Results from the Enterprise Search and Findability Survey 2012

Preview:

DESCRIPTION

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,

Citation preview

RESULTS FROM THE ENTERPRISE SEARCH AND FINDABILITY SURVEY

SLIDESHARE.NET/FINDWISE

GLOBAL + EUROPE

+ NORTH AMERICA

ANNUAL SURVEY

170 RESPONDENTSGLOBALLY

SEARCH VENDORS AND INTEGRATORS

EXCLUDED

EUROPE >1000 EMPLOYEES

107 ORGS.

EUROPE:59.4%

101 RESPONDENTS

NORTH AMERICA:22.3%

38 RESPONDENTS

DEMOGRAPHICS

28 COUNTRIES

52.2%PRIVATE SECTOR

48.8%PUBLIC SECTOR

60.8%> 1000 EMPLOYEES

33.5%> 10 000 EMPLOYEES

52.9%GLOBAL

NORTH AMERICA:71.1% GLOBAL ORGS

EUROPE53.6% GLOBAL ORGS

78.7%ONE CORPORATE

LANGUAGE

AMOUNT OF INDEXED UNSTRUCTURED

INFORMATION IN 3 YEARS

EUROPE86.2%

SAYS MORE

HOW CRITICAL IS FINDING THE RIGHT INFORMATION TO BUSINESS GOALS AND

SUCCESS?

75.0%IMPERATIVE/SIGNIFICANT

EUROPE76.5%

IMPERATIVE/SIGNIFICANT

IS IT EASY TO FIND THE RIGHT INFORMATION

WITHIN YOUR ORGANISATION TODAY?

59.5%MODERATELY/

VERY HARD

EUROPE77%

MODERATELY/VERY HARD

14.0%FAIRLY/VERY EASY

MULTIPLE REPOSITORIES?

50.7%MULTIPLE REPOS

EUROPE53.3%

MULTIPLE REPOS

NORTH AMERICA:63.6%

MULTIPLE REPOS

LARGER ORGS THINK IT IS (WAY)

MORE IMPORTANT

WHAT ARE THE OBSTACLES TO FINDING THE RIGHT

INFORMATION?

63.4% POOR SEARCH FUNCTIONALITY

50.0% LACK OF ADEQUATE TAGS

51.4% INCONSISTENCY IN HOW WE TAG

CONTENT

52.1% DON'T KNOW WHERE TO LOOK

EUROPE

64.2% POOR SEARCH FUNCTIONALITY

47.7% LACK OF ADEQUATE TAGS

48.6% INCONSISTENCY IN HOW WE TAG

CONTENT

47.7% DON'T KNOW WHERE TO LOOK

NORTH AMERICA:

48.6% POOR SEARCH FUNCTIONALITY

62.9% LACK OF ADEQUATE TAGS

65.7% INCONSISTENCY IN HOW WE TAG

CONTENT

54.3% DON'T KNOW WHERE TO LOOK

LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

19.6%MOSTLY/VERY

SATISFIED

EUROPE18.5%

MOSTLY/VERY SATISFIED

SATISFIED WITHUI SPEED

NAVIGATION

DISSATISFIED WITHMETADATATAXONOMY

PRIMARY GOAL FOR UTILISING SEARCH

TECHNOLOGY

ACCELERATE RETRIEVAL OF KNOWN INFORMATION

SOURCES

86.6%IMPERATIVE/SIGNIFICANT

IMPROVE RE-USE OF CONTENT

(INFORMATION/ KNOWLEDGE)

70.6%IMPERATIVE/SIGNIFICANT

RAISE AWARENESS OF “WHAT WE KNOW”

58.2%IMPERATIVE/SIGNIFICANT

USER EXPERIENCE TESTS

18.1%REGULARLY

EUROPE14.5%

REGULARLY

SEARCH SUPPORT?

YES37.5%

EUROPE + GLOBALYES

45.9%

WHO OWNS SEARCH?

57.6%IT

43.2%IT (NOT CIO)

NORTH AMERICA:78.8%

IT

EUROPE:54.2%

IT

NORTH AMERICA:51.5%

IT (NOT CIO)

28.8%CORPORATE

COMMUNICATIONS

EUROPE43.9%

CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS

17.6%KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

EUROPE10.5%

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

FINAL DECISION REGARDING SEARCH

70.9%IT

NORTH AMERICA:87.9%

IT

EUROPE:66%

IT

SEARCH BUDGET

NONE SAYS45.4%

EUROPENONE SAYS

36.4%

DON’T KNOW 15.1%

EUROPEDON’T KNOW

21.8%

FOR THOSE WITH A SEARCH BUDGET

76.6%LESS THAN 100K €

EUROPE≈50%

DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH

BUDGET IN 3 YEARS

15.1%SAYS SMALLER

BUDGET

SAME OR MORESAYS THE REST

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WORKING WITH SEARCH

50.4%LESS THAN ONE

EUROPESAME IN >10 000EMPLOYEE ORGS

EUROPE >10 00042.3%

HAVE MORE >1

EUROPE >10 00019.2%

3 - 5 PPL

ROI OR TCO

62.1%NO

KPI

58.6%NO

EUROPE >10 00042.3%

NO

WHAT KIND OF KPI:S?

MONTHLY USAGE STATS

USER SATISFACTION

% TOP SEARCH TERMS MANAGED

CALL CENTER CALLS DEFLECTED

SEARCH REPHRASING

PRODUCTIVITY GAIN

SEARCH PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

WEB SEARCH INFLUENCE

YES59.5%

SIGNIFICANT/IMPERATIVE

EUROPEYES

67.2%SIGNIFICANT/IMPERATIVE

SAME TECH ON INTRANET AND INTERNET?

YES30.4%

EUROPEYES

42.6%

SEARCH STRATEGY IN PLACE?

YES14.2%

EUROPEYES

6.0%

YES + PLANNED44.4%

EUROPEYES + PLANNED

46%

USERS CAN PROVIDE FEEDBACK

YES + PLANNED72.3%

EUROPEYES + PLANNED

80%

USERS INFLUENCE ON RELEVANCY

YES11.4%

EUROPEYES16%

PLANNING20.0%

IS THERE AN OWNER OF INFORMATION?

YES29.5%

CONTENT LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT PROCESS IN

PLACE?

NO52.9%

STANDARD FOR WHAT METADATA (DESCRIBING

CONTENT/INFORMATION)

YES + PLANNED48.4%

HAS A TAXONOMY (IDENTIFYING, NAMING AND

CLASSIFYING CONTENT)

YES32.4%

WHO CAN TAG/CLASSIFY CONTENT WITH METADATA?

All users

User that publish content

IT

Records managers

Authors

Subject matter experts

Automated (by software)

0 13 25 38 50

%

SUMMARY(HYPOTHESIS)

NO BUDGETNO RESOURCESNO STRATEGY

NO TCONO ROINO KPI

BUSINESS CASE?IT DECIDES

BETTER METADATA MORE TAGGING

TAXONOMY

SOMETHINGPOSITIVE

INFORMATION = VALUE

ENHANCE VALUE OF EXISTING

INFORMATION

WE CAN FIX THIS

BETTER METADATA

STRATEGYSTANDARDISED KPI

(SEARCH PERFOMANCE INDICATOR)

ROI

WORK STARTS AFTER

IMPLEMENTATION

LET US ALL HELP TO MAKE FINDABILITY

BETTER

QUESTIONS?

Recommended