Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Results from the Enterprise Search and Findability Survey 2012

7,632

Published on

A few preliminary results form the Enterprise Search and Findability Survey. The dataset for the survey is very large, and the analysis on the complete dataset will be in the report that will be …

A few preliminary results form the Enterprise Search and Findability Survey. The dataset for the survey is very large, and the analysis on the complete dataset will be in the report that will be published in June.

This presentation is a mash-up of the versions presented at the Enterprise Search Summit, 15th of May, 2012, in New York, US, Enterprise Search Europe in London, 30th of May 2012, IKS Semantic Enterprise Technologies Workshop on the 12th of June in Salzburg, Austria. Also presented at Findability Day 2012 Stockholm,

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
7,632
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
19
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
41
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. RESULTS FROM THE ENTERPRISESEARCH AND FINDABILITY SURVEY
  • 2. Hikingartist
  • 3. SLIDESHARE.NET/FINDWISE GLOBAL + EUROPE + NORTH AMERICA
  • 4. ANNUAL SURVEY
  • 5. SIGN-UP FOR 2013
  • 6. 170 RESPONDENTS GLOBALLY
  • 7. SEARCH VENDORS AND INTEGRATORS EXCLUDED
  • 8. EUROPE>1000 EMPLOYEES 107 ORGS.
  • 9. EUROPE: 59.4%101 RESPONDENTS
  • 10. NORTH AMERICA: 22.3%38 RESPONDENTS
  • 11. DEMOGRAPHICS
  • 12. 28 COUNTRIES
  • 13. 52.2%PRIVATE SECTOR
  • 14. 48.8%PUBLIC SECTOR
  • 15. 60.8%> 1000 EMPLOYEES
  • 16. 33.5%> 10 000 EMPLOYEES
  • 17. 52.9%GLOBAL
  • 18. NORTH AMERICA:71.1% GLOBAL ORGS
  • 19. EUROPE53.6% GLOBAL ORGS
  • 20. 78.7%ONE CORPORATE LANGUAGE
  • 21. AMOUNT OF INDEXED UNSTRUCTUREDINFORMATION IN 3 YEARS
  • 22. EUROPE 86.2%SAYS MORE
  • 23. HOW CRITICAL IS FINDINGTHE RIGHT INFORMATION TO BUSINESS GOALS AND SUCCESS?
  • 24. 75.0%IMPERATIVE/ SIGNIFICANT
  • 25. EUROPE 76.5%IMPERATIVE/SIGNIFICANT
  • 26. IS IT EASY TO FIND THE RIGHT INFORMATION WITHIN YOURORGANISATION TODAY?
  • 27. 59.5%MODERATELY/ VERY HARD
  • 28. EUROPE 77%MODERATELY/VERY HARD
  • 29. 14.0%FAIRLY/VERY EASY
  • 30. MULTIPLE REPOSITORIES?
  • 31. 50.7%MULTIPLE REPOS
  • 32. EUROPE 53.3%MULTIPLE REPOS
  • 33. NORTH AMERICA: 63.6%MULTIPLE REPOS
  • 34. LARGER ORGSTHINK IT IS (WAY)MORE IMPORTANT
  • 35. WHAT ARE THE OBSTACLES TO FINDING THE RIGHT INFORMATION?
  • 36. 63.4% POOR SEARCH FUNCTIONALITY50.0% LACK OF ADEQUATE TAGS51.4% INCONSISTENCY IN HOW WE TAG CONTENT52.1% DONT KNOW WHERE TO LOOK
  • 37. EUROPE64.2% POOR SEARCH FUNCTIONALITY47.7% LACK OF ADEQUATE TAGS48.6% INCONSISTENCY IN HOW WE TAG CONTENT47.7% DONT KNOW WHERE TO LOOK
  • 38. NORTH AMERICA:48.6% POOR SEARCH FUNCTIONALITY62.9% LACK OF ADEQUATE TAGS65.7% INCONSISTENCY IN HOW WE TAG CONTENT54.3% DONT KNOW WHERE TO LOOK
  • 39. LEVEL OF SATISFACTION
  • 40. 19.6%MOSTLY/VERY SATISFIED
  • 41. EUROPE 18.5%MOSTLY/VERY SATISFIED
  • 42. SATISFIED WITH UI SPEED NAVIGATION
  • 43. DISSATISFIED WITH METADATA TAXONOMY
  • 44. PRIMARY GOAL FOR UTILISING SEARCH TECHNOLOGY
  • 45. ACCELERATE RETRIEVAL OF KNOWN INFORMATION SOURCES
  • 46. 86.6%IMPERATIVE/SIGNIFICANT
  • 47. IMPROVE RE-USE OF CONTENT(INFORMATION/ KNOWLEDGE)
  • 48. 70.6%IMPERATIVE/SIGNIFICANT
  • 49. RAISE AWARENESS OF “WHAT WE KNOW”
  • 50. 58.2%IMPERATIVE/SIGNIFICANT
  • 51. USER EXPERIENCE TESTS
  • 52. 18.1%REGULARLY
  • 53. EUROPE 14.5%REGULARLY
  • 54. SEARCH SUPPORT?
  • 55. YES37.5%
  • 56. EUROPE + GLOBAL YES 45.9%
  • 57. WHO OWNS SEARCH?
  • 58. 57.6% IT
  • 59. 43.2%IT (NOT CIO)
  • 60. NORTH AMERICA: 78.8% IT
  • 61. EUROPE: 54.2% IT
  • 62. NORTH AMERICA: 51.5% IT (NOT CIO)
  • 63. 28.8% CORPORATECOMMUNICATIONS
  • 64. EUROPE 43.9%CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS
  • 65. 17.6%KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT
  • 66. EUROPE 10.5%KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
  • 67. FINAL DECISION REGARDING SEARCH
  • 68. 70.9% IT
  • 69. NORTH AMERICA: 87.9% IT
  • 70. EUROPE: 66% IT
  • 71. Hikingartist
  • 72. SEARCH BUDGET
  • 73. NONE SAYS 45.4%
  • 74. EUROPENONE SAYS 36.4%
  • 75. DON’T KNOW 15.1%
  • 76. EUROPEDON’T KNOW 21.8%
  • 77. FOR THOSE WITH A SEARCH BUDGET
  • 78. 76.6%LESS THAN 100K €
  • 79. EUROPE ≈50%DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH
  • 80. BUDGET IN 3 YEARS
  • 81. 15.1%SAYS SMALLER BUDGET
  • 82. SAME OR MORESAYS THE REST
  • 83. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEESWORKING WITH SEARCH
  • 84. 50.4%LESS THAN ONE
  • 85. EUROPESAME IN >10 000EMPLOYEE ORGS
  • 86. EUROPE >10 000 42.3% HAVE MORE >1
  • 87. EUROPE >10 000 19.2% 3 - 5 PPL
  • 88. ROI OR TCO
  • 89. 62.1% NO
  • 90. KPI
  • 91. 58.6% NO
  • 92. EUROPE >10 000 42.3% NO
  • 93. WHAT KIND OF KPI:S?
  • 94. MONTHLY USAGE STATSUSER SATISFACTION% TOP SEARCH TERMS MANAGEDCALL CENTER CALLS DEFLECTEDSEARCH REPHRASINGPRODUCTIVITY GAINSEARCH PERFORMANCE INDICATOR
  • 95. WEB SEARCH INFLUENCE
  • 96. YES 59.5%SIGNIFICANT/ IMPERATIVE
  • 97. EUROPE YES 67.2%SIGNIFICANT/IMPERATIVE
  • 98. SAME TECH ON INTRANET AND INTERNET?
  • 99. YES30.4%
  • 100. EUROPE YES 42.6%
  • 101. SEARCH STRATEGY IN PLACE?
  • 102. YES14.2%
  • 103. EUROPE YES 6.0%
  • 104. YES + PLANNED 44.4%
  • 105. EUROPEYES + PLANNED 46%
  • 106. USERS CAN PROVIDE FEEDBACK
  • 107. YES + PLANNED 72.3%
  • 108. EUROPEYES + PLANNED 80%
  • 109. USERS INFLUENCE ON RELEVANCY
  • 110. YES11.4%
  • 111. EUROPE YES 16%
  • 112. PLANNING 20.0%
  • 113. IS THERE AN OWNER OF INFORMATION?
  • 114. YES29.5%
  • 115. CONTENT LIFECYCLEMANAGEMENT PROCESS IN PLACE?
  • 116. NO52.9%
  • 117. STANDARD FOR WHATMETADATA (DESCRIBINGCONTENT/INFORMATION)
  • 118. YES + PLANNED 48.4%
  • 119. HAS A TAXONOMY(IDENTIFYING, NAMING AND CLASSIFYING CONTENT)
  • 120. YES32.4%
  • 121. WHO CAN TAG/CLASSIFYCONTENT WITH METADATA?
  • 122. % All usersUser that publish content IT Records managers Authors Subject matter expertsAutomated (by software) 0 13 25 38 50
  • 123. Hikingartist
  • 124. SUMMARY(HYPOTHESIS)
  • 125. NO BUDGETNO RESOURCES NO STRATEGY
  • 126. NO TCONO ROINO KPI
  • 127. BUSINESS CASE? IT DECIDES
  • 128. BETTER METADATA MORE TAGGING TAXONOMY
  • 129. SOMETHING POSITIVE
  • 130. INFORMATION = VALUE
  • 131. INFONOMICS: THE PRACTICE OFINFORMATION ECONOMICS @DOUG_LANEY - GARTNER IN FORBES.COM 22TH MAY 2012
  • 132. ENHANCE VALUE OF EXISTING INFORMATION
  • 133. WE CAN FIX THIS
  • 134. BETTER METADATA
  • 135. STRATEGYSTANDARDISED KPI(SEARCH PERFOMANCE INDICATOR) ROI
  • 136. WORK STARTS AFTERIMPLEMENTATION
  • 137. LET US ALL HELP TO MAKE FINDABILITY BETTER
  • 138. QUESTIONS?
  • 139. Kristian Norlingkristian.norling@findwise.com @kristiannorling @findwise findwise.com Slideshare LinkedIn Vimeo Newsroom

×