de Stricker

Information Management Close to Home: A crucial component in "instructions for relatives" documents

Following the recent tragic and untimely passing of a colleague, a friend of his reached out to me for suggestions as to "what to do with his manuscripts". Having corresponded with my colleague for some years about those manuscripts (some of which but not all were available in various online publishing portals), I encouraged that somehow, they be harvested from multiple locations and made available in one place for the general enjoyment of interested readers in future. In addition, I mentioned the disposition of profiles on social media sites.

The friend embarked upon a project turning out to be far more extensive and time consuming than we could have anticipated.

It's a painful topic, but the simple implications with respect to what we need to leave behind are worth pondering:

1: Anyone can download or recreate what is available on public websites. What about the trove of materials in computers, mobile devices, sticks, and free cloud storage locations? For example, could it be that a massive report, book, or other significant item was close to completion, needing only a bit of work on the part of someone familiar with the project for it to be sent on to the intended recipient or be published? Without access to file locations and passwords, executors may be unable to retrieve anything at all.

2: Anticipate the need to remove "ghost" websites and blogs. Of course, any paid accounts automatically close when the bills go unpaid at the end of the subscription period, so a deceased's website(s) and blog(s) will eventually disappear; but it may be advisable to actively remove, upon harvesting any wanted content, the presences owned by the deceased. Provide executors with detailed contact information for domain registrars and web hosts and sign an authorization form for use in conjunction with proof of death.

3: Anticipate the need to delete profiles from social media sites. Equip executors and power-of-attorney holders with the instruments required to prove they are indeed authorized to request the disposition of the profiles in question. Document the procedure required by each company (Host A requires B documentation and social media site C requires a copy of D form with a death certificate) to save the executors many hours of research. In addition, it is helpful for executors to have guidance with respect to any desires regarding a "memorial" virtual presence.

To the "special file folder in a desk drawer" containing insurance and banking information, we ought to add all the information our executors will need to deal appropriately with our electronic legacy when we're gone, along with explicit instructions for the treatment of content.

I'm indebted to my colleague Connie Crosby for her reference to the "Death and Digital Legacy" blog at www.deathanddigitallegacy.com where much more detail can be found.

Info Pros: Star Performers

In the spirit of the holiday season, I trust my readers will indulge me in some allegorical thinking about our profession:

Treated by dear and incredibly generous friends to a Canadian Tenors concert in Toronto (www.canadiantenors.com), I had the opportunity to watch at close range the intricate workings of the orchestra supporting those four magnificent singers: The musicians worked the piano, strings, and percussion - what an amazing array of drums, cymbals, hanging xylophones, rainstick type instruments, and other sound producing objects I don't know how to name! - with obvious engagement and enjoyment to organize and sequence thousands of individual notes into a harmonious, powerful, and sometimes surprising result. The light manager provided a splendid visual complement to the music, and the copious amounts of water vapor released into the concert hall lent a touch of magic. Each song performed reached back through decades or centuries to revered composers and was given life in the moment by the latest technology - in a manner uniquely suited to the occasion and the audience.

Giving thought to the vast planning and coordination required to produce an experience so clearly enjoyed by the sold-out house, it struck me: Isn't that what info pros do, too? Don't we, well, "orchestrate" myriad individual preparatory and immediate actions in order to "produce" the experience our audiences receive? Don't we collaborate within our organizations and across the profession to gain the skills to, well, "play those instruments with such perfect timing"? Don't we rely on the work done in decades and centuries before us and on the latest technology to meet our clients' unique needs? Don't we plan and organize so that the "star performers" - our users - get to deliver outstanding results?

As for the tenors - they, too, seemed like info pros to me - bringing to bear their education and talent on producing value. We're talking world class operatic stars … who related to the audience with humility, warm humor, and personable ease. In just that way I so often see information professionals being utterly modest and unassuming about their work, no matter how outstanding it is: Don't they deliver spectacular performances in the way they hit just the right notes when they do research or produce strategic plans (etc etc)?

Indeed we info pros do not perform in misty, colored lights on a background of exquisite music to deliver value to our clients. But in my humble opinion, we are pretty close.

Thank you for indulging me. Peace and Good Will on Earth this Solstice.

New Normal Needs a New You: Internet Librarian International 2011

Once again I recently had the privilege of contributing to one of my favorite conferences: Internet Librarian International held in London in late October 2011. Within the conference theme of "The New Normal", my colleagues Michael Stephens and Joanna Ptolomey and I had the honor of concluding the activities through our final panel entitled "The New Normal Needs A New You". We each summarized key takeaways from the conference and were very pleased with the obvious engagement from the audience - check out the #ili2011 tweets!

As usual, the ILI conference drew attendees from all over the world and offered them up to the minute insights into best practices in a wide range of professional domains. In advance, I had been asked for a brief statement for Information Today Europe - see http://bit.ly/qQ4M1z. I was encouraged to see how the conference sessions and conversations bore out my thoughts - and even more encouraged to find how much it seems information professionals are preparing for new realities. Here are some views I had the opportunity to articulate at ILI2011:

►As a profession, we must expand the definition of what we do. I had the chance to advance this opinion as a panelist at the preconference SLA Europe reception: "We must adjust our
vocabulary to reflect to employers that we are superbly suited in many non-library roles - say, as policy analysts and marketing specialists - due to our skills in data, information, and knowledge management". The desire to work in traditional libraries is indeed a respectable goal; it's just that the number of traditional library jobs is dwindling fast . There will not be jobs in libraries for many graduates of information schools.

►We live in an attention economy and in a self service culture. Bombarded by inputs all day long, our potential clients may never discover the value of what we can offer them; and - worse - what they can't imagine, they can't ask for. There is a perfect match between "what they need" and "what we can do" - but the perceptual gap is huge.

►Hence our current challenge is to describe our services in ways our clients find meaningful. Our words must resonate with employers or members of a community ("what's in it for us?"). To that end, we must know everything we can about their needs and pain points - so that we can speak to them directly and with relevance, in language they understand. Some say it's a learning curve to drop the professional jargon - I say it's a matter of keeping our work particulars to ourselves. No one cares that we do content management - but our clients do care about the outcomes: "Save time by … Find job opportunities quickly by … Get homework help for your children by … [etc etc]".

►We must fundamentally examine our activities and let go of ones no longer serving the priority needs of our target audiences. It does not matter how expertly we do X … if X is not high on the list of our clients' needs!

The conference ended on a shared note that our highest goal is "knowing and reaching the customers on their terms". Nothing new here … it's just that it's a harder goal to reach nowadays when our voices are but a few among the thousands our clients hear every day in their electronic din.

My co-panelists and I would be most pleased to hear from our readers on the topic of "the new normal".

How Do We Define Opportunity Spaces for Information/Knowledge Credential Holders?

At a recent event put on by Knowledge Workers Toronto (http://linkd.in/dIwVaM) I had the honor to speak and chose to touch on whether information professionals and employers could "get a little closer".

Pointing to a study of organizational productivity (http://bit.ly/dOn2eN) by Economist Intelligence Unit and noting how the study summary does not use the term KM explicitly (our community will recognize it as an underlying topic), I asked "how can we who hold information credentials appeal to employers who may not, understandably, be aware we could be very productive for them in many areas of KM?". 

Another illustration of our opportunity space was articulated briefly at CMSWire in a post (http://bit.ly/ed7G78) by Martin White about (the lack of) intranet strategy.  The trick for us is to show managers in private and public sector organizations that holders of information credentials are well suited for many kinds of roles associated with management - in the specific example here, to show managers that developing a sustainable intranet strategy aligned with corporate strategy is typical of the challenges information professionals can help meet.

The conversation has continued after the event, and will likely never end:  What do we need to learn from employers about their requirements as KM challenges and related tools evolve over time?  One question raised by an attendee was particularly intriguing:  "As opposed to 'getting things organized', what counts as KM experience?"

Thinking of Planning a Conference? Tips from a Volunteer

As a career-long association volunteer, I make it a constant practice to encourage others to offer to contribute to professional events and publications, always citing the many benefits including gaining visibility, getting to know colleagues better, and enjoying learning new skills.  Having just returned from the extremely successful 25th annual conference of the Association of Independent Information Professionals (judging by the enthusiastic feedback on the program and the entire experience), I reiterate the encouragement, backed up by feedback from the entire conference team:  Volunteering truly is a matter of getting more than one gives. 

Not only did I enjoy every aspect of my activities as conference co-chair, I came away with valuable experience for 2012 (yes, I want to do it again).  Happily, most of the takeways were confirmations that our judgment was right.  Here are a few success factor illustrations I would give to other conference planners, based on the positive experience of having worked with a sterling team for almost a year. I hope to inspire readers that conference planning is fun and rewarding!

• Relying on other team members is paramount.  Volunteering is not about "lone heroics" - it's about collaborating to ensure work loads are reasonable.  I was so lucky to have a dynamite group with lots of experience - and doesn't it speak volumes that several members signed up to volunteer for 2012! 
• No matter how carefully one plans, some things (usually ones nobody notices) will escape attention.  Each such discovery is a useful tip to be applied to future situations:  Memo to self - arranging for a different Master of Ceremonies to announce each new morning's and afternoon's events will reduce stress and give several others an opportunity to be "up there" getting used to the function.
• Consider the "culture" of the association to determine how to balance organizers' desire for punctual session starts with conference attendees' desire to network (the 20 June 2010 blog post focuses on the value of hallway conversations).  At the very least, closing the doors when the session starts is a courtesy to introducers and speakers.
• Given that Conference Chairs need to check messages just as everyone else does, having a co-chair enables taking turns "hovering over the event" and "paying attention to our lives".
• Reach out to first-time attendees in various ways ranging from a simple arranged welcome handshake and chat to a formal orientation event (as is AIIP practice).
• Understand and document early on for everyone on the team the allocation of tasks.  If it becomes necessary, reallocation is relatively smooth if individual task areas are clearly described. 
• Keep good documentation for the current and the next crew.  Next year's team is entitled to make new decisions and depart from past practice of course, but there is huge value in knowing what the previous year's experiences were.  (I had, and have appointed for next year, a Knowledge Manager!)
• If there is an association management office (whose responsibilities typically would include such crucial practicalities as venue and hotel arrangements, catering and menus, AV, signage, attendee handout printing and bags, etc) - take advantage of such an office's expertise and build a solid working relationship!  If there isn't such an office, consider hiring a professional planner for key logistics and overall support - evidence suggests the total work load of a typical full blown conference at a hotel is daunting for an all-volunteer crew.
• Arrange for social events in addition to the subject oriented events.  Attendees get so much out of going on tours, having meals together, and the like.

My heartfelt thanks go to each and every one of you who set up AIIP 2011 and who came from near and far to make the conference so valuable and enjoyable.

Translation from Info Lingo to Business Speak: Key Skills for Finding Jobs

Thanks to our professional networks, I recently had two occasions to participate as a panelist/speaker in a "Professional Preparation" class (I would never pass up such an opportunity!).  Kimberly Silk at the University of Toronto and Cabot Yu and Terri Tomchyshyn at the University of Ottawa have been inviting their colleagues to share insights and advice with LIS students in the courses they teach as adjunct faculty, and we colleagues appreciate the chance to meet and interact with soon-to-be new colleagues.  In both cases, the theme of "salesmanship" or "crafting compelling arguments for investments, initiatives, or hiring" was a prominent topic of discussion - and understandably, the hiring part is top of mind for the members of the class.

It's encouraging to read stories like the piece on impending information technology labor shortages in Canada at http://business.financialpost.com/2011/03/29/tech-labour-crunch-looming-in-canada/, yet the takeaway is that information professionals may not obviously be courted by organizations needing to fill their information technology positions.  For classes like Kim's and Cabot's/Terri's, I endeavor to stress the fact that employment opportunities do exist - but we must connect the dots for the potential employers.  In my work, I encounter many individuals who have positions focusing heavily on knowledge acquisition, sharing, and analysis - and I always think "ah, such work would be just the ticket for an information professional".  The hitch is that managers in organizations with openings whose job titles include such words as "analyst" or "officer" may be unaware how closely the LIS graduates' skill sets match the demands of the job.  We can, and should, do whatever we can to raise awareness generally about the versatility of LIS qualifications!

One suggestion I give job seekers is to examine job postings broadly to identify ones using language suggesting they are "information centric" and then to apply using the business terminology appropriate for the hiring organization.  Easier said than done, of course - but what's to lose?  The exercise of stating our skills, past work, and accomplishments in terms meaningful for the hiring teams can only help us get better at convincing potential employers we have what it takes to be highly productive in countless environments.  As examples, consider how much public policy or administration, client relations, and fund raising have in common as a result of their reliance on information and knowledge management - and then consider how pervasive intensive work with data is in business and public sector settings.  

Of course, per the story referenced above, any information professional could benefit from thinking about enhancing his or her technical skills - but let's not overlook the opportunities available right now among organizations looking for talented employees.

Information Professionals as Transportation Managers? You Bet!

Regular readers will be familiar with my belief in information professionals’ relevance in business contexts not usually considered to be our domain.  As travel is on everyone’s mind just now, here’s an example:  In every airport or railway station, I seek opportunities to watch the employees who handle all the background activity - fuel pumping, cargo loading, cleaning, and so on – because I’m fascinated with the orchestration of processes resulting in passengers being invited to march on board.  Yet the work I am able to see is just the beginning:  What about the information underpinnings of the spoken or recorded messages we hear once inside the planes and trains?  How could I even get to the windows overlooking the gate or track area without the IT infrastructure of the check-in kiosks and their underlying information and data management? 

 

In my next life, I will look into engagement in the field of traffic management.  For now, I pay attention to the similarity between most organizations and transportation entities:  The revenue or funding any enterprise earns must cover a vast array of functions associated with information, data, records, and knowledge to sustain its overt activities, and it would soon be untoward if those functions were to fail.  That’s where information professionals come in.  They can trace the information flows, find the blockages or gaps, and recommend strategies for dealing with them; they can spot opportunities for streamlining processes to get the necessary information to the right person at the right point in the chain of business transactions; and they can recommend ways to improve customer experience through analysis of the activity evidence at hand.

 

But we must promote our contributions to managing the business process:  Yes indeed, we are relevant on the team designing that new rapid transit system.  Certainly, we can advise on the customer service centre’s knowledge base with a view to minimizing callers’ wait time.  And most assuredly, we will help interpret past customer behaviour for the purposes of new service planning.

 

The task of convincing employers to hire information professionals for roles in such areas as operational analysis and capacity planning – just to name a few examples related to transportation - continues to be challenging.  I’m always looking for case studies and ask my readers to offer any they may have.

 

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.

Liberating Buried Information: Access is Not Enough, and Indexing is Expensive

Many years ago, brilliant innovators at Statistics Canada, Carleton University, and the Social Science Federation of Canada conceived the notion of "liberating" otherwise locked-up data files to deliver them to universities across Canada for the use of researchers.  Project DLI, Data Liberation Initiative (www.statcan.gc.ca/dli-ild/dli-idd-eng.htm), ranks in my view as among the most successful schemes to put information collected for one purpose to work in support of other purposes. 

 

Letting the files out was step one, but the challenge was finding exactly where data on specific topics resided.  Searching was just like looking for a needle in a haystack until a standard - called Data Documentation Initiative or DDI - permitted indexing at the variable level and used XML structures combined with powerful search functionality to find buried data treasures and display them in context - see http://search1.odesi.ca/ as an example.  The investment in the indexing was required before the full value of the access could be realized.

 

DLI and DDI came to mind recently during a discussion about the challenges associated with finding buried text information - information contained for example in printed or imaged reports but not detectable by a search engine or catalog search function because the catalog records or metadata for the reports aren't sufficiently detailed.  The question was raised, "could we go back and include in the catalog record the table of contents of a report and abstracts of chapters?"  In other words, could we "liberate" the details held in the body of each report?  The answer:  Certainly we could - if we could afford it.  In-depth indexing of information objects to provide intellectually value-added precision and granularity in searching is very expensive because it requires time consuming work by professionals familiar with the subject matters at hand. 

 

Digitization of print materials provides a major boost to information discoverability, but we are all familiar with the avalanche syndrome - what's the use of retrieving a huge list of documents containing a search term any old place in the text?  The one paragraph we need right now to solve a particular problem is in there … but it is beyond our practical reach.  It's ironic that without indexing, printed and electronic objects present similar retrieval challenges when it comes to unearthing the nugget buried on page 78.

 

The case for investing in indexing to assure future retrievability is obvious in concept.  Funding the activity is another story.  The takeaway for today's information object creators is simple:  Whenever we consign an object to a repository no matter how informal, let's be mindful not just of attaching metadata where possible but also of incorporating in prominent places such vocabulary as might assist future searchers when they are attempting to dig it up.

 

Where does KM Report? A Montague Institute Member Q&A

Recently, Jean Graef of the Montague Institute (www.montague.com) issued a member Q&A query entitled "KM in the Org Chart" requesting input as to the organizational placement of the KM function within organizations.  She and I had a lengthy conversation as a result, and she did such an excellent job of summarizing my verbal commentary that I obtained her permission to bring her writeup here (slightly adjusted for brevity).  The full summary of responses resides at www.montague.com/abstracts/KMOrgchart.html.

"Stephen Denning is absolutely right:  KM lacks clout (and perhaps also sizzle!).  In the career paths leading senior managers to the position they now hold, they may not have encountered any "Johns Hopkins tragedy" or "good KM husbandry makes billions for company indicents" to cement conviction that it is worthwhile to invest in solid KM practices and due diligence and to enforce and reward them.  Any feeling that "the levees won't break on my watch" is understandable.

It is true that some KM roles evolved out of a corporate information center, but there are instances of business team leaders holding the role.  In the latter case, the credibility factor (he's an engineer like us) is worth watching. My hunch is that a combination of subject matter expertise and information expertise is the way to go ... but that may not be easy to achieve.

The inquiring Montague Institute member was interested in health care organizations - they are probably hard pressed to tie health outcome successes to KM activities and I'm guessing that may be one reason for the interest in the placement of the KM entity (either because it's perceived as a difficult function function to manage or becuase someone is looking to give the function some clout).  Unfortunately, in the view of those of us who work in KM, the activity is awkward to position because it is difficult to see what calamity would result from its absence (whereas no one has any dificulty imagining the consequences of the absence of an accounting department).

After my over 30 years of working in the information/knowledge space, I could point to how concrete pressures (Sarbox'll come and get you if you don't behave) have driven investment in records management, how the cost of litigation has driven email management, and how ediscovery is now the latest flavor of applying technology to the orchestration of activity evidence.  What I'm not seeing as clearly is any improvement in the elusiveness of KM:  What does it "look like" for a knowledge worker to "do good KM"?  How do we demonstrate that good KM is a contributor to corporate success on a par with skill and experience on the part of a professional?

A common refrain among busy professionals (I paraphrase from numerous interactions over the years) is there's no time to use the e-room or wiki or read the alerts; I have trusted contacts to seek out if I need help; I know it sometimes wastes time to be asking around but it still seems the most effective method for me; no KM person can know what my job is and therefore I don't believe any such person can address my work practices ... and so on.  Knowledge workers develop their own methods to get their work done - and this week's deliverables trump any theoretical willingness to participate in e.g. intranet teams and the like.  KM gets pushed off today's table because time runs out."