benchmarking your search function: a metadata maturity model

Strategies LLCTaxonomy

May 17, 2005 Copyright 2005 Taxonomy Strategies LLC. All rights reserved.

Benchmarking Your Search Function: A Metadata Maturity Model

Ron Daniel, Jr.

Taxonomy Strategies LLC

2Taxonomy Strategies LLC The business of organized information

Motivating Experiences

Different organizations have different levels of sophistication in their planning, execution, and follow-up for CMS, Search, Portal, Metadata, and Taxonomy projects. Last year we had back-to-back engagements with clients who had

very different levels of sophistication.

Tool Vendors continue to provide ever-more capable tools with ever-more sophisticated features. We live in a world where a significant fraction of public, commercial,

web pages don’t have a <title> tag. Organizations that can’t manage <title> tags stand a very poor

chance of putting an entity extractor to use, which requires some management of the lists of entities to be extracted.

Taxonomy governance processes must fit the organization In terms of scale and complexity


Desiderata

Wanted a method to: Predict likely sources of problems in engagements Help clients identify the things they can do, and the things that stand

an excellent chance of failing Generally identify good and bad practices

These desiderata are not unique

Such methods have been defined for software development and other areas

They are known as Maturity Models


Goals for this Talk

Provide you with basic knowledge of maturity models

Give you the tools to do a simple self-assessment of your organization’s metadata maturity

Suggest practices that are, and are not, likely next steps in your organization’s development of: Processes to manage search, metadata, and taxonomy

deployments. Overly-sophisticated processes will fail

Expertise around search, metadata, and taxonomies Systems to create, manage, or use metadata and taxonomies Tool selection

Overly-sophisticated tools will be very poor value-for-money

Have some fun

5TAXONOMY STRATEGIES The business of organized information

A Tale of Two Maturity Models

CMMI (Capability and Maturity Model – Integrated)

vs.

The Joel Test


CMMI’s Levels of Maturity, Translated

1) Initial: You build software like you never have done it before and will never do it again. One hero spits out code and you don't worry about maintaining or documenting it. Whatever the programmer gives you is good enough for the end users.

2) Repeatable: You actually have a project plan, and the plan might even include some quality assurance, documentation, and things like that.

3) Defined: You follow the plan, which is at the organizational level rather than the project level. You expect to train people, have compatible software, and follow organizational standards. Think of skilled craftsmen following a blueprint and using the standards of their trade.

4) Managed: The organization follows the plan and measures the progress as it goes, similar to an assembly line for software. Managers know what's happening as it happens and the software is also monitored.

5) Optimizing: The final phase is when the factory becomes self-aware. The lessons learned on the project are used to prevent defects before they occur and manage technological changes. There's a constant organized feedback mechanism to improve the cycle time and product quality.

“Modeling Data Management” – A report on discussions of Metadata Maturity at the 2002 DAMA Conference

Joe Celkohttp://www.intelligententerprise.com/

020726/512celko1_1.jhtml


22 Process Areas, Keyed to 5 Maturity Levels…

Process Areas contain Specific and Generic Practices, organized by Goals and Features

Maturity Model Axioms: A Maturity Level is not

achieved until ALL the Practices in that level are in operation.

Individual processes at higher levels are AT RISK from supporting processes at lower levels.

These axioms are very questionable for the

Metadata Maturity Model


CMMI Structure

Source: http://chrguibert.free.fr/cmmi

Previous Diagram only shows these two levels

Maturity Models are collections of Practices.Main differences in Maturity Models concern:•Degree of Categorization of Practices•Descriptivist or Prescriptivist Purpose


CMMI Positives

Independent audits of an organization’s level of maturity are a common service Level 3 certification frequently required in bids

“…compared with an average Level 2 program, Level 3 programs have 3.6 times fewer latent defects, Level 4 programs have 14.5 times fewer latent defects, and Level 5 programs have 16.8 times fewer latent defects”.

Michael Diaz and Jeff King – “How CMM Impacts Quality, Productivity,Rework, and the Bottom Line”

‘If you find yourself involved in product liability litigation you're going to hear terms like "prevailing standard of care" and "what a reasonable member of your profession would have done". Considering the fact that well over a thousand companies world-wide have achieved level 3 or above, and the body of knowledge about the CMM is readily available, you might have some explaining to do if you claim ignorance’.

Linda Zarate in a review of A Guide to the Cmm: Understanding the Capability Maturity Model for Software by Kenneth M. Dymond


CMMI Negatives

Complexity and Expense Reading and understanding the materials Putting it into action – identifying processes, mapping

processes to model, gathering required data, … Audits are expensive

CMMI does not scale down well to small shops Has been accused of restraint of trade


At the Other Extreme, The Joel Test

Developed by Joel Spolsky as reaction to CMMI complexity

Positives - Quick, easy, and inexpensive to use.

Negatives - Doesn’t scale up well: Not a good way to assure the

quality of nuclear reactor software.

Not suitable for scaring away liability lawyers.

Not a longer-term improvement plan.

The Joel Test

1. Do you use source control?

2. Can you make a build in one step?

3. Do you make daily builds?

4. Do you have a bug database?

5. Do you fix bugs before writing new code?

6. Do you have an up-to-date schedule?

7. Do you have a spec?

8. Do programmers have quiet working conditions?

9. Do you use the best tools money can buy?

10. Do you have testers?

11. Do new candidates write code during their interview?

12. Do you do hallway usability testing?

Scoring: 1 point for each ‘yes’. Scores below 10 indicate serious trouble.


A Maturity Rant, in Bullet Points

Metadata maturity may not be core to your business. Maturity is not automatically a good thing. Maturity is not a goal, it is a characterization of an organization’s

methods for achieving its core goals. Mature processes impose expenses which must be justified by

consequent cost savings, revenue gains, or service improvements. “Immature Processes” does not mean “can’t do good work”. It means

“Good results depend on whether the company’s star performers are doing the job”.

Maturity predicts the worst that an organization might do on a job, not the best that it could do.

Nevertheless, Maturity Models are useful as collections of best practices and stages in which to try to adopt them.

13TAXONOMY STRATEGIES The business of organized information

Towards a Metadata Maturity Model


Caveats, Disclaimers, Provisos, Exclusions, Exemptions, and Limitations on Liability

Some maturity models are based on millions of dollars of research and decades of industry experience.

This isn’t one of them.

Adjust your expectations accordingly.


Basis for Following Materials

CEN study on commercial adoption of Dublin Core

Small-scale phone survey Organizations which have world-class search and

metadata externally Not necessarily the most mature overall processes or the

best internal search and metadata

Literature review

Client experiences


Search and Metadata Maturity Quick Quiz

Basic1) Is there a process in place to examine query logs?2) Is there a process for adding directories and content to the repository, or do people just

do what they want?3) Is there an organization-wide metadata standard, such as an extension of the Dublin

Core, for use by search tools, multiple repositories, etc.? Intermediate4) Is there an ongoing data cleansing procedure to look for ROT (Redundant, Obsolete,

Trivial content)?5) Does the search engine index more than 4 repositories around the organization?6) Are system features and metadata fields added based on cost/benefit analysis, rather

than things that are easy to do with the current tools?7) Are tools only acquired after requirements have been analyzed, or are major purchases

sometimes made to use up year-end money?8) Are there hiring and training practices especially for metadata and taxonomy positions? Advanced9) Are there established qualitative and quantitative measures of metadata quality?10) Can the CEO explain the ROI for search and metadata?


Baseline for Comparison

Frequency of Processes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Query LogExamination

OrganizationMetadataStandard

ROTElimination

MultipleRepositories

14 Responses from 35 Attendees at a Taxonomy Workshop


Aspects of Search and Metadata Maturity

Process Areas Maturity LevelsBasic Intermed-iate Advanced Bleeding Edge Limiting

Search Capabilities Uniform Search BoxQuery Log Exam.

Index MultipleBest BetsSimple Grouping

Intranet Facet NavigationImproved Ranking

Metadata and taxonomy standards

System MD Stds. Organization MD Std.Reuse ERP

Multipe Repos ComplyTaxonomy Roadmap

Highly Abstract Subject Taxonomies

Tools and tool selection Requirements, then Tools

Bakeoff Datasets Budget for Bakeoffs Unneeded Capabils.Tools, then Reqs.

Staff training and hiring Search Analyst Role Librarian Expertise Pre-hire Testing SME Catalogers

Data creation and QA CM Introduced ROT-Eliminatiion Hybrid Creation Model

Adaptive QualificationQuality Measures

Project management Project Plan Std. Proj. Methodol.X-Functional TeamsCommunication PlanMulti-Year Plan

Early Termination

Executive support and ROI External Search ROI Intranet ROI Model CEO knows Search ROI

Use it or Lose It Budgets

We are collecting and categorizing Processes by

Area and Level

“Limiting” Processes are harmful practices which interfere with maturity.


Search Capabilities

Basic: “Uniform Search Box” “Query Log Examination”

Requires reporting functions and an identified staffer

Intermediate: “Index Multiple Repositories”

Beyond simple web spidering “Best Bets” “Simple Results Grouping”

Advanced: “Improved Ranking from Link and Popularity Analysis” “Intranet Facet Navigation”

See Rosenfeld’s EIA Roadmap for more details on search capabilities staged over time.

Processes, Categorized by Type and Level

Highly Valuable Processes in

Orange


Rosenfeld’s EIA Roadmap


Metadata and Taxonomy Standards

Basic: “System Metadata Standards”

Intermediate: “Defined Organizational Metadata Standard” “Reuse of ERP Vocabularies”

Advanced: “Multiple Repositories Comply with Metadata Standard” “Taxonomy Roadmap”

A plan for adding facets over time, based on known upcoming projects which can use them.

Requires “Multi-Year Plan of Upcoming Projects”

Bleeding Edge: “Highly Abstract Subject Taxonomies”

e.g. categorization by Mood & Emotion


“Organizational Metadata Standard” - How is Dublin Core extended?

100%

86%

57% 57%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Doc Types Products &Services

Roles InconsistentEncoding

Base: 20 corporate information managers CEN/ISSS Workshop on Dublin Core

– Guidance information for the deployment of Dublin Core metadata in Corporate Environments


Tools and Tool Selection

Limiting: “Use of Unneeded Tool Capabilities”

e.g. autogenerated keywords “Tools, then Requirements”

Related to “Use it or Lose it Budgeting”

Basic: “Purpose, then Requirements, then Tools”

Intermediate: “Datasets for Product Evaluations”

Advanced: “Budgeted Evaluations”*


Staff Training and Hiring

Basic: “Search Analyst Role”

Related to “Query Log Examination”

Intermediate: “Adding and Appointing Library Expertise”

Advanced: “Pre-Hire Testing”

Bleeding Edge “Hiring Subject Matter Experts for Cataloging”


Data Creation and QA

Basic: “Content Management Introduced”

Intermediate: “ROT-Elimination”

Advanced: “Hybrid Metadata Creation Models”

Bleeding Edge: “Adaptive Qualification of End-User Feedback” “Qualitative and Quantitative Measures of Metadata

Quality”*

* Hypothetical, not yet observed in survey participants


Methods used to create & maintain metadata:Note that Automation ≠ Maturity

71%

57%

43% 43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Forms DistributedProduction

Centralizedproduction

Not Automated

Base: 20 corporate information managers CEN/ISSS Workshop on Dublin Core

– Guidance information for the deployment of Dublin Core metadata in Corporate Environments


Project Management

Basic: “Project Plan”

Intermediate: “Standard Project Methodology”

“Cross-functional Teams” “Communication Plan”

“Multi-Year Plan of Upcoming Projects”

Advanced: “Early Termination of Projects”

See Enterprise Search Report for much more on managing a search project.


Executive Support and ROI

Limiting: “Use It or Lose It Budgeting”

Basic: “External Search ROI”

Intermediate: “Intranet ROI Model”

Advanced: “CEO knows Search ROI”

See Enterprise Search Report for much more on search ROI.


Conclusions

Remember the rant – Maturity is a characterization of the way an organization achieves its goals, not a goal in and of itself.

Not all search needs are created equal. Stock photo agencies are tops at search on external site. Their intranets are no better than anyone else’s because the ROI is

not clear. Consulting agencies have better intranets and KM efforts because of

the clearer ROI.

High Maturity really means a Metrics Emphasis Some organizations believe that is inappropriate for them

Use this as a guide to decide where to improve, and to decide which processes may be more sophisticated than your organization can handle Keep in mind the difference between organizational and team

sophistication. A specific team may do some very advanced things, even if the organization around them is not “mature”.


Recommended Reading

CMMI: http://chrguibert.free.fr/cmmi

(Official site is http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/, but that is not the most comprehensible.)

Joel Testhttp://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000043.html

EIA Roadmaphttp://www.louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/031013-KMintranets.ppt

Enterprise Search Reporthttp://www.cmswatch.com/EntSearch/

Strategies LLCTaxonomy

May 17, 2005 Copyright 2005 Taxonomy Strategies LLC. All rights reserved.

Contact Info

Ron Daniel

925-368-8371

[email protected]

Joseph Busch

415-377-7912

[email protected]

benchmarking your search function: a metadata maturity model

Documents