The Art of IM
Some time earlier I already wrote about skills and I am constantly reminded that this is still one of the main issues in Information Management. People development of IM&T staff is still focusing a lot on technology (infrastructure and applications), while the real challenge is about understanding how the new IT elements fit in the bigger business picture in terms of process, people and information.
Unfortunately we prefer to talk a lot about new technology (ie new applications) and get excited and so the next application is implemented without proper data integration, without proper business workflow realignment or even worse people just focus on new graphics and say 'Wow!' and still the quality of the visualised information is bad.
So why are we so technology focused? I think the simple answer is that everything else is a lot less tangible and much harder to solve. Getting people to work with information in a different way is an art and of course if the technology is guiding people in the right direction (ie becomes an enabler) than that's great, but often more than just technology is required. Improving the management of information is about improving the way we do business, changing the way people work and keeping the focus on information as part of the assets of the company.
So how do we change processes?
- we can only change a process if the business wants it and commits to changing itself (see the notes on having a champion, etc.). If IM&T comes in as an outsider than change will not happen. It helps if the IM people can take away chores (data loading, simple QC, data disposal), but that needs to align with the way of working in the business
So how do we address the people aspect?
- people are resistant to change and there will always be people that cannot be convinced that something new is something good. So focus on the ones that want to change (or at least don't resist), address them with their language and at the level they want to be addressed (so don't bore them to death with technical details ...) and then take them by the hand. Again - just like with the process bits - it helps to have dedicated people taking away the chores.
If people see value (better quality, easier access, ...) than change will be easy. Also don't give people too many options, or too many ways to non-comply, because than it won't happen either.
And finally - how do we keep an information focus?
- bringing an information focus into the company is very hard. People see processes and therefore functionality and although intuitively people understand that information is required to do their business, the concept of managing it in a certain way is still hard for most people to grasp. On top of that - we are all information managers, since we all manage information! And therefore every Tom, Dick or Harry with a PC thinks that they are an expert in it.
So what do you need to do as information manager to get this focus? Well, it helps to have some standards / guidelines documented, so the business people know that you have an established business and a set of rules to adhere to. It also helps if you have an Information Architecture - ie you know how information flows through the company in a structured way and where you want to be in the future.
Finally - it helps if you need to comply to some external rules (laws like Sarbanes-Oxley, SEC requirements, etc.). In that case you can threaten your bosses that they go to jail if they don't do proper IM!
So bottom line is that I still see a lot of the same problems in companies with respect to managing information - the problems related to establishing good quality information, which is easily available and and which is protected by security only where it is needed. These problems can only be addressed if the IM&T people have the skills to change processes in the business, help people to change their way of working and create a mindset with value of information as focus. This is an art!
Labels: architecture, behaviour, Skills
Sharepoint
I was disappointed by Vista, but
Sharepoint is another story. I think Microsoft is definitely up to something that can help with continuing the domination of the office world.
The Sharepoint idea is that everything can be workspace on the web, where you (as a user) do not have to worry about formatting, or managing the links - all you need to know is how to manage your content. You can be in MS Office, publish a document to your workspace (or your team's space) and invite others for review. Creating content & publishing becomes one and websites are not longer separate elements, but integrated as part of the environment where all users can share information.
This works for managing the intranet, because web sites become part of everybody's information sharing, while at the same time reducing the clutter in terms of look & feel. This also works for finding information (as opposed to Windows Explorer ...), since suddenly everything become a web site and therefore searchable. Like with Vista, Microsoft has invested a lot in this search element, since they feel the heat from Google and in this case they may be able to win, since they still dominate the desktop.
So instead of saving on a shared drive you can publish your content on the web - straight from your office tools and that can be very powerful. The courage you need to have as an Information Manager is to get rid of the shared drives at the same time, since this can easily replace it.
There are some flaws as well ...
- I was already disappointed about the hierarchical nature of the folder structures as we know it - and which continues to exist in Vista. Unfortunately Sharepoint is also based on this ... It would have been better to make the structure flat and use unique identifiers. So it is hard to change the structure without breaking links
- It is too easy to create a lots of navigation & empty pages without any content - so users may loose the way very easily. It is hard to get an easy site map created for managing the content.
- The templates can be too much a straight-jacket as well, creating lots of useless links (to various sub-sites you don't need most of the time)
- there is no hit-counter - you would like to see if content is read, but right now you can't
But it is a good step foreward, especially because they seem to integrate it with other products are well (e.g. MS Project). We'll watch the developments!
Labels: Microsoft, search, Sharepoint
Vista
Last year I was looking forward to the introduction of the new version of the Microsoft operating system ...
Vista, but unfortunately I was a bit disappointed when it was finally released. They definitely worked hard on the graphics (think Apple ...), security and the search capabilities (they feel the heat from Google ...), but from an information management perspective they have missed the opportunity to make a major step forwards.
What could they have done?
- Get rid of the hierarchical folders - information does not relate to a single subject! How do I store pictures that relate to a place, a person, a date, ...?? The concept of virtual folders is still too cumbersome
- Introduce automatic tagging - why not propose tags when you store a document, or have features like in this Blog (when I add tags it can show my list of tags I've used before). This is not rocket science. There is meta data in all Microsoft files, but this is still cumbersome and not related to anything.
- Integrate the meta data from many products. Why not have your contacts in Outlook available as tags, and as virtual folders, ... etc.?
Just some ideas for Mr Gates - if he likes to have a chat about this he can always send a comment to this Blog!
Labels: Microsoft, tagging, Vista
The Value of Meta Data
In my previous post I already mentioned that I created a wiki dealing with meta data (check out:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/MetaPedia) and the question is of course if this will ever evolve into anything. My experience with meta data (or information about information) is that it is a bit like flogging a dead horse. Still intuitively I think that if can add a lot of value.
So why is Meta Data management valuable?
- Meta data can help a lot when searching for documents. Adding meta data in web pages, documents, etc. increases the accuracy of the search result. The more meta data tags are standardised the more likely the users use them to their benefit
- Good meta data adds meaning to data, through context and description it is more likely data is understood and becomes information. An idea we tried out is to use something like a wiki as an online help - moving meta data into the knowledge management space
- Meta data can help managing information in a large enterprise context. When companies have to deal with many systems and complex data integration issues, than it is good to have an overview of data definitions, rules for data quality, rules of data integration (e.g. master source), etc.
- Meta data help automated data integration. When information is tagged using standard XML schema's than it becomes possible to integrate in all sorts of ways. Standardising on XML requires good meta data management and clarity on definition, else it won't work. The creator of the world wide web - Tim Berners-Lee - is now working on the Semantic Web and this all links back to having a standardised way of defining content (maybe more on this in a later Blog entry ...)
So if there is so much value why don't we do it?
Like said earlier - meta data management is a bit of a dead subject for most. People get excited by new gadgets, functionality, look & feel, but not about something administrative like meta data. It is like plumbing - nobody is interested where shit goes, but it is nice the sewer exists! Good meta data management is hard work and is not for people that are not very organised ... and without getting clear & quick reward nobody will do it.
So how to get it done?
- Make it exciting - this happened a bit when XML became a hype at the turn of the century. And the good news is - XML is now everywhere. So with other words - if you use the right 'hype' word, then it may get exciting. XML sounds like it is new, high tech, the next big thing and then some people actually start doing it
- Do it integrated - meta data management should not be standing on its own, like an ugly girl at a party waiting to be asked for a dance. When meta data is integrated with the data (like in XML), or with the application (like an online help), or is part of the companies knowledge management (like in Wiki's), then there is a change it will work out.
- Make it easy - if I need to tag this blog, than I get automatically a list of Tags I have used before. So why not have something like that built in part and parcel of tools like Word and Powerpoint? Maybe a future 'Vista' will do this automatically for us?
- Make it rewarding - as a manager you can reward people for boring things (like organising the junk-free day), so why not have reward for collecting & managing meta data?
Anyway - let's make meta data work - and if you happen to have more information on meta data, than add this to MetaPedia on Scratchpad Wiki.
Labels: meta data, search, semantic web, tagging, XML
Wiki's
Knowledge Management is one of these subjects that raises many eyebrowse when people start discussing it. Some start to giggle and before you know it there is no serious discussion possible. Luckily Web2.0 has come up with something that stops these giggles quite quickly:
Wikipedia. Nobody ever thought that it would be possible to harness knowledge from many many people via a process where there is no real line responsibility and control is only possible afterwards. But the great thing is: It Works!
I have tried out if it works on creating a structure on meta data (just check out:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/MetaPedia) and with a bit of structured thinking I could create lots of pages in a few hours.
Some research has shown that Wiki's are quite often more accurate and more diverse than the Encyclopedia Brittanica and the track record of abuse is minimal. So it seems like we have a great opportunity to learn from this.
So my observation is that Wiki's can also be used
within a company. Obviously it is not wise to replicate the effort on the WWW, since the result will never be as good, but for properiatory information, i.e. things that are specific to a company, it can be a great help. Think about:
- process manuals and guideline - they never get out of date again
- online help pages (e.g. for systems in use)
- basically any type of knowledge sharing where content needs to be structured
The great thing is that it is easy, anybody can add or edit it, and due to the audit trail feature people will refrain from adding bullshit ...
So time to move from a structured one writes & many read to a situation where many write, interact & read PLUS a situation where the actual content is more valuable, since it is more up to date and more people have contributed to it.
Labels: Web2.0, wiki
Information Security considerations
Protecting information assets, i.e. information security is one of the key roles of an Information Manager. The drive to open up advocated in the last few items in this Blog does not undermine this role. Actually the strategy to open up helps protecting what needs protection, since it provides more focus.
Note that most information does not need protection. So what is really confidential? A short list is below:
- Anything related to people privacy (think medical, salaries, performance appraisals, ...)
- Anything related to money (think contracts, prices, budgets, tendering strategies, ...)
- Anything related to risks (think security arrangements or sr. executive travel plans, ...)
- And anything else that may harm the company (or people) when published and available on the street (think elements related to reputation, or think confidential strategies, etc.)
All the rest is NOT confidential! So if by default everything should be open (inside the network, which is obviously protected by a firewall, etc.) and only some areas should contain protected information.
What are the advantages:
- Implementing Search in a company is so much easier when the crawler only has to crawl the non-confidential records ...
- Collaborative working becomes easier, since by default you have access to the information stored elsewhere in the company.
- Don't forget about the reduced complexities of managing security in Windows and the overhead that comes with it. If things are easy, than it takes less time, but also there is more focus on managing what really needs protection.
But opening up requires a culture change. Most infrastructure people & IT managers have been raised in an environment of control, so therefore convincing them is a hard job.
There are also some technical considerations to take into account. E.g. when companies have an incremental back-up, than the back-up may fail if people are allowed to drag whole trees from one place to another, leading to GigaBytes of data to be added to the back-up ... Network security should prevent this (so some control is still needed!).
Labels: culture change, search, security, Web2.0
Taxonomy & Tagging
People managing information have been trying to find the ultimate taxonomy for many many years. Various mostly hierarchical structures exist that help us finding our way through libraries, collections of equipment, pharmaceuticals, etc. This is very helpful indeed when managing large collections of information, but usually the creative users considers these taxonomies as a nightmare. And if they can avoid it, they will not do it.
I believe (as stated in the previous post) that Search helps us mastering a lot of the information management problems we have today (around finding the information), but I also believe that we need to give Search a helping hand. So how do we do this?
The first thing a corporate tiger can think of is adding more
control - i.e. forcing people to use taxonomies, but this will not help a lot. You can of course fix top levels of directory structures and through this enforce some sort of taxonomy, but too much control will frustrate people and have them looking for loop holes.
Therefore we have to trust the user. We have to start relying on their own sense of responsibility. They will tag their documents in their own way. It is not only about trusting the users that they will do it (and in a 'good' way). It is also about trusting that this relative anarchy will give some order at the end of the day.
- About trusting the users: Usually people are not brainless. With other words they will try to do something sensible. Especially if they see that it is easy and that it helps others.
- About trusting it will work: Just look at the whole Web2.0 phenomena, as mentioned a few days ago. We have lots of self-organising sites already today and they work. Why not do this inside companies as well?
You also need to
help the users a little, just like in this Blog. If I want to use tags I can see what I have used before. At a company scale it would be even possible to suggest common tags to users (almost like taxonomy), but these tags do not exist because they were invented in an invory tower, but because they were used on a regular basis by others. This is called Folksonomy.
Labels: folksonomy, search, tagging, taxonomy, Web2.0
The Power of Search
Having powerful Search tools in place is one of the critical things that will change the way Information Managers have to work. Our work used to be about organising information, ensuring its availability, security and quality, now it is about opening up our internal infrastructure so people can look for themselves. Search is the key enabler for this.
But we are not there yet!
First of all there is still no 'out-of-the-box' solution that can easily cover everything. Although I must say Google has come a long way. The
Google Search Appliance is about the closest thing you can get to 'out-of-the-box'.
I have evaluated the solution and below is my verdict:
+ Ups: it just works like Google on the WWW and therefore people love it & trust it. This is great for internal marketing and yes it actually unlocks a lot of hidden information!
- Downs: 1) it still struggles with internal Security ... Having powerful search in place requires a culture change in the organisation. It requires breaking down the walls between departments. 95% of all information inside a company is open, so why not share it?
2) The other thing is that a lot of information is very homogeneous in a corporate organisation and Google is not great at that (especially if there are no cross links). So therefore there is still work in educating the content creators to be specific about their content when storing the information on the network
Labels: Google, search
IM and the world of Web 2.0
I just watched a video on Web 2.0 (just search for Web 2.0 on
YouTube or download via
http://www.mediafire.com/?6duzg3zioyd) and I realised that most companies still live in the world of yesterday. Most information is hidden away in personal drives and protection is the keyword. Only a few people realize that most of the potential of all this hidden information is lost by the fact that it is overprotected and hidden.
I think companies can learn from the
Web 2.0 phenomena in rethinking the way they manage their information. This whole wave of new(ish) thinking can also be applied within the firewall of a company. Think about:
- Why do we have everything protected? My view is that everything should open up. Only a few parts of the infrastructure are only for named individuals (think contracts, think HR), but the rest should be open for everybody. This will unlock information in an easier way and will reduce the burden of managing security
- Why do we try to classify information with complex taxonomies or other classification schemes? People normally just fail to do this, so allow people to add their own tags and ensure these tags are easily visible. This will create a folksonomy for the company over time. Folksonomies are not perfect, but have much more potential than a top-down classification structure (just check out del.icio.us or flickr)
- Why don't we have quick company-wide search? Search is obviously one of the answers as well.
- Why don't we collaborate on content in a transparent way? Think about Blogging! (even the CIA is doing it these days!), but also think about creating a corporate memory via wiki's (http://www.wikipedia.org/).
Key answer for all questions is: Because most people managing information still live in the world of yesterday.
Labels: folksonomy, search, Tagging, Web2.0, wiki
Crisis, we need a Crisis
Most people in the US only started thinking about Global Warming after Katrina hit New Orleans. The same thing is to say about Information Management within companies. Sometimes you need a good crisis to put things on the agenda. Think about what 9/11 did for Disaster Recovery Planning!
So the trick is: Look for a crisis, and if it is not seen as a crisis, then at least try to advertise it as such. Think about the following possibilities:
- Do we soon expect an audit?
- What about a pending office move or reorganisation?
- Is the company merging / divesting?
- Are people leaving / retiring with a lot of knowledge in their heads?
- Are there any plans for outsourcing?
- etc. etc.
Anything can look BIG (if you do your best) - and therefore it can be seen as a crisis; a good business case for change.
Labels: Information Management
