Everyday, people in organizations must solve their problems to get their work accomplished. To do so, they often must find others with knowledge and information. Systems that assist users with finding such expertise are increasingly interesting to organizations and scientific communities. But, as we begin to design and construct such systems, it is important to determine what we are attempting to augment. Accordingly, we conducted a five-month field study of a medium-sized software firm. We found the participants use complex, iterative behaviors to minimize the number of possible expertise sources, while at the same time, provide a high possibility of garnering the necessary expertise. We briefly consider the design implications of the identification, selection, and escalation behaviors found during our field study. Keywords Expertise networks, knowledge networks, computermediated communications, expert locators, expertise location, expertise finding, information seeking, CSCW, compu...

A common method for finding information in an organization is to use social networks—ask people, following referrals until someone with the right information is found. Another way is to automatically mine documents to determine who knows what. Email documents seem particularly well suited to this task of “expertise location”, as people routinely communicate what they know. Moreover, because people explicitly direct email to one another, social networks are likely to be contained in the patterns of communication. Can these patterns be used to discover experts on particular topics? Is this approach better than mining message content alone? To find answers to these questions, two algorithms for determining expertise from email were compared: a contentbased approach that takes account only of email text, and a graph-based ranking algorithm (HITS) that takes account both of text and communication patterns. An evaluation was done using email and explicit expertise ratings from two different organizations. The rankings given by each algorithm were compared to the explicit rankings with the precision and recall measures commonly used in information retrieval, as well as the d ′ measure commonly used in signal-detection theory. Results show that the graph-based algorithm performs better than the content-based algorithm at identifying experts in both cases, demonstrating that the graph-based algorithm effectively extracts more information than is found in content alone.