So there I was, trying to explain expertise location to a colleague yesterday. And whilst I was doing so, I realised that it all hinges on how you define an expert. Most, internal directories or HR systems assume that expertise is something you can quantify based on qualification, experience, or some mix of both.
However, no one ever really goes looking for an expert. You are looking for someone that can help you solve a problem you have. Your measure of their expertise is their ability to solve your problem. Therefore the robustness of an expertise location system is dependent not on the "experts" and their information held within it but on the kinds of problems its users have that cause them to look for experts.
If the information within the system is reliable, sufficiently detailed and structured in a way aligned with the problems the users have(all big "ifs"), then the system will be perceived as useful. Which implies that the problems users apply it to are homogenous - or at least well understood.
What I suspect happens is that organisations design systems that cover a specific subset of cases (e.g. resource management in consulting firms) and then attempt to cover the rest using social networks. My suspicion is also that they do not do this as well as they could.
None of this is earth-shattering but it leads me to ask - has anyone done any work on HOW users leverage expertise location systems in different organisational situations?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment