Thank you all for the great comments and insights. A lot of valuable insights and there are a few points I’d love to learn more about:
- How do you determine the granularity of the taxonomy, which will be used as topics? In general is it always better to have fine-grained terms for taxonomy e.g. “SharePoint data migration” (fine-grained) vs “Information management” (very broad). Also how do you strike the balance of letting taxonomy evolve on its own (which may be pulled in different directions by different offices across different regions) vs having a closely monitored and centralised taxonomy (at the risk of not keeping up with evolution of expertise/knowledge)?
it makes a lot of sense to differentiate experts - expertise - experience. How do you capture experience, or even just familiarity of a process, short of having a full-blown CoP or Q&A forum which requires a coordinated effort? To illustrate by way of example, say I am a project manager at a healthcare corporation at its Chicago office, and have previously looked into the process of applying for patents in Norway. I have spent 40 hours gathering information & requirements before the project was put on hold, but my effort will still be useful for for someone in say London office who is looking to apply for patents in Norway. How do you transfer that?
In your SME networks, is there usually an inherent bias for senior staff, because they have built up sufficient expertise on topics?