When we talk about connecting people-to-people, we can look at the evolution of approaches this has entailed. (Elaborate.)
Here’s an example of an issue our professionals face and that KM wanted to address – an “ask the network” example from the previous evolution slide. In our complex organization, finding the right person or subject matter specialist can be challenging. You know there’s someone out there who can help, but how do you connect with them? Practitioners used various methods such as “blanket” or “shotgun” emails fishing for assistance. The results of this method were unpredictable – you were often restrained by your current connections, or you loaded up the Inbox of people who are completely unfamiliar with a topic and couldn't possibly help. It prompted us to question – what’s a better way to help our employees tap into the vast firm knowledge? We knew we wanted to automate and simplify a process to connect people. We didn’t want to create and/or maintain another cumbersome skills profile tool. Many attempts at skills profiles collapse under their own weight because they have to be kept up manually. We found an innovative software application that leveraged something Deloitte employees excel at - email. The application is a product of Tacit Software, Inc., an entity based in Palo Alto, CA, which markets it under the name ActiveNet. We call it iConnect.
iConnect is an automated system that utilizes sent email messages to build up an individual’s knowledge profile. We liked the idea of using e-mail because it is current, dynamic, and a rich source of information about the changing focus, knowledge, and experience of our personnel. If you are talking frequently about a subject, you are probably knowledgeable about it. iConnect identifies and extracts noun phrases from sent emails and attachments to create topic portfolios. In this way, topic portfolios reflect a person’s knowledge base. Over time, the collection of noun phrases from sent e-mails builds a private , personal portfolio of topical expertise of the individual. Topics receive a strength rating within the individual’s portfolio based on factors such as how recently used (i.e., term strength decays over time), context of use (i.e., header vs. body, e-mail vs. attachment), frequency of use, among others. When someone seeks information, they query iConnect using keywords related to the area of interest. In response, iConnect confirms that there are specialists whose base of knowledge matches the request. The system returns multiple topics to choose from based on the terms entered. Users select the topics that best represents what they are interested in, and compose an e-mail requesting assistance. iConnect then forwards the e-mail to the people behind the topics identified. Recipients of the request may choose to reply or not, with no disclosure of their action noted anywhere in the system. This &quot;blind brokering&quot; approach protects privacy while allowing individuals to reach out to others who may possess valuable information related to their work. When you receive a response from a specialist, his or her identity is made known -- and your collaboration can begin.
If you want to implement an expertise locator capability, you need to be comfortable with these issues. Existing policies and practices
Ray Rudd/Mary McDonagh/Christina Rye Stuart Rosenberg/Roxanne McClain January 2008 Re-energizing iConnect Current and Projected Activities KMChicago iConnect: Expertise Location at Deloitte Stuart M. Rosenberg Deloitte Services, LP [email_address] February 12, 2008
Total Revenues (US$billion) U.S. Global Fiscal Year 2004 $6.88 $16.2 Fiscal Year 2005 $7.81 $18.2 Fiscal Year 2006 $8.77 $20.0 Fiscal Year 2007 $9.85 $23.1 Deloitte is a true knowledge organization. Our most important assets walk out the door every night **projected
A Structured Path to Enable People Connections iConnect (Phase 1) Focus: Person-to-Expertise Phase 2: Talent Networking Focus: Person-to-Colleagues Focus: Person-to-Affiliated Groups Phase 3: Social Networking Analysis Focus: Powerful Tools & Analytics to Enhance & Optimize Personal Networks
Over time, the collection of noun phrases from sent e-mails builds a private , personal portfolio of topical expertise of the individual.
Each extracted noun phrase then receives a strength rating within the individual’s portfolio based on factors such as how recently used (i.e., term strength decays over time), context of use (i.e., header vs. body, e-mail vs. attachment), frequency of use, among others.
IP Valuation Moody’s Transfer Pricing Section 973 Depletion allowance Reengineering Graphical Representation of Topic Portfolio for John Doe John Doe’s Source e-mails Noun Phrases 8,000 – 12,000 terms typical
Q2: Contract signed; Hardware ordered; project moves into high gear
Q3: Initial infrastructure enabled and profiling begins; FSS-specific live webinars; performance issues encountered
Q4: Launch at Annual P/P/D meeting to P/P/D community; Quick Adopter’s enabled
Q1: Senior Managers and managers enabled; on-going performance issues
Q2: Upgrade application to newly released version; performance improvements observed
Q3: Analysis and relaunch project work; review findings with core ITS team
Q4: Relaunch strategy discussion
User behavior at each step in the iConnect process needs to be understood as a driver of messaging and necessary changes Unique User Visits (UU & V) Conduct Search (S) e-Mail query (Q) Outbound e-Mail & Replies Received (O & R)* Value Derived ($$) iConnect Process Metrics Messaging Focus * - Data not currently available V/UU Survey of experience & value derived S/V number of audience modifiers used Q/S, Q/V Survey of experience & value derived, change management R/O, Average age of reply Survey of experience & value derived
FSS leads endorsement
FSS leads endorsement
One Deloitte/ collaborative culture
Systems & Process Integration
Areas to examine
Visits, Unique Users and Outbound eMails and Replies * Deployed to Senior Managers and Managers
Why isn’t iConnect a success yet? Hypotheses People don’t trust the process Discomfort using a tool that’s not fully understood Ineffective communications Culture not as collaborative as assumed Right tool, wrong users iConnect not yet integrated into business processes Analysis has relied on anecdotes due to reporting challenges