Measurement of social sucks.
And I'm saying this without having a clear picture of what needs to happen for it to be fixed. But treating internal social collaboration like your external website is not the answer. Social needs stronger measurement. For social collaboration to become effective (be it SharePoint, Yammer, Tibbr, IBM Connections -- whatever), it must also become measurable, repeatable, and optimized. In the never-ending search for improving customer adoption and engagement -- which social promises, and I do believe can deliver -- the difficulty for most (if not all) organizations is demonstrating business value amidst all of the marketing and promises of the OEMs and vendors.
Simply put, there must be some kind of connection to business processes. There needs to be a direct correlation between collaboration (people working better together) and both qualitative (interactions better, users like it) and quantitative data (quicker connections, find people and content faster).
Far too many social tools out in the echo chamber talk features, but cannot seem to demonstrate their ability to drive business action. Defining the return on investment of social is an important topic that is missing from every vendor pitch. Microsoft worked with author and social collaboration influencer Mark Fidelman (@markfidelman) to create a whitepaper on the topic which does a great job at defining the qualitative benefits (which I highly recommend that you read here), but lacks guidance on the quantitative benefits. People are looking for practical guidance on building key performance indicators (KPIs) around their social activities, helping them to demonstrate to their management, and their employees, that social will deliver on its promises.
Social has the ability to pull together ideas, discussions, and activities from across internal groups -- which would otherwise sit in data silos, such as email, or even restricted SharePoint groups or sites. The entire culture of the Yammer team, for example, is to unlock data silos by including everyone in the dialog, allowing people to join a discussion and share expertise that may or may not be part of their current job descriptions. This kind of unstructured collaboration allows teams to create, and maintain, a threaded conversation synchronously (in real-time) or asynchronously (which is great for working with teams in different time zones or who travel extensively) so that everyone has a chance to participate. I'm seeing inside Axceler conversations that had otherwise ended months prior suddenly re-emerge as someone searches for a topic, finds the threaded discussion, and adds a spark to start it again, leveraging what was old for something new. I love that.
But are we supposed to simply accept this anecdotal evidence for improved collaboration, and go with our gut feel that its good for business, or is enterprise social something that can be measured? The two most common KPIs discussed in this context are Adoption and Engagement, but most approach even these concepts simplistically. Tracking the number of unique visitors only tells you so much. What did they actually do while on the site? Engagement is more than just time spent within the social environment. How many times did they comment, share content, upload content, Like something, rate it or otherwise engagement in social activity? Even if you have robust measurements in place to capture these movements, how well are you able to track this activity over time (to watch trending) -- or correlate this data to changes you've made to the platform, new features you've added, or other steps to encourage stronger collaboration?
Very few organizations have even begun to look at social collaboration at this depth, but that is where the industry must go to show the business benefits of social. Social should enable tighter communication across the team, it should have context, and it should be able to demonstrate business value.