User-Generated Taxonomies Will Make or Break SharePoint -

The less control or governance you put in place over a system, the more likely end users are to embrace that system – and make a mess of it. That's the problem with cheap (free), web-based tools with cool features and viral natures. People find them, start using them to solve small problems, and then suddenly it's become a "production" system in your organization, people are relying upon it for key business processes, and someone high up the executive ladder asks (demands) the IT team to now support it.

You installed that **free** version of WSS (and now Foundation) as an experiment, to test the waters, to build out a proof of concept. And then it not only worked, but it was quick to deploy and easy to use. And people walked by your cube saying "Hey, that's very cool. How did you do that?" And then you showed them. And then they wanted access, and started to build their own business solutions. And then someone from IT noticed that usage of the non-SharePoint portal was decreasing in your group and sent out a reconnaissance team to investigate….

Don't get me wrong. To a large extent, I support the rogue IT groups. Their purpose is to solve business problems, to make customers happy, and to push the envelope when the feature request process breaks down for making critical updates to the primary company portal. And SharePoint is both powerful and empowering, allowing end users with a little bit of technical understanding to do some amazing things (many folks just don't always do it in a supportable way).

Let me flip my original statement: the more control you put on a system, the less likely people are to use it.

This is certainly true with SharePoint 2010 and managed metadata. Great idea -- provide organizations with the ability to outline and control their taxonomies, building out vast keywords lists, and allowing users and their sites to consume as needed. But there's a rogue activity that happens, even here. People want to expand what you've built. As soon as you go to print with your spanking-new taxonomy, somebody wants to add to it, expand it, modify it. And if you don't build in some kind of process to manage those requests, end users will once again become ruffled.

Getting control of your metadata is probably the single most important aspect of being successful with SharePoint. But without active management of user-generated folksonomies, the search experience can become bloated and unreliable, affecting end user adoption. It's simple: if people cannot find their content, the system is a failure. Understanding – and taking action on – the role of metadata and taxonomy management in your SharePoint deployment will provide short-term value by helping end users to be productive quickly, and long-term by strengthening the overall search experience. Oh, and keep the information workers in the field from rebelling (yet again).

Comments

"Selling" Managed Metadata to the User Community

Submitted by Max Boedder December 20, 2011 - 2:10 PM

I completely agree with Christian’s statement about both the short-term and long-term values of managed metadata and enterprise taxonomy. The challenge is the change management, i.e., convincing the user community in a positive way that does not deter them from using SharePoint. We have found this to be a bit of a sales job when converting departments to the SharePoint platform. It appears that the best “sales tools” are existing sites that demonstrate the said benefits and the best “sales people” are users who are already on board and give testimony to the benefits. If it comes from a non-IT user community, it appears to carry so much more credibility.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

change management is an art form

Submitted by Christian Buckley December 22, 2011 - 3:02 AM

One way to manage metadata is to make it part of the broader change management process. Include it in your regular discussions regarding feature development and prioritization (assuming you're already doing this) so that clean up and management of taxonomy just becomes part of that regular discussion.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

Dont say the word

Submitted by Chris Riley, ECMp, IOAp December 24, 2011 - 2:46 PM

Talk talk to users about taxonomy. Talk to them about being able to find content faster and filter searches with. To you this is Taxonomy ( Managed Meta-Data and Facets ), to them it's real value. Information Architecture should be transparent to the user. And any additional effort should be off-set by a clear benefit.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

User-generated Taxonomies vs Expert-generated Ones

Submitted by Leo Meerman December 21, 2011 - 4:30 AM

Hi Christian, in my opinion it counts for every ECM applcation, not only for Sharepoint. I'm always trying to find a balance between the controlled (taxonomies and metadata)and uncontrolled (folksonomies, free tagging. It depends in great part upon the level of experience there is in yhe user community.)
Leo

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

end user expertise critical

Submitted by Christian Buckley December 22, 2011 - 2:59 AM

Leo, you're exactly right on both fronts: this is not a problem for just the SharePoint world, but all content management systems. And end users are critical -- both to the initial deployment success, as well as to ongoing management.

When i first ran into this subject matter in the mid-1990s, it was refered to as a "knowledge management" issue. In the era of the web, it became a "content management" issue. And now it is a SharePoint issue. Funny thing is, the problem is the same as it was back then (only compounded), and for the most part, the solutions are the same: get end users involved early, keep them involved, and don't treat your taxonomy as a static, one-time activity.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

Paradox? Having both: Top down control and bottom up innovation

Submitted by Heimo Hänninen January 02, 2012 - 10:32 AM

Excellent post. I have been creating few conceptual data models, business ontologies and lately taxonomies. You nailed down one of the success factors.

Well thought model (based on STDs, cohesive naming with common terms, following a subject identity policy for terms, localization with synonyms etc.) will get out-dated and dusty if it is not evolving. Somehow your centralized metadata hub must react on new needs coming from various user communities.

My thinking is:
-you need a system that supports both: controlled terms/data model and adaptation to folksonomy type of terms
-you must staff new roles: “knowledge officer” or librarian to manage your controlled terms as well as harvesting new terms and moderating folksonomy, “local agents” to embrace the new culture and educate local users to do tagging (right?).
-the organization needs a rewarding concept of some sort – most active tagger and document sharer gets recognition
-you have to set up a governance process, how to control that common glossary is shared and utilized, yet new requirements accepted quickly. Would some kind of federated model work best in large organization: use these common terms for common stuff, in case you have a local need – go ahead specialize but let the headquarter know what and why you did it.

Taxonomy design, management and maintenance are worth another post - I believe. I started to write my two cents here:
http://informationthinker.blogspot.com/#!/2011/11/taxonomy-for-information-management.html

I would gladly get some feedback :-)

Thanks and
Best Regards,
Heimo Hänninen
heimo.hanninen@tieto.com

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

This post and comment(s) reflect the personal perspectives of community members, and not necessarily those of their employers or of AIIM International

The Global Community of Information Professionals

Community

User-Generated Taxonomies Will Make or Break SharePoint

Rate Post

Add a Comment

Comments

Blog Search

Information in Motion

ECM Training

ECM and Collaboration

Latest Comments

Get The Research

Grow Your Expertise

Expand Your Network