Making Controls Work
Data architects need to balance constantly between what we want in terms of easy to use functionality and building in some level of control. Users do not want to be bothered with storing data in the right place, or adding all sorts of meta data, but data managers know that without this it is not easy to re-use the data elsewhere, or later during the life cycle of the data.
So one of the holy grails for data architects is to find that right balance between easy functionality and the controls. My view is that we need to focus with controls on the 'must-have' and further see how much we can already populate through some smart algorithms. At the end of the day we all know that if things are automated they will happen (like the a search index), and when you rely on the user it is more likely that meta data stays incomplete and inconsistent, unless there is a lot of control. The right balance is even easier to find if some of the user interaction can be supported by work done by automated processes - e.g. if the meta data can be pre-populated, and users only need to click OK (and take out the glaring mistakes), then this process may work.
Another option is to make the data quality more visible; more transparent retrieval mechanisms (like e.g. Spotfire or BusinessObjects) are great enablers for this. Suddenly users see that data is missing and may even grasp the effect of this.
Labels: behaviour, quality, retrieval
Data Management as a Process
It is good to re-iterate that DM is a process. Quite often business users think that a one off exercise in cleaning up the data helps them to get things right ...
I would like to make the comparison with brushing your teeth - if you leave it for a day it does not become an issue, but if you leave it for a while it will start to hurt. Managing data is like any maintenance activity; it is recurring and people do not like it.
So plan the right resources, schedule the activities in conjunction with the business processes which are supported by the data, execute it with sufficient resources, and eventually evaluate the results and learn.
This can be done two ways: 1) as an ongoing activity within the business process - which requires quite often a behaviour change or 2) by a dedicated group DM professionals which helps building DM skills and professionalising the activity, but which is only possible with sufficient volume of work (and suffient standardisation of the activities)
Bottom line is that it should be understood that this is a job to be done - and it should be rewarded!
Labels: behaviour, Process, Skills
Freedom vs Control
Information Managers (and also IT people) have the tendency of trying to get things under control. That's why we put a password on everything and that's why many systems are cumbersome to use - would you really want to add these 20 mandatory attributes with the document? Do you really need to go through these 6 steps of approval?
What we sometimes forget is that we manage information on behalf of the users. We are there for them, and not the other way around. So to really be successful as an information manager we need to sometimes challenge our own natural inclinations of building in more security than needed, or more meta data than feasible. Some of the measures I described in the item about Hoarding are therefore more than a user can accept.
One of the measures I mentioned was getting rid of shared drives. But maybe this is a typical dictatorial action, with the information management goals made more important than the user. But do we really want to do this? Recently I noticed a colleague taking this brave measure in his organisation. I fear that he will fail, since the technology offered as an alternative is not as simple as a file system ... and therefore users will look for shortcuts that will defy the purpose of this measure. Dictatorship leads to terrorism!
I have already written a lot about the Web2.0 - how we can add a lot of value by increasing the freedom of users in terms of how they classify information and how actually opening up our security model will be beneficial as well. Still we like to have control - that's just natural behaviour, but my view is that we should not get this control by confining the users too much. We can also get this control in an easier way via automated means:
- We should not spend too much time setting up complex taxonomies, but should be investing in automatic tagging mechanisms based on master reference data.
- We should not spend too much time in asking people to clean up their old information, but have automatic archiving procedures based on where people store it. This gives people the freedom to collect what ever they like
- We should not have complex security models, but have 'buckets' that are open and areas that are closed.
This is all technically very easy and is more about a changed mind set (behaviour) than anything else. At the same time it will help the users, since it will not put too many restrictions on them.
Labels: behaviour, meta data, security, tagging
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
How to start dealing with the key problems
Practicing Information Management is a bit like trying to mop up water from the floor while the tap is running. More information will be created in the next ten years than has been created in human history before today and therefore pro-actively solving problems today is key to avoid even bigger ones tomorrow. But the issue is that you can start everywhere and where ever you start the information keeps on flowing in.
The risk assessment is already a way of finding the priorities (only if you think there will be fire you will buy a fire extinguisher), but apart from knowing the risks you need to have a clear
Champion in place first before you can even try making a start. The Champion needs to be a pretty senior figure who is there to make things happen for you. As said before - a large part of IM is about changing behaviours - and this cannot be done without high level support. If the person signing your staff report at the end of the year is also pretty keen on getting basic issues with information sorted, then it is more likely IM will get attention (and money!)
This also brings me to the second point: IM elements need to be clearly stated in
tasks and targets of all staff - especially if it is measurable then this can make an impact. It is important to describe the responsibilities w.r.t. data and documents and then make it possible to check if people actually met their targets (e.g. a contract is not closed out if the related documents have not been uploaded in the document management system, etc.)
In some cases it also helps to
centralise roles into full time jobs. If handling data or documents is 5% of everybody's time, then it is very likely things go wrong. If 19 people have one IM person do the 'chores' for them, then they become more efficient, the IM person is more focused on getting the information sorted and at the end of the day he/she can be an ambassador for IM in the business process.
These things are all low tech, but vital to get to a higher maturity in IM processes in the organisation. And don't forget that only when these things are in place it can be useful to look into technology solutions, else don't even try.
Labels: behaviour, Information Management
IM is all about behaviours ...
OK, so what is it that I do? Well, I talk to people (a lot) and basically half of the work is about issueing motherhood statements like - 'if you have not loaded the final records related your work, then your work is not finished!'. There is a lot about awareness (posters and training) and only a little about developing things.
Therefore I see Information Management mainly as a social, behaviour related science and it has not a lot to do with technology (OK, we must get all these systems to work, but that should be only 20% of the story). We have to try out if all these new things work with people, and we can only do that via improvising, and doing change management as we go along. Brilliant in this field was the late
Claudio Ciborra - who laid a good foundation for how we could think about the way we deal with the world of IT. Probably IM is closer to HR than anything else.
Labels: behaviour, Information Management
