de Stricker

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."