For those (3) of you just tuning in to our blog, it is probably important to note that the stone in our tranparency soup recipie has long been the BearingPoint Enterprise Wiki deployment. Following an extended pilot, we are about 6 months into a full-on, production level deployment of Atlassian’s Confluence, JIRA, and Crowd stack for the complete firm. I suppose I have always perceived the effort as being successful, but I am willing to admit that my perspective might be a little skewed. (My baby is most certainly not ugly, kind sir!)
In response to an internal communciations query, I was recently asked to take a look at usage stats since GoLive. Initially I was pretty impressed but then it occured to me that I really have no basis by which to judge either way. As such, I thought I would post the facts and see what the prevaling wisdom is.
Basics:
- GoLive Date = May 5, 2008
- Possible Users = ~16,000 (The wiki is only accessible by employees. This number is roughly current headcount, but people have come and gone over the months.)
We’ll start with basic wiki pages first:
- Current Wiki Pages = 11,720
- Versions of Current Wiki Pages = 87,280
- Pages with Comments = 2,039
- Number of Comments = 6,661
- Unique Page Authors = 1,858
Secondly, Confluence has built-in blogging capabilties through its News Item feature. Here are the numbers for that:
- Current News Items (Blog Entries) = 1,503
- Versions of Current News Items = 2,991
- Comments on News Items = 1,065
- Unique News Item Authors = 210
Finally, here is some typical web analytics data to round out the picture:
- Visits = 68,168
- Pageviews = 620,329
- Pages/Visit = 9.10
- Bounce Rate = 25.81%
- Average Time on Wiki = 09:59
- Unique Visitors = 15,443
- Originating Countries = 62
- % Traffic from Referring Sites = 43% (mostly from Intranet, the rest is Direct traffic)
So what do you think? How does this compare to other stats you have seen?
9 responses so far ↓
1 Laura Khalil // Oct 29, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Nate, first off, let me say that I’m honored to make that cut as one of the lucky three readers of your blog.
You guys are going gangbusters! This is really really good. We’re pulling some info from our usage and will post it shortly.
2 Bill Arconati // Oct 29, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Wow. If 1,858 of your 16,000 users are unique page authors, that makes 11.6% of your users contributors. You’re beating the 90-9-1 rule
3 Nate Nash // Oct 29, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Laura, Bill – Thanks for the comments. I hope to get closer to the 60-30-10 rule. I figure in closed community it should be a little easier.
4 Robert Castaneda // Oct 30, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I must be the 3rd subscriber! For kicks I posted up our stats: http://www.customware.net/repository/x/TQFFAg
5 Nate Nash // Oct 31, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Thanks Rob – It is really interesting to see the differences between organizations of varying size.
6 Dan Smith // Nov 3, 2008 at 2:10 am
Thank you for the post and congratulations! I wonder if you have done any surveys of your participants and other employees concerning attitudes? For examples, trust, engagement, info sharing, and increases in personal networks.
7 Nate Nash // Nov 3, 2008 at 9:43 am
Thanks for the comment Dan. In fact no, we haven’t done any surveys to that effect. That is a great idea though and something we will consider for the future.
8 Come and get it… « New Thinking // Nov 5, 2008 at 5:04 am
[...] November 5, 2008 · No Comments Reposted from E2.OH – Investigations into Enterprise 2.0. Original post can be found here [...]
9 Dan Keldsen // Nov 24, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Nate – we’re exchanging thoughts on Twitter regarding MIKE 2.0. Thought I’d pop over here.
Any anecdotal sense as to why those who are not actively engaged aren’t? Bit of brown-bag lunch, screencasting, etc., to spread the word on your wiki, blog, etc. efforts?
Any anti-patterns popping up? Like the dreaded “records manager?” (listed on the wikipatterns site, although I do know many modern records managers that wouldn’t fit that mold)
Cheers,
Dan
Leave a Comment