de Stricker

Hearts & Minds & Ownership: Social Tools Raise Questions

At the 2010 London Online Information conference, it was once again my privilege to present along with my esteemed colleagues.  In the context of barriers to the use of social tools, Phil Bradley outlined 25 typical objections to their use in the workplace and entertainingly furnished the down-to-earth rejoinders; Bonnie Cheuk spoke convincingly of the need to zero in on the business purpose for any social tools initiative and to assist executives in tailoring the use of social tools for their specific communication needs.  I had chosen as my focus the matter of ownership:  Is there even such a thing when it comes to social tools - and if there is, how could it be used to protect and enhance corporate memory (CM) and knowledge sharing (KS)?

The question regarding ownership arises because social tools in many cases have become a de facto repository of significant aspects of corporate memory and a de facto means for knowledge sharing.  If no one "owns" such a mechanism for CM/KS, what is the fate of organizational learning, institutional knowledge, and intellectual capital?

As a result of their very nature, social tools play into the natural creativity of knowledge workers and their tendency to collaborate to rise to any occasion.  Thus, the social tools exacerbate the traditional tension between proactively investing in systems and infrastructure to capture CM and facilitate KS on the one hand … and "applying search muscle and heroism" retroactively on the other hand.  The number of offerings in the enterprise search market suggests it may be perceived to be too late, in any other than a startup organization, to take the proactive just-in-case approach:  The cost of intellectual content management is too difficult to justify in many environments.  Similarly, the complexity of devising a mechanism whereby knowledge workers may learn of their colleagues' activities at the right time defies upfront solutions and prescribed processes.

So how can we work the social tools - and the inherent human desire to communicate with peers - to the advantage of CM/KS?  What could managers do to encourage practices and behaviors that will benefit the collective memory and access to knowledge?  It is well known how actions that are rewarded get repeated; what rewards will strengthen the likelihood a knowledge worker will take the extra two minutes to contribute an insight into the communal heritage - given the typical time pressures they experience?  Is it feasible to design and institutionalize a certain set of practices (over and above, let's say, the document/records management systems imposed by the regulatory environment)?  How does one foster a culture in which everyone willingly does his or her part to use social tools appropriately to protect knowledge for the future?

In our presentations, Phil Bradley, Bonnie Cheuk, and I naturally could only touch on the highlights of the questions raised by social tools.  It was striking, though, how the sizable audience remained intently focused in a late-in-the-day session.  I took it as a sign how the challenges associated with CM and KS in today's organizations occupy the hearts and minds of information professionals. 

Wondering What Information Career Specialty to Choose? Or Could You Use Some Help?

Thanks to the efforts of Crystal Sharp, Guest Editor, the October 2010 issue of the Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology  http://www.asist.org/Bulletin/Oct-10/Bulletin_OctNov10_Final.pdf features contributions from members of the Association of Independent Information Professionals (aiip.org).  In two sections entitled "Research:  Much more than Search and Retrieval" and "Services: Marketing, New Media, Writing, Consulting and Information Management", each contributor describes the value an IP's services brings to clients in a wide range of fields.  Here are succinct overviews of specialized information types and tools providing a fascinating glimpse into the vast range of activities the "information arena" contains. 

For those wondering what specialty to select in an information career, the collection of essays is a superb sampling.  For those wondering whether an IP might assist in their projects, it is one great place to start exploring.  (Note: Additional contributions will follow in February 2011.)  Help yourself:

Adding Value: The Business of Independent Information Professionals

Looking Back, Looking Forward

PART I - Research: Much More Than Search and Retrieval

The Unexpected Value of Research in Biomedical Business

Patents in the Realm of Independent Information Professionals

The IIP and the Small Business High Tech Client

Government Information: Adding Value as an Expert Guide

The Independent Information professional as Government Contractor

Competitive Intelligence: How Independent Information Professionals Contribute to Organizational Success

Business Research Beyond Borders

Today's Genealogist: Providing Value-Added History

PART II - Services: Marketing, New Media, Writing, Consulting and Information Management

Information Professionals and the Nonprofit Sectors

Enhance Your Marketing Productivity: Hire an IIP

Consulting: Helping Clients Plan, Adapt, Choose...and Much More

Social Media: Essential for Research, Marketing and Branding

From Reference Interview to Project Proposal: Defining Client Needs to Ensure Research Success

The Accidental Knowledge Manager: Another Role for Independent Information Professionals

  

The Copyright Cost - and Loss - of Societal Memory

Corporate memory is a key concern for many information professionals and a focus in many of my projects.  I join several colleagues in speaking and writing about the cost associated with protecting it and of not having access to it.  Thanks to Marc Aronson, I was just reminded the memory-loss scenario pertains to society as a whole - exacerbated by none other than the e-book, our current poster gadget for new media.

 

In a 2 April 2010 New York Times article entitled "The End of History (Books)" www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/opinion/03aronson.html?th&emc=th, he paints a thought provoking picture of gaps in societal memory induced by the cost of acquiring rights to feature images or text from previous works in new nonfiction works :  "Seeing the clouds on the horizon, publishers painstakingly remove photos and even text extracts from print books as they are converted to e-books. So instead of providing a dazzling future, the e-world is forcing nonfiction to become drier, blander and denser."

 

Clearly and concisely, Marc Aronson explains how nonfiction writers seek to give depth to their work through showcasing something outside of it - objects or literature from the past, issues discussed by others - but encounter barriers to illuminating their writing with such illustrations due to prohibitive costs.  He points out how current copyright regulations and rights agreement structures as they affect e-books could limit new nonfiction works to drawing on public domain material or to creating completely original material, thus leaving in obscurity a vast landscape of existing content that is in practice untouchable.

 

He goes on to propose a logical and simple copyright payment scheme for facilitating the use of repurposed items to enliven and enrich new nonfiction works.  The scheme acknowledges the interests of all stakeholders in fostering a vibrant new platform for selected items of content to tell the stories of the past using the media of the future.

 

I commend Marc Aronson for proposing a re-think of rights payments to address unintended consequences of current copyright schemes, and I urge my readers to keep the article in mind next time they hold their e-readers.

 

As for the information generated within an organization, I suppose we could say it's fortunate re-using it is free but for the effort of keeping it and ensuring it can be found.  It's unfortunate the latter effort is often out-prioritized by other organizational activities.

As Technology Evolves ... How Do We (Want to) Protect Memory

In my youth, I was a prolific letter writer detailing to family and friends the ins and outs of my studies and work. It was amazing to see the cache of letters my father had collected when I went through his papers in Copenhagen in 2002 - every letter from me since the late 60s up until about 1987 was there, constituting "how I presented to my family". What happened in1987?  Telephone rates from North America to Europe dropped.  When it became possible to go from anxious 3-minute calls to leisurely chats because the per-minute cost fell into a manageable range, there was no further reason to sit at the typewriter.  It never occurred to me to consider any kind of legacy or history aspect - I have told friends tongue in cheek how "historians will be at a loss" as to the details of my work after 1987 ... until the web search tools pick up a different trail about 2004 and on, of course.

Organizations dating from before the web may have a similar experience as they used aging media until the web era. If some evidence of current work in an enterprise is largely contained in, say, documents captured in repositories and featured on its intranet and public website, there are well known methods to keep them.  But what about preserving "how we presented to the public any day in 20XX and how all the underlying discussions fed that look?" The Way Back Machine may not be sufficient.

Questions for information professionals planning organizational vaults to protect memory include:  Beyond legal requirements, what do we want to remember - and what do we want the world to be able to discover about us in the past?  How can we feature the value of what we have kept?  How can we trace the evolution of our presence?  How can we ensure our legacy materials are there to support future research?  How could technology developments affect future access by researchers to our collection?

Let me know what you think!

It's never too soon to add a librarian

Recently, a colleague gave me an opportunity to reply to a favorite question: "How should I advise the owner of a startup company about information support?" Here's a synopsis of the typical scenario I shared with her, having encountered variations on the theme over many years: 

Among individuals in a small team working closely together, communication is immediate and corporate memory is fresh and readily available, just as physical information objects are but a door knock away from anyone else ("sure, I have that report right here").  As the team grows and the volume of accumulated documentation does too, signs begin to appear that information objects - physical or virtual - present a challenge. ("Who has a copy of ... ?  Where is the market study we purchased last month?  Which of these versions of the project report is the official one?") People discover they are spending unjustifiable amounts of time hunting for documents and presentations; the volume of material held in shared drives or intranet collections proliferates past the point of utility; and "we can't find things" becomes a common complaint.  It gets worse when work is repeated or unnecessary work is done because the memory and evidence of previous relevant efforts can't be found.  When management begins looking for a solution, it is often discovered how complex a task it is to address the accumulated backlog of information and at the same time put in place appropriate information related practices for the future.

It's never too soon to plan for the safeguarding and permanent future accessibility of the knowledge invested and developed as the organization grows.  And there's a bonus: In addition to their expertise in information and knowledge management, information professionals offer a wide range of skills highly relevant for any entrepreneurial venture.

It looked like a good idea ... at the time!

I was reminded how often we find ourselves asking "now why did we (they) do that?" when out of the blue came an email: "Do you have documentation on the process for recording a decision?  It's needed for a workshop tomorrow and here's what I have so far."  My colleague and I proceeded to exchange messages and in minutes crafted a brief list of questions that, in its very simplicity, seems to call out:  If only we always documented how we made a decision, we wouldn't find ourselves in those corporate memory fixes!"  With thanks to Jackie for prodding me, here is an abbreviated version of the list:

1. What situation, event, problem, or opportunity gave rise to the need for a decision?  Is it a one-time circumstance, or one likely to recur so that we need to consider a policy?

2. Who "owns" the responsibility for making the decision?  Who has relevant input?

3. What is the goal - what are we trying to achieve or avoid? (In part the inverse of 1.)

4. How is the decision process structured, and how much room is there for departing from it?

5. What data, input, background (etc) was available and considered at the time of the decision? (This is critical to avoid the risk of hindsight casting a decision in untoward light.)

6.  What are the options in addition to doing nothing?

7. What extrinsic factors come into play?  ("While options A, B, and C all have intrinsic merit, B was chosen because security is the top priority.")

8. Was the decision near unanimous, or contentious?  (No names are needed, but it's helpful later to understand whether there were doubts.)

9. If the decision involves implementation of any kind, who has responsibility for it?  What process is in place to ensure it moves forward?  What happens if implementation stalls?

10. Shall we "check back" later and measure whether the decision was a good one? When and how?

In times of rapid employee turnover, this simple "template" for capturing "what we were thinking" can be a powerful tool ... if it's consistently used!

 

The cost of thinking "everyone knows"!

"I'll see you for coffee at 3 in Timmie's!"  Now, Canada sports among its coffee house chains "Tim Horton's" and "Timothy's World Coffee"  ...   so you already guessed I waited in the one, she in the other.  We could afford to laugh about how easily small ambiguities lead to tangible consequences (for librarians, no less!). 

In corporate settings, this very phenomenon of "assumed information" is no cause for laughter. It presents considerable risk and waste of time:

- Filings after February last year were coded in a different way so we split the database rather than recode ... everybody knows.  Except the latest-to-arrive team member who for a time could assume there isn't anything before March last year!

- Everyone knows "the way we distinguish between emails and memos" because of the records management system implications. Ah, no, the summer intern can't - if there is not an easily found, clearly defined document setting out the criteria and the treatment rules.

- Two departments have historically had different vocabularies for some similar activities they track.  Over time, staff compensate for such differences by memory ... but as time goes on, it becomes clear we miss relevant documents in each department because of the differences in terminology.

You could add your own myriad examples how "assumed knowledge" is not "universal knowledge" - and how as a consequence investigation is needed and time gets wasted tracking down "why the items from the subcommittee were not included in the list" [because A thought B knew to retrieve them from C database as they were not included in D database owing to the current IT activities].

It is an information professional's contribution to any organization that he or she discovers, and remedies, such "assumed knowledge" risks.  Signage, links, lists, intranet design, database structures, taxonomies, and other coding schemes ... whatever it takes, we information professionals are ready to protect against the corporate cost of "oh, you didn't know  ..." ?

-

Such cold comfort to be proven right

A survey of middle managers in the US and the UK published by Accenture on 4 January 2007 tells a chilling tale that should be required reading in any organization:  Read the 3-page summary at http://newsroom.accenture.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=4484 ... and weep, then share it widely: Managers "spend more than a quarter of their time searching for information necessary to their jobs, and when they do find it, it is often wrong".  59% "said that as a consequence of poor information distribution, they miss information ... every day because it exists somewhere else in the organization and they just can not find it".  It's a bleak picture indeed, one I have observed again and again: "Information is becoming a burden on knowledge workers and will remain so until companies consolidate and streamline the stores and sources of intelligence." Keep up the good work, Accenture; this message deserves attention.

"Hidden" knowledge in shorthand language

A nugget from Alan Breakspear's presentation at the recent MRIA conference (http://www.mria-arim.com/) made me think of the "durability" of the information we produce and communicate day to day.  Alan asked, in the context of information sharing, what good it would do for us to e.g. capture every email when so much information is communicated "cryptically" between individuals who share a common knowledge environment. Come to think of it ... how often do we use language that would mystify anyone not on the team?  What would a new employee searching a corporate repository for maternity leave extension make of "Peter, I agree that Case 345 calls for a special assessment, certainly in view of EA-11, as the maternity leave extension may apply here" ? The implications for corporate memory policies are intriguing!