledge transfer can happen solely through an ESN like Yammer?

Is Having Systems that Provide Connections and Collections Enough to Ensure Effective Knowledge Sharing?

The knowledge management and social networking research is rich with studies addressing the question of how social network structure impacts on effective knowledge sharing. While an exhaustive literature review is beyond the scope of this article, for those inclined, this article on Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range is representative. Essentially this research suggests that ‘codified’ knowledge is best transferred through weak ties, but tacit knowledge sharing requires strong tie relationships. Codified knowledge commonly relates to stored artefacts like best practice procedural documents, lessons learned libraries, cases studies and perhaps even archived online Q&A forums. Tacit knowledge by definition cannot be codified, and therefore can only be shared through direct personal interactions.

I would contend that relationships formed solely through ESN interactions, or in fact any electronic systems like chat, email, etc. would be substantially weaker than those generated through regular face to face interactions. Complex tacit knowledge would need frequent and regular human interactions. It is unlikely that the strength of tie required, to effectively share complex knowledge, can be achieved solely through commonly available digital systems. What the ESN’s can do effectively is to help identify who you should be targeting as a knowledge sharing partner. Of course this situation is changing rapidly, as more immersive collaboration experiences are developed. But right now for codified knowledge, yes; for tacit knowledge, not yet

 

SWOOP Video Blog 2 – Yammer Groups

The second in our SWOOP Video Blog Series:

Slide 1

Hi there, I’m Laurence Lock Lee, the co-founder and chief scientist at Swoop Analytics

In this second episode of Swoop Benchmarking insights we are drilling down to the Yammer Group level. Groups are where the real collaborative action happens.

As Yammer Groups can be started by anyone in the organisation, they quickly build up to hundreds, if not thousands in some organisations. Looking at activity levels alone we will see that the majority of groups do not sustain consistent activity, while a much smaller proportion look to be really thriving.

As useful as activity levels and membership size are, as we have suggested before, they are crude measures which can mask true relationship centred collaboration performance being achieved.

In this session we provide insights into how organisations can compare and benchmark their internal groups.

Slide 2

There is no shortage of literature and advice on how to build a successful on-line community or group. The universal advice for the first step is to identify the purpose. A well articulated purpose statement will identify what success would look like for this group or community.

What we do know from our experience to date is that there are a variety of purposes that online groups are formed. IBM has conducted a detailed analysis of their internal enterprise social networking system, looking to see if the usage logs could delineate the different types of groups being formed. What they found was five well delineated types of groups. {IBM classification from years of IBM experience  http://perer.org/papers/adamPerer-CHI2012.pdf }

The identified groups types were:

  1. Communities of Practice. CoPs are the centerpiece of knowledge sharing programs. Their purpose is to build capability in selected disciplines. They will usually be public groups. For example, a retail enterprise may form a CoP for all aspects of establishing and running a new retail outlet. The community would be used to share experiences on the way to converging to a suite of ‘best practices, that they would aim to implement across the organisation.
  2. Team/Process. This category covers task specific project teams or alternatively providing a shared space for a business process or function. In most cases these groups will be closed or private.
  3. Groups formed for sharing ideas and hopefully generating new value from innovations. It is best to think about such groups in two stages, being exploration and exploitation. The network needs to be large and diverse, to uncover the most opportunities. However, the exploit stage requires smaller, more focused teams to ensure a successful innovation
  4. The Expert / Help type group is what many of us see as the technical forums we might go to externally to get technical help. For novices, the answers are more than likely available in previously answered questions. In essence, they would be characterised by many questions posted, for a selected few to answer.
  5. Finally, the social (non-work) groups are sometimes frowned on; but in practice they are risk free places for staff to learn and experience online networking, so they do play an important part in the groups portfolio.

 Slide 3

This table summarizes the purposes and therefore value that can accrue from the different group types. Some important points that can be taken from this are:

  • Formally managed documents are important for some group types like CoPs and Teams, but less so for others, where archival search may be sufficient
  • Likewise with cohesive relationships, which are critical for teams say, but less so for Expert/Help groups for instance.
  • Large isn’t always good. For idea sharing the bigger and more diverse, the better. For teams, research has show that once we get past about 20 members, productivity decreases (https://www.getflow.com/blog/optimal-team-size-workplace-productivity)

 Slide 4

More than 80 years of academic research on performance of networks could be reduced to an argument between the value of Open and diverse networks versus closed, cohesive networks. This graphic was developed by Professor Ron Burt from the University of Chicago Business School, who is best known for his research on brokerage in open networks. However, Burt now concedes in his book on Brokerage and Closure in 2005, that value is maximised when diversity and closure are balanced.

It is therefore this framework that we are using for assessing and benchmarking Yammer Groups.

Slide 5

For pragmatic reasons we are using group size as a proxy for diversity, with the assumption that the larger the group, the more likely the more diverse the membership will be. For cohesion, we measure the average 2-way connections/member, using the assumption that if members have many reciprocated relationships inside the group, then the group is likely to be more cohesive.

This plot shows a typical pattern we find. The bubble size is based on group activities, so as you can see, activity is an important measure. But the positioning on the network performance chart can be quite differentiated by their respective diversity and cohesion measures.

The pattern shown is also consistent with what we see in our prior network survey results, which essentially shows that it is difficult not to see diversity and cohesion as a trade-off; so the ideal maximum performance in the top right corner, is in fact just that, an ideal.

Side 6

Now if we overlay what we see as ideal ‘goal states’ for the different types of groups that can be formed, it is possible to assess more accurately how a group is performing.

For example, a community of practice should have moderate to high cohesion and a group size commensurate with the ‘practice’ being developed.

The red region is showing where high performing teams would be located. High performing teams are differentiated by their levels of cohesion. Group size and even relative activity levels are poor indicators for a group formed as a team. If your group aims to be a shared ideas space, but you find yourself characterised as a strong team, then you are clearly in danger of “group think”.

Likewise you can infer a goal space for the Expert/Help group type.

If you are an ideas sharing group you have an extra measure of monitoring the number of exploitation teams that have been launched from ideas qualified in your group.

For the group leaders, who start in the bottom left, and many who are still there, it becomes an exercise in re-thinking your group type and purpose and then deciding the most appropriate actions for moving your group into the chosen goal space.

For some this may be growing broader participation, if you are expert help group; or building deeper relationships if you are a community of practice or functional team.

Slide 7

So in summing up:

Groups come in different shapes and sizes, where simple activity levels and membership size are insufficient for assessing success or otherwise.

Gaining critical mass for a group is important. Research has shown that critical mass needs to also include things like the diversity in the membership and the modes used to generate productive outputs.

{http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/connect/CSCW_10/docs/p71.pdf}

The Diversity vs Cohesion network performance matrix provides a more sophisticated means for groups to assess their performance, than simple activity and membership level measures.

Once group leaders develop clarity around their form and purpose, the network performance framework can be used to provide them with more precise and actionable directions for success

Slide 8

We have now covered benchmarking externally at the Enterprise level and now internally at the group level.

Naturally the next level is to look and compare the members inside successful groups.

Thank you for your attention and we look forward to having you at our next episode.

Yammer Benchmarking Edition 1

 

First in a series of SWOOP Yammer Benchmarking video blogs. Swoop has benchmarked some 36 Yammer installations to date. This first video blog shares some insights gained on the important measures that influence collaboration performance.

 

Video script:

SLIDE 1

Hello there

My Name is Laurence Lock Lee, and I’m the Co-Founder and Chief Scientist at Swoop Analytics.

If you are watching this you probably know what we do, but just in case you don’t, Swoop is a social analytics dashboard that draws its raw data from enterprise social networking tools like Yammer and provides collaboration intelligence to its users, who can be anyone in the organisation.

Our plan is to provide an ongoing series of short video blogs specifically on our Yammer benchmarking insights, as we work with the data we collect. We will aim to use this format to keep you appraised of developments as they happen. We have also recently signed a joint research agreement with the Digital Disruption Research Group at the University of Sydney in Australia. So expect to see the results of this initiative covered in future editions.

The Swoop privacy safeguards means its pure context free analysis, no organisational names, group names, individual names…we don’t collect them.

SLIDE 2

This is the “Relationships First” benchmarking framework we designed for our benchmarking. But we also measure traditional activity measures, which we tend not to favour as a collaboration performance measure…but more about that later. The 14 measures  help us characterise the organisations we benchmark by comparing them against the maximum, minimum and average scores of those in our sample set,  which currently sits at 36 organisations and growing rapidly. They represent organisations large and small from a full cross section of industries and geographies.

SLIDE 3

For those of you who have not been exposed to the Swoop behavioural online personas, you will find a number of articles on our blog.

Because I will be referring to them it’s useful to know the connection patterns inferred by each of them. We don’t include the ‘Observer’ persona here as they are basically non-participants.

Starting with the Responder; Responders make connections through responding to other people’s posts or replies. This can be a simple ’like’, mention or notify..…and it often is, but sometimes it can be a full written reply.

In contrast the catalyst makes connections through people replying to their posts. A good catalyst can make many connections through a good post. Responders have to work a bit harder. They mostly only get one connection per interaction.

The Engager as you can see is able to mix their giving and receiving. This is a bit of an art, but important as engagers are often the real connectors in the community or group.

And what about the broadcaster? Well if your posts don’t attract any response, then we can’t identify any connections for you.

SLIDE 4

This is how we present our benchmarking results to the participants. You can see that we have the 14 dimensions normalized such that the ‘best in class’ results are scored at 100 points and the worst performance at zero. The orange points are the score for the organisation with lines connecting their scores to the average scores.

A few points to note are that we only count ‘active users’ being those that have had at least one activity in Yammer over the period we analyze, which is the most recent 6 months.

Some of the measures have asterisks (*) , which means that the score has been reversed for comparison purposes. For example, a high score for %Observers is actually a bad result, so this is reversed for comparison purposes.

Finally, not all of the measures are independent of each other, so it is possible to see recurring patterns amongst organisations. We can therefore tell a story of their journey to date, through seeing these patterns.  For example, a poor post/reply ratio indicates to us that the network is immature and therefore we would also expect a high % observers score.

SLIDE 5

One way of understanding which of the 14 measures are most important to monitor is to look at the relative variances for each measure across the full sample set. Where we see a large relative variance, we might assume that this is an area which provides most opportunity for improvement. In our sample to date it is the two-way connections measure which leads the way. I’ll go into a bit more detail on this later on. The % Direction measure relies solely on the use of the ‘notification’ type, which we know some organisations have asked users to avoid, as it’s really just like a cc in an email. So perhaps we can ignore this one to some extent. The Post/Reply measure is, we believe, an indicator of maturity. Foe a new network we would expect a higher proportion of posts to replies, as community leaders look to grow activity. However, over time we would expect that the ratio would move more toward favoring replies, as participants become more comfortable with online discussions.

It’s not surprising that this measure shows up as we do have quite a mix of organisations at different maturity stages in our sample to date. The area where we have seen less variance are the behavioural personas, perhaps with the exception of the %Broadcasters. This suggests that at least at the Enterprise level, organisations are behaving similarly.

SLIDE 6

This slide is a little more complex, but it is important if you are to gain an appreciation of some of the important relationship measures that SWOOP reports on.

Following this simple example:

Mr Catalyst here makes a post in Yammer. It attracts a response from Ms Responder and Mr Engager. These responses we call interactions, or activities. By undertaking an interaction, we have also created a connection for all three participants.

Now Mr Engager’s response was a written reply, that mentions Ms Responder, because that’s the sort of guy he is. Mr Catalyst responds in kind , so now you can see that Mr Catalyst and Mr Engager have created a two way connection.

And Ms Responder responds to Mr Engager’s mention with an appreciative like, thereby creating a two-way connection Between Mr Engager and Ms Responder.  Mr Engager is now placed as a broker of the relationship between Mr Catalyst and Ms Responder. Mr Catalyst could create his own two-way connection with Ms Responder, but perhaps she just responded to Mr catalyst with a like…leaving little opportunity for a return response.

So after this little flurry of activity each individual can reflect on connections made…as Mr Engager is doing here.

So in summary, An interaction is any activity on the platform. A connection is created by an interaction and of course strengthened by more interactions with that connection. Finally, we value two-way interactions as this is reciprocity, which we know leads to trust and more productive collaboration

SLIDE 7

Finally I want to show you how the two-way connections scores varies amongst the 36  participants to date. Typically, we would look to build the largest and most cohesive Yammer network as possible, though we accept this might not always be the case. While the data shows that the top 4 cohesive networks were relatively small, there are also 3 organisations that have quite large networks with quite respectable two-way connections scores.

So there is definitely something to be learnt here between the participants.

SLIDE 8

So in summing up, as of September we have 36 participants in our benchmark and growing rapidly now. The two-way connections measure, which is arguably the most important predictor of collaborative performance, was also the most varied amongst the participants.

By looking at the patterns between the measures we can start to see emerging patterns. We hope to explore these patterns in more detail with our research partners in the coming year.

Finally, we show that network size should not be seen as a constraint to building a more cohesive network. We have reported previously that another common measure, network activity levels are also an unreliable measure for predicting collaboration performance.

SLIDE 9

In the next video blog we will be looking at Yammer groups in more detail. We are aware that for many organisations, it’s the Yammer groups that form the heart of the network, so it makes sense to take a deeper dive into looking at them.

Thank you for your attention and look forward to seeing you next time.

Looking Beyond the Product to the Purpose: MS Office 365 Groups

Need a conversation starter? How about the Mac vs PC? IPhone vs Galaxy? Facebook vs Twitter? Beach vs Mountains? Clinton vs Trump? Nothing better to while away a few hours than an animated conversation and debate about why I might prefer one product over another. We all know in the end that despite extensive reported analyses and feature lists and the like, our choices are likely deeper than a simple feature by feature trade-off. It’s much subtler than that. An Apple zealot is aligning with Apple’s stated core purpose; its user experience mantra. People will keep lining up outside Apple stores as long as Apple can sustain its mantra. A swipe instead of a click may not seem much, but for an Apple zealot it reinforces their strong preferences to buy Apple.

These were the thoughts going through my mind as I took the deep dive to try and understand what Microsoft’s Office 365 Groups was really all about. Like most Yammer followers I fear the day when Yammer groups might be replaced by some generic “one size fits all” group structure. Of course Microsoft are quick to point out that O365 Groups are not a product but a “Groups Service”. I then spent over an hour listening to a Benjamin Niaulin more in depth webinar on the ‘product’. Benjamin used slightly more colourful terminology like a ‘fabric’ or ‘experience’ to describe O365 Groups. Yes, it appears like the ultimate ‘plug and play’ for groups. And like Benjamin, I believe there is a lot of positives to be said about the O365 Groups vision, if indeed Microsoft are able to get the ‘plumbing’ right. But I was still left with one nagging concern. As a long term Yammer supporter I believed in the purpose of the founders. I could forgive some deficiencies (I can’t edit a post I made…really?) because I felt that our purposes were aligned and therefore on the whole, the pluses would far outweigh the minuses. O365 Groups felt like Head Office had come to invade my world for the ‘greater good’. While I’m fully supportive of the ‘greater good’; could we just ensure that no ‘babies are thrown out with the bath water here?’.

Benjamin Niaulin did a great job of promoting the O365 Groups’ ‘Experience’ over the underlying products, imploring us to think in terms of user experience rather than Yammer, Sharepoint, Outlook, Skype etc.; which brings me to the point about ‘purpose over product’. Our experiences are largely driven by purpose, which is also impacted, but not totally directed, by our work roles. In our work analysing organisational networks  we regularly see collaboration patterns following the formal organisational structures. This reinforces to us that work is being conducted as designed by the organisation. However, it’s far from black and white. We also just as regularly see informal patterns of collaboration that are utterly invisible to the senior management. Is this non-compliance? Sometimes it is. More regularly though, it’s simply people being people and improvising around the formal lines of business, to fulfil their needs and purposes.

So if O365 Groups is to fulfil the promise of a customisable user experience one must look below the product features of the underlying products, through to the core purpose of what that product was created for in the first place. With many of these product components now having been acquired by Microsoft, it is important to not lose what made these products attractive in the first place. With this in mind the O365 Groups’ ‘Experience’ can build on the strengths of these products, rather than what many of us fear; a compromise solution that will detract from the experiences that we have worked hard to achieve in the pre-O365 Groups world.

For me it would be as simple as sitting down with some lead users and developers of the underlying product suite and asking questions like (with my answers for Yammer as an example):

  1. What core principles do you think this product’s designers had when they first developed the product?”
    • Not a hard one. I believe ‘networking and community’ is the core theme
  2. “What are some core features that to you exemplify the core purpose?”
    • The ability for anyone in the organisation to create and self-manage a group/community, without management oversight, is a core feature for community.
  3. “What was the core business problem that you believe these designers had in mind?”
    • As evidenced by the post-acquisition activities of the Yammer founders, the ‘Unresponsive Organisation’ was a key business target
  4. “What current features/use cases have been added for convenience more so that reinforce the core purposes?”
    • I think some of the features to ‘compete’ with shorter term team collaboration options e.g. instant messaging (now gone anyway), high frequency email alerts (though can be controlled). Perhaps security is another; do we really need private groups in Yammer?
  5. “What are the 3 most important new core purpose features you would like to see irrespective of the Office 365 Groups charter?”
    • With a focus on reinforcing the core ‘networking and community’ purpose, I would like to see a stronger focus on facilitating deeper relationships in communities. Also it’s important that communities do not become siloes in their own right, so some visibility of interconnectedness (or otherwise) between groups/communities is important. Thirdly, perhaps extending the group admin features to cater for differing group/community leadership roles like conversation moderator, content manager, event organiser etc..

If we were to complete a similar exercise with leaders/developers of Team Sites, Outlook, One Drive, Skype I suspect we would find:

  • Non-overlapping core purposes. Office365 Groups needs to avoid any erosion in functionality that support core purposes.
  • Several non-core features of one product that are core features of another. These can comfortably be stripped away once the plumbing is complete to the alternative source, if and when needed.
  • A product roadmap that would build up the product peaks (core purpose), rather than fill up the valleys with compromised features.

office-blog

Relationship Mapping and Monitoring with Yammer

Yammer&MicrosoftYammer is a leading social networking platform for use inside organisations. Its recent acquisition by Microsoft is not only good for Yammer, but for the many Microsoft Enterprise clients who have been struggling to ‘connect’ via Sharepoint. What is most exciting for us is that the combination of Microsoft’s Active Directory with Yammer’s conversational platform now provides a real opportunity to implement the ‘Real-time Social Business Dashboard‘ which will enable enterprises to move beyond their current process monitoring to see how people are really collaborating (or not) to meet organisational objectives. 

So what’s wrong with the analytics that Yammer currently provide? Well nothing really, other than the fact that its only using a proportion of the intelligence available from its tracking data. Like most of its competitors, the analytics are what we would call “ego-centric”. In other words they track the activity patterns of individuals and then aggregate the data at team, department, company level to assess the level of engagement (read usage). The knowledge management community learnt a long time ago that activity doesn’t always map to productivity. Setting performance measures against ‘documents submitted’ resulted in lots of poor quality documents being uploaded just before performance appraisal time. But ego-centric measures will still reward this. In the social media space numerous postings in forums or voluminous tweets provide little indication of effectiveness unless they provoke a response. Social network measures focus on the relationship. Relationships are jointly owned. A direct response to a post creates a relationship. A heavy interchange of messages infers a stronger relationship (not necessarily friendly, but still a more established one than  where no interchange has occurred). A ‘like’ is also a connection. Counting ‘likes’ can be good for the ego, but even better when we know who is doing the ‘liking’. 

The Social Business Dashboard has ‘relationships’ at its core. That is not to say that current ego-centric measures would not be included. For example the volume of posts is clearly a useful indicator of activity. However social business is about collaboration. ‘Connected activity’ is what we are looking for, as we know that this form of activity is what leads to high productivity. The key component for a Social Business Dashboard is the Social Network Map. The map makes visible the network connections exposed through Yammer. By analysing the map one can see the flow of knowledge and information across the organisation. Accompanying analytics can identify who your key talents are, not by their CV, but who actually seeks them out for advice. We can identify the level of reliance on key players, the level of cross department collaboration, the areas where there may be bottlenecks impacting on customer service, order to cash cycles, ideas to innovation cycles and/or prospect to client conversions.

We have written previously about how network analytics can predict higher levels of efficiency, effectiveness and innovation, how social business drives ROI and what we are calling Social Analytics 2.0. We think this new relationship between Microsoft and Yammer will pay dividends by bringing ‘Social’ into mainstream enterprises, flagging a maturity in the market that we have long waited for.

Example Yammer Interactive Social Network Map

Below we provide an example Social Network map derived from a Yammer installation. The context was an “open innovation jam” where participants were drawn from across businesses to explore new energy and sustainability ideas and opportunities. ‘Connections’ are drawn from the Yammer discussion forum data. Fictitious organisation names have been added to provide an illustration as to how Active Directory profiling information would be included in the map.

The Optimice Webmapper utility enables one to interactively explore a social network map. The ‘flyout’ menu (use the orange triangle to control) allow you to select what attributes you want to colour (Organisation or Explore-Exploit) and/or filter the nodes by. You can also choose what relationships (Relationship Strength or Time) you want to explore.

[hana-code-insert name=’Yammer’ /]

The initial scenario shows the ‘Relationship Strength‘ map. The strength is determined by the number of posts made between pairs of participants. The size of the node relates to the number of posts received; a possible indicator of influence. Move the strength slider from left to right to expose only the strongest connections. The red links identify reciprocated postings. We like to think of these as another indicator of relationship strength. You can use the explore-exploit selectors to show only the explorers, or only the exploiter organisations. Clicking on any individual node will expose the network for just that individual. Select ‘Show All‘ to restore the map. If you like you can use the flyout menu to change the filter to ‘Organisation‘. You have to press ‘Update Map‘ anytime you change something on this menu. You can now turn on and off organisations.

Now try and change the ‘Relationship Strength‘ to ‘Time‘ and the ‘Strength Type‘ to ‘Strength >‘. Press ‘Update Map‘ to expose the new map. The map shown is the final state map but move the strength slider from left to right and the map will show how the connections built over time. You can now imagine how a dashboard might show this map evolve in real-time, while allowing analysts to ‘replay the past’ to diagnose impending issues and/or opportunities.

We are currently looking for organisations that have successfully integrated Yammer into their Microsoft Enterprise environment and are interested in pursuing a ‘Social Business Dashboard’ strategy, as described above.

Contact llocklee@optimice.com.au or cai.kjaer@optimice.com.au.